The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 21. Of the Authority of the Church to interpret Scripture infallibly.

THis question is one of those where impiety and tyranny are most open. The Roman Church boasteth that she cannot err, and that she is the infallible Judge of all doubts and Controversies in Religion. Now the most part of the questions of Religion is about the duty which the Church oweth unto God. Must then the Church be Judge of that duty which she oweth unto God? And when the dispute is about the authority of the Church, must the Church be Judge of her own authority? The assuming of that power giveth fair play to the Prelates to be their own carvers, and to deal unto themselves such a game as they like best, yea so far as to subject the Word of God unto their authority.

And indeed the Roman Church with the same pride attributes unto herself the right and authority of judging of the sense of Scripture, and giving an infallible interpretation of the same, of the like force and authority as the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: For (say their Doctors) the Spouse only knows the intention of her Bridegroom. And St. Peter saith in his second Epistle, that the Prophets are not of private interpretation.

And here they bestow calumnies upon us with a liberal hand, saying, that every private man among us expounds Scripture after his own fancy, as being inspired of God. But we take no such thing upon us: Rather we maintain that in things necessary to salvation, Scripture is so clear, that it needs no Interpreter; and the Interpretations that we use in our Sermons, and Books, are not ours, but are drawn from Scripture, which expoundeth herself. And what interpretation soever we bring, the sense of private men is never given among us as a law.

For as there are two ways of judging, the one which is no more but discerning, as when one judgeth of meats by the taste; the other which is pronouncing Decrees and Judgments with authority: so there are two sorts of interpretation of God's Word; the one whereby each one saith his opinion about the sense of a Text of Scripture, as our Preachers and Commentators do; who give not their interpretations for laws; neither doth any hold himself of necessity obliged to follow their opinion, but so far as it is grounded upon Scripture. But there is an Interpretation which hath the force of a law, as when the King himself interprets his own Proclamation, or when a man cleareth his Will by a Codicil: For that kind of intepretation, we use none but such as God himself useth, when one text of Scripture doth expound another. It is proper to the Roman Church to ascribe to herself to be an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, and to bring interpretations of equal authority with the Word of God; and those interpretations taken for the most part, not from the Word of God, but from the unwritten word.

The worst is, that such Interpretations are of greater authority with the ignorant people then the Holy Scripture, since the people is not obliged to follow the words of Scripture, but is subjected unto the interpretation of the Roman Church.

I have much to do to persuade myself, that our Adversaries speak in good earnest when they speak thus; For they plead for an Interpretation which is not to be found, since there is no such thing in being, as an Interpretation or Exposition of Scripture approved by the Universal Church. There is no Book of which one may say, Behold the Ecclesiastical Exposition of Scripture allowed by the Universal Church: Only divers Comments and Sermons are found of Authors, some old, some late, that dissent in their Interpretations; upon none of which the Roman Church doth pin her Faith.

How unjust is that claim of the Roman Church! to be an infallible Interpreter, and Judge of those Texts which concern the authority of the Roman Church: for so she will be Judge in her own cause, and in the question, Whether the Church must be Judge, the Church herself shall be Judge.

Nothing is further from reason, then to require that men sinful and guilty before God, such as we are all, be infallible Judges of the sense of that Law by which their sin must be judged: As if Fellons in the Jail would be Judges of the sense of that Law which concerns their crime.

That Master to whom his servants take the liberty to say, You have commanded us such a thing, but we give you to your command such an interpretation, must not expect much obedience from such servants. By such interpretations servants might turn their Master out of doors. The Glossaries of the Decretals, Caus. 25. qu. 1. Canon. Sunt quidam, are so bold as to say, That the Pope dispenseth in matter of the Gospel, by giving interpretation to it. And we shall see hereafter that the Church of Rome contradicteth Scripture under that color of Interpretation.

Pride and Ambition have hatched that Monster, and entangled the spirits of men with violent interpretations, fitted to the profit of those jolly men, who triumph over the ignorance of the people. But things necessary to salvation are so clearly set down in Scripture, that they need no Interpreter: as St. Austin saith in his fiftieth Treatise upon St. John, There are things so clear in Scripture, that they require rather a Hearer then an Interpreter. And in the Book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 16. These words, In thy seed shall all Nations be blessed, need no Interpreter. And a little after, These words, Christ must have suffered and risen the third day, need no Interpreter, &c. As these words, This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached over all the world, &c. need no Interpreter, &c. As these words, Let both grow until the harvest, need no Interpreter, because when they needed interpretation, Christ himself did interpret them. And if some hard Text be found in Scripture, it is better to be ignorant of the sense of it, then to presume to be infallible Judge of the Word of God. Take me that Text, the sense whereof is most controverted, even these words, This is my Body. The way is easy to end the difference, by keeping close to the form of the Institution, that is, by speaking and doing as Jesus Christ spake and did with his Disciples, without anymore dispute; believing that Jesus Christ brake and gave bread to his Disciples, and that the bread which he gave is his body, and that it is the remembrance of him; that he drunk the fruit of the Vine, and that we eat bread: For all these are words of Scripture, in which no command is found to worship that which we eat, or to sacrifice the body of Jesus Christ.

Here any man that hath not put his own reason under interdict, will easily judge what clearing of Scripture can be expected from the Pope, and the Prelates, and Doctors of his Church: For is it credible that those that hide the Scripture from the people, would seriously go about to clear it? or that they would have Scripture to be understood, when they will not have it seen?

Let any man of sound judgment, consider whether the High Priests which in the time of King Manasseh had suffered the Book of the Law to be lost, or those Priests to whom the Prophet Malachi makes that reproach, that they had corrupted the Law, should have been good Intepreters of the Law, which they had lost or corrupted?

Should the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses chair have been chosen to be Interpreters of the Law, seeing that the Lord Jesus, Matth. 5. repurged the Law from their false interpretations? and Matth. 15. reproacheth them, that they had transgressed the Law of God by their Tradition?

Had Pope John XXIII. who denied the immortality of the soul, been a good Interpreter of the Texts that speak of eternal life? Should the Popes, who set up Brothel-houses at Rome, and make a sale of Dispensations and Absolutions, be good Interpreters of those Texts that prohibit Fornication, and the traffic of spiritual things? Should the Pope, who forbids the marriage of Bishops, and Priests, be a good Interpreter of the Text of the Apostle? Let the Bishop be blameless, the husband of one wife, — having his children in subjection with all gravity? 1 Tim. 2. Should the Roman Church (which hath cut off from the Offices and Breviaries the second Commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, or any likeness, &c.) be a faithful Interpreter of that Commandment which she hath suppressed?

In a word, it is certain, that if Felons be Judges of the sense and interpretation of Laws, they will be sure always to bring favorable Interpretations to their crimes. Neither is there anything so unjust as this Doctrine, that makes sinners infallible Interpreters of the sense of God's Laws, whereby their sin is condemned. But they much deceive themselves, if they believe that God in the last day will judge them, not according to the words of his Law, but according to their interpretation.

And whosoever will sift narrowly that Proposition, That the Pope with his Roman Church is a Sovereign and infallible Interpreter of God's Law, and of the holy Scriptures, shall find that the Pope under the name of an Interpreter makes himself a Law-giver, yea that he lifts up himself above God; since by that rule the people is no more subject and bound to the words of the Law which God hath pronounced, but to the Interpretations of that Sovereign and infallible Interpreter; who will not fail to give such Interpretations as will be lucrative to himself, and will exalt his Empire. It is certain, that if there were in France such a Sovereign and infallible Interpreter of the Kings Edicts, he could give Interpretations which would strip the King of all authority. It is by those Interpretations that the Pope was raised to such a high Throne.

CHAP. XXII. Seven differences between our Interpretations of Scripture, and those of the Roman Church.

COmparing our way of interpreting the Scripture with that of the Roman Church, I find seven differences between them.

I. The first is, that our interpretations are taken from Scripture itself; but the interpretations of the Roman Church, are not fetched from Scripture, but from the unwritten word. The Council of Trent interprets these words of the Lord, Do this in remembrance of me; as if thereby he instituted an unbloody sacrifice of his body in the Eucharist: But of that unbloody sacrifice of the Lord's body, Scripture makes no mention.

Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The interpretation of our Adversaries, is, that the Lord will have the cult of latria deferred unto God alone; for (say they) the cult of dulia is for the Saints: But that distinction is not found in Scripture, which will have the cult of dulia deferred unto God; as Rom. 12.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yielding dulia unto God: And Mat. 6.24. You cannot 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yield dulia unto God and to Mammon.

Jesus Christ said to Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. They interpret it as a promise made to Peter and to the Popes his successors, that they cannot err in the faith: But of Popes and of a succession in the Apostleship of Saint Peter, there is not one single word in the whole Scripture.

Austin in his book of the unity of the Church, chap. 5. acknowledgeth no other way to interpret Scripture but by Scripture itself. If (saith he) those things were not found in the Scriptures, there would be no way to lay open those things that are hid, and to clear those that are dark. And in the second book of Christian Doctrine, chap. 6. None almost of those obscurities are brought forth, but are found very clearly delivered in other places. And in the ninth chapter, To clear the darker expressions, let examples be taken from the clearer places. And Basil in his Asceticks, in the Answer to the two hundred sixty seventh interrogation: The things which seem obscurely said in some places of Scripture, are expounded in other places, and clearly set down.

II. The second difference is, that when we have expounded Scripture out of Scripture, we exhort the people to read and consult the places; But the Roman Church removes Scripture from the eyes of the people: Their Preachers allege Scripture in Sermons; but they will not suffer the people to go and see whether they have faithfully alleged it. The interpreters of the Imperial Laws, put the Text of the Laws before their interpretation; But the Pope and the Roman Church give an interpretation without a Text; and while they interpret the Text of Scripture unto the people, they forbid the people to see the Text of Scripture, thereby giving to themselves license of deceiving, and insinuating their contradictions unto Scripture under color of interpretation.

III. We say that Scripture needs no interpreter in things necessary to salvation, and that it is clear enough of itself: But our Adversaries find it obscure; And they have some reason for it: Fot one with Argus eyes cannot find in Scripture the invocation of Saints, nor the sacrifice of the Mass, nor the succession of the Pope in the place of Saint Peter. We say then with Saint Austin in the second book of the Christian Doctrine, in the ninth chapter, That in the things that are clearly set down in Scripture, all things are found which concern faith and manners to live well: And that so much as is clear in Scripture, is sufficient unto salvation.

IV. We give not our interpretations for Laws; but the Roman Church attributes that perfection to herself, to judge infallibly of the sense of Scripture.

V. We do not wrest Scripture by violent interpretations, and put it not upon the wrack to make it serve ambition or covetousness. Pope Nicolas the I. in the Epistle to the Greek Emperor Michael, proveth the Papal power, because it was said to Saint Peter, Kill and eat; and because that privilege was granted to Peter alone to draw a net full of fishes to Land. And Pope Boniface the VIII. Extravagante Unam sanctam, proveth his sovereignty and primacy, because it is written, In principio creavit Deus coelum & terram. In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And because Saint Paul saith, Spiritualis homo judicat omnia; The Spiritual man discerneth all things: Whence he inferreth in the same place, that the Pope must judge of all things. And because Saint Peter having said, Here is two Swords, Jesus Christ answered, It is enough, he gathereth that the two swords, the spiritual and the temporal, belong unto the Pope: With such interpretations brought by the Popes and their Councils, one might fill many pages. The last Council of Lateran, in the IX Session, alledgeth these words of Psalm 72. All the Kings of the earth shall worship him; and will have that understood of the Pope. Bellarmine in the fifth book de Pontifice, chap. 8. and in his book against Barchlay, chap. 25. proveth, that the Pope may dispose of the life and crown of Kings; because the Lord said unto Peter, Feed my Lambs: And in the first book de Clericis, chap. 19. he proveth that Priests must abstain from women, because the Priests were commanded to have their loins girt about, and to wear drawers. The same thing is proved by Pope Innocent the I. because it is written, They that are in the flesh, cannot please God.

VI. Also that reproach cannot be objected unto us, that we bring interpretations which are rather evident contradictions and corruptions of Scripture, as the Roman Church doth. As when Jesus Christ said to the thief, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; the interpretation of the Roman Church, by Paradise, understands Hell: And when the Law saith, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength; they understand that God contents himself with part of our strength; for if he would have all our strength, it should be impossible to make works of overplus. And when Christ saith, Drink ye all of this; they expound it, that this Commandment obligeth none but Clergy-men; so that the word all must signify not all. And when Saint Paul saith, Let the Bishop be the Husband of one Wife; by the word be, they understand have been, but be no more. And when Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10.16. saith, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? by the bread, they understand not bread but flesh; and by breaking, they understand not breaking; for the body of the Lord can no more be broken; and by the communion of the body of Christ, they understand not the communion with that body, but the very body of Christ.

VII. Finally, our interpretations of Scripture are not ridiculous, and done purposely to bring the word of God into contempt, such as many interpretations used by the Roman Church; those especially which the second Council of Nice brings for the adoration of images. There these Texts are alleged, Shew me thy face, and make me hear thy voice, Cant. 2. God created man after his image and likeness. And None having lighted the candle, layeth it under a bushel. Whence the Council inferreth that images must be worshipped. And these goodly proofs are praised and defended by Pope Adrian, who hath written a book purposely for the defense of that Council.

I will add one Text more, which alone for all, may show the horrible profanation, and intolerable license of the Adversaries, to corrupt Scripture under color of interpretation. Christ, Mat. 16. said to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. 1. First, our Adversaries will have these words to be spoken not only to Saint Peter, but also to the Popes which bear themselves as Successors of the Primacy and Apostleship of Saint Peter; although Scripture give no successor to Saint Peter in his Apostleship, nor in the conduct of the Universal Church, no more then to the other Apostles. 2. Secondly, by virtue of these words, Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, the Pope looseth also under the earth, and draws souls out of Purgatory. 3. Thirdly, The power of loosing the pains of sins, being given to the Apostles, the Pope extends that power so far as to dissolve contracts, and separate lawful marriages, contracted and blessed in the Church: Also by virtue of these words, Whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c. the Pope looseth oaths and vows, and looseth Subjects from the bonds of subjection and fealty to their sovereign Prince, and gives license to Christians to break their faith; and violate their Oath. 4. Fourthly, the Pope hath reserved some cases unto himself, and certain sins in great number, which are called reserved cases, of whom, none but he can give the absolution but at the point of death: And yet Christ, Mat. 18. said to all the Apostles, and by consequence to all their successors, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose, &c. And Joh. 20.23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted; without reserving any case to Saint Peter. 5. Fifthly, by that Text, the power of binding, and that of loosing, are equally given to Peter; and one of those two powers reacheth no further then the other: Yet by virtue of that Text, the Pope pretends to loose in Purgatory; but there he never binds, and never made use of that power towards the souls in Purgatory. 6. Finally, the judicial power of binding and loosing, given unto Peter and the Apostles, reaching but to Ecclesiastical pains, the Pope extends that power even to the judicial seat of God, as if those that are absolved by men, were no more accountable before God. Thus upon one only Text, they commit six notable depravations mingled with impiety, under color of interpretation.

CHAP. XXIII. Examination of the Reasons which Cardinal du Perron brings in the fifth chapter, for the authority of the Church, to interpret Scripture infallibly.

THe Cardinal in the fifth chapter of his first book against his Majesty of Great Britain, alledgeth Jerome, saying, that the Scriptures consist not in the reading, but in the intelligence. That is true; but is it of any force to attribute that perfection to the Church to interpret Scripture infallibly? Especially, of what force is that to authorize the interpretations of the Roman Church, rather then those of the Greek or the Ethiopian Church? And after all, where shall we find the interpretations of the Roman Church? For they are nowhere extant; for none of the interpretations that go about, are generally approved by public authority.

He adds that it is necessary to be first certain of the interpretation of Scripture, and that by an infallible way: But it is an error to think, that in matters necessary to salvation, Scripture stands in need of interpretation. Chrysostom upon 2 Thes. 2. speaks thus, All things that are in the divine Scriptures, are clear and right; All that is necessary, is clear in them. Austin in the second book of Christian Doctrine, chap. 9. In the things that are openly set down in the Scripture, all things are found that concern faith and manners to live well: And in the sixteenth chapter of the book of the unity of the Church, he brings many Texts of Scripture which he saith have need of no interpretation.

Another reason of M. du Perron, is, that all the conclusions of Faith, which are not found in express terms, and incapable of ambiguity in Scripture, that they may be conclusions of faith; and infallible decisions must be inferred one of these three ways; by human reasoning, or by private inspiration, or by the authority of an outward mean interposed by God, between the Scripture and us, &c. Now that mean he saith to be the Church, to which he giveth infallible authority to interpret Scripture. But still he stumbleth at that stone, presupposing against truth, that in points necessary to salvation, Scripture hath need of an interprter.

It will not be found in express terms in Scripture, that God governeth the world by his providence: Yet that we believe, not by human reasoning, nor by revelation, nor by the authority of any Interpreters, but by Scripture, which saith the same thing in equivalent terms, when it teacheth us, that God doth all things according to the pleasure of his will: That a Sparrow falls not without his will, and that the hairs of our head are numbered. Then the Cardinals argument halteth, because his enumeration is imperfect; For besides these three means there is a fourth, sufficient to establish a doctrine, when a proposition which is not foud in express terms, and in so many syllables in Scripture, is found there in equivalent terms, which comes all to one.

CHAP. 24. Of the authority of the Church, to alter that which God commandeth in Scripture. Confutation of the Cardinal.

AMong the impious doctrines, whereby the enemies of the heavenly truth spit against Heaven, this is one of the prime and boldest, to say, that it is in the power of the Church, to alter that which God commandeth in Scripture, that is, to make commandments contrary to God's Commandments. This M. du Perron teacheth, in the 3. observation of the second book, in the 3. chap. the title whereof is, Of the authority of the Church, in the alteration as well of the things contained in Scripture, as of those that are delivered to the Church by Apostolical tradition. This is exalting men above God, and subjecting the Word of God unto the will of man. And in the 675. page he saith, There are some things written which the Church hath altered and changed in the practice, as the ordinance of abstaining from blood and things strangled, which is set down in express terms in Scripture, Acts 15.

I answer, that the Church should be obliged to keep that Commandment to this day, and could by no means be dispensed from it, but that the alteration of that Commandment is found in Scripture itself. For the Apostle St. Paul hath writ the first Epistle to the Corinthians many years after the prohibition of eating blood and strangled things. Now in that Epistle the Apostle teacheth, that all such Commandments, and all distinctions of meats are abolished, when he saith in the 10. chap. v. 27. If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feast, and you are disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no question for conscience sake. Observe also, that the Church in the Apostles time, had an authority which the Churches of the following ages had not; For the Apostles which governed the Universal Church, had the Spirit of God in greater measure. If they then moved by God's Spirit, have altered something in their own constitutions about the discipline of the Church, it followeth not that the Churches of posterior ages have authority to alter the constitutions of the Apostles.

The Cardinal brings another example of altering by the authority of the Church, that which is contained in Scripture; namely, the changing of the immersion, or dipping which was usual in Baptism, into aspersion. But it is false that there is any command in Scripture of baptizing with immersion: And therefore it cannot be truly said, that herein the Church hath made any alteration in God's Ordinance. Neither is it found, that the Roman Church hath constituted anything about that, or made any law to alter the institution of Jesus Christ in that point.

The Cardinal makes bold to add to these, the removing of the cup from the Eucharist; for he confesseth that it is Christ's institution that we should take the Sacrament under the two kinds, but he saith, that the Church hath dispensed from that Commandment. For (saith he) to the Church it belongs to judge what mysteries of Christ are dispensable, and acknowledgeth that the Church had the power to use both dispensation and alteration in this: Words able to make any man's hair to stand, if he loveth God; For thereby the Cardinal declareth that the Roman Church is not subject to God's Commandment, since she can dispence from it; yea that the Roman Church is above God, since she can change his laws and correct his command.

Now that none think that herein M. du Perron is singular, and hath followed his own ordinary inclination to despise the holy Scripture, it will be to good purpose, to show that it is the ordinary language of the most famous Doctors of the Roman Church.

The Jesuit Vasquez, speaking of the Lord's Commandment, Drink ye all of this, saith, Though we should grant that it was a Commandment of the Apostles, yet the Church and the sovereign Prelate had the power to abolish it for just causes; For the power of the Apostles in making ordinances, was no greater then that of the Church and the Pope.

Andradius in the 2. Book of the Tridentine faith, Our ancestors, men excellent in religion and piety, would never have disanulled those decrees of the Apostles and many more, but that, &c. Whence he inferreth, that those have not erred, who said that the Popes of Rome may sometimes dispence from obeying the Apostle Paul, and the four first Councils.

The Council of Trent in the V. Session, was so bold, as to pronounce that the concupiscence forbidden by the law is no sin; And that although the Apostle Paul calls it sin, yet to speak truly and properly, it is no sin. The words of the Council are, The holy Council declareth, that the Catholic Church never understood that concupiscence, which in some places the Apostle calls sin, be truly & properly sin in the regenerate, that is, in the baptized. That venerable Council declareth, that if a baptized man covet his neighbors wife, he sinneth not, although God forbid it in his Law, and St. Paul call that concupiscence sin: And that the Apostle hath neither truly nor properly spoken.

The Council of Constance in the XIII. Session, acknowledgeth that Jesus Christ hath instituted, that the people in the Eucharist should receive the two kinds, and that the ancient Church hath so practiced it, and yet decreeth, that the custom of giving the bread only to the people, be held for a law, which it is not lawful to reject or to change, declaring them heretics which hold the contrary; and commanding them to be punished by the Inquisition, that is, to be burnt.

James Almain, a Sorbonist, in the book of the Ecclesiastical power, chap. 12. seems to incline to that opinion, that the Pope cannot dispense from the divine right: Nevertheless he alledgeth Panormitanus and Angelus, which say the contrary; In the end, after some examples of permissions given by Popes, to marry two sisters against the Word of God, he pronounceth (as overcome by experience) this goodly sentence; Ergo Papa potest dispensare in illis quae sunt lege divina prohibita: Then the Pope can give dispensation in those things that are forbidden by God's Law.

Thomas Aquinas goeth so far, as to say, that the Pope can make a new edition of the Symbole, that is, to make a new Christian Religion. Wherefore in the last Session of the Council of Florence, the power is attributed unto the Pope, to add to the Symbole.

Cardinal Tolet, in the 1. book of the Sacerdotal institution, chap. 68. excuseth the Pope for not receiving the bigames [that is, those that have been twice married] unto the Priesthood, against the commandment of the Apostle: His reason is, that all that the Apostles have instituted, is not of divine right. It belongs then to the Pope to judge and discern what is of divine right among the writings of the Apostles, from that which is not. By which means, all that displeaseth him, will be of human right.

Bellarmine in the 2. chap. of the book against Barcklay, The Pope can give dispensations from vows and oaths which God hath commanded to be fulfilled, and the keeping whereof is of divine right. And in the 4. book de Pontifice, chap. 5. If the Pope did err, commanding vices and prohibiting virtues, the Church should be obliged to believe, that vices are good, and virtues evil, unless she would sin against conscience.

A thousand such passages of our Adversaries might be produced. The Canons and Decrees of the Popes are full of those goodly sentences, That the Pope can dispense against the Apostle and against the Old Testament; Yea that he dispenseth against the Gospel by giving an interpretation to it. Also that the Pope can of wrong make right, and of evil good; Of which I have given several examples in the Preface of this Book.

To which I will add this corollary out of the Roman Decree, in the first question of the 31. Cause. It is a Canon ascribed to Chrysostom, against second marriages. It speaks thus To marry a second wife according to the Apostles command, is a lawful thing; but according to the reason of truth, it is true fornication; Which being done publicly and with license, God permitting it, an honest fornication is committed. In the Roman Decree that Canon is suffered, in which the Apostle St. Paul is accused to have commanded fornication, and authorized it by his permission, and God himself is accused to have permitted it.

CHAP. 25. Which and of what nature must the marks of the Church be.

WE look not for the marks of the Church of the elect; She hath no marks. God alone knows them that are his, and marks them with the Spirit of adoption: Nor for the marks of the Universal Church, which comprehendeth all them that make profession to be Christians; That profession is her mark, about which there is no dispute. The question is, touching the whole body of the Orthodox Church joined in communion. It is demanded, by what external marks she may be discerned from idolatrous, heretical, and schismatical Churches.

Those marks must be proper to that true Church, and perpetual. Also they must be sensible, and more known then the Church, since by them the Church is discerned. Wherefore if any marks of the Church be set forth, which be as much or more proper to Pagans or Jews, or societies of impure Christians, as to the true Church, or which be not always proper to the Church, or that be less known then the Church, it is not a good mark; and we must look for other marks. So much the Jesuit Salmeron teacheth, in the XIII. Tome, in the 2. dispute upon St. Paul's Epistles, saying, that to be a mark three things are requisite. 1. That it be true. 2. That it be evident. 3. That it be proper to none else. Gregorius de Valentia saith the same.

CHAP. 26. Of the true Mark to discern the true Church.

THe Word of God, without which we should not know that it is God's will that there be a Church in the world, teacheth us also to know her, and to difference her from other societies which err from the right way. That same word which giveth Laws to the Church, giveth also the evidence to know her.

Our Lord Jesus, John 8. hereby knoweth them that are his, if they keep his word. If you abide in my word, you shall be my Disciples indeed: And John 10.4, & 7. The sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd, for they know his voice, but a stranger they will not follow. Hereby then the true Church is known, which is the flock of Jesus Christ, and the assembly of his Disciples, if she conform herself unto the word of Jesus Christ, and follows the voice of the Son of God. Thus the true mark of the true Church shall be conformity unto the Word of God, and purity in the faith and true doctrine: Under which we comprehend also the good and lawful administration of the Sacraments, and the legitimate order of the Ministry; for these things are prescribed in the Word of God. That purity in doctrine, and conformity to the Word of God is requisite, at the least in the foundation, and in things necessary to salvation. Upon which foundation, if any builds hay and stubble, that is, light and superfluous doctrines, yet not impious, nor subverting the fundamental truth, the Apostle excludeth not such a one from the hope of salvation, 1 Cor. 3.15.

To this purpose serve the words of Moses, Deut. 4.6. You shall keep these Commandments and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations which shall hear all these statutes, and say, This great nation is a wise and understanding People. There God declares that the wisdom of the Church is known by her doctrine.

The word Symbole is a proof in this question, for it signifieth a mark and livery. Then the Articles of our Creed are called the Symbole of the Christian Church, because it is the mark of the true Church; and because by the profession of that doctrine, and those doctrines that depend upon it, the Church is known.

Wherein reason is evident. For to discern a pure Church from an impure, there is no other way but to look whether it agreeth with the rule of purity: It being impossible to discern that Church which is pure in the faith, but by the rule of the faith, which is the Word of God. The right rule is the only mark to discern whether a thing be right; and the true Church is not discerned but by the knowledge of the truth.

And since the true Church is opposed to heretics and schismatics, it is certain, that as heretical Churches have no other marks to be known by, but the false doctrine, likewise the true Church is known only by the true doctrine.

That is the true Church, which is joined together by the profession of the true faith and Communion of the Sacraments. This definition of the Church is received by the Adversaries. Whence it followeth, that the true Church is discerned by that profession of the true faith; For the definitions of things are purposely made to know and discern them, and must be more easy to know then the thing defined.

Now because the marks to know a thing, must be more known then that thing; upon that a dispute is moved between us and our Adversaries, which of the two is the easier to discern, the true Church, or the true doctrine. They affirm that the Church is more known, and more easy to know then the true faith and doctrine. We on the contrary maintain, that the true faith and doctrine is more easy to be known then the true Church, yea that it is impossible to have any certain knowledge of the true Church, but by the true faith and doctrine.

One only demonstrative reason decides that difference. It is a rule without exception, that definitions must be more known then the thing defined. As if I said, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 that expositions must be clearer then the things expounded, and that the candle must be lighter then the book that is read by it. If then true faith and doctrine enters into the definition of the Church, and makes part of the definition, it follows of necessity, that true doctrine ought to be more known then the Church. Now this is the definition of the Church, according to Cardinal Bellarmine. The true Church is a society of men joined together by the profession of the same Christian faith, &c. We must then know that Christian faith, before we know the true Church, since that faith is part of the definition of the Church. Mr. du Perron defineth the true Church in this manner, Book 1. chap. 8. The Church is the society of those whom God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true faith, &c. And Salmeron, XIII. Tome, in the first dispute upon St. Paul's Epistles, defines the Church coetum vocatorum à Deo per fidem, the assembly of those whom God hath called by faith, pag. 172. Since then the Church is defined by the profession of the true faith, the true faith must be known before we can know the true Church.

If the people ought to know the true Church before they know the true doctrine, it would follow, that they know the Christian Church before they know Jesus Christ; which is a proposition that contradicts itself; for one cannot know the Church of Christ, unless he know Christ, nor join with the Church of Christ, but after he hath known Christ; Now knowing Christ is knowing his nature and office, in which things the whole doctrine of the Gospel consisteth.

And whereas God draweth men to the Church by the preaching of the Gospel, as may be seen, Acts 2.47. where by Peters preaching many persons are added unto the Church, that they may be saved, it is clear that those persons had heard and comprehended the Word of God, before they would join with the Church, and that the Word of God was known to them before the Church was, since the knowledge of the Word is the means that God had used to bring them to the Church; for the means always go before the end.

Our Adversaries themselves presuppose, that the Word of God ought to be more known then the Church, every time that they allege any text of Scripture to defend the authority of their Church; For the proofs must be more known and more clear then the thing proved; else one should prove a clear thing by a dark. Thus we see, that our Adversaries handling this question of the marks of the Church, labor to prove her marks by Scripture, presupposing that Scripture is more known then those marks.

Wherefore the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 2.10. groundeth the Church upon the Prophets and Apostles, that is, upon their doctrine. Now in matter of knowledge the grounds go before and are better known then the consequences that are built upon them.

For these causes the Apostles never exhorted any persons to aggregate themselves with the Church, before they had instructed them in the faith in Jesus Christ. They preached the doctrine of salvation, which whosoever believed, thereby made himself one of the Church, without any other search of the Church and her marks.

If any meeting with the true Church, joined himself with her without knowledge of the true faith and doctrine, that is, not knowing Jesus Christ and his grace, such a man should be a Christian in name only and by chance, owing his religion to his birth, or to custom and the course of civil affairs, and would be of another religion, if public business, or his private interest steered his course another way.

And whereas there are many dissenting Churches, and in all those Churches one holy Scripture received; it must be Scripture that makes us know the true Church, and be the Judge to decide that difference. But the Church is not the Judge of holy Scripture, but only the witness and the keeper of the same, as we proved before.

CHAP. 27. Testimonies of the Fathers. Confutation of the Cardinals answer.

AUstin in the book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 16. speaks thus, Let them show us their Church if they can, not by the words and rumors of the Africans, nor by the Councils of their Bishops, nor by the writings of disputers whosoever they be, nor by false signs and miracles, for the Word of the Lord hath warned us, and made us circumspect against that: But by the Law, by the predictions of the Prophets, by the songs of the Psalms, by the sermons of the Gospels, that is, by the Canonical books. And in his Epistle to Boniface, In the holy books wherein the Lord is manifested, there also the Church is manifested. And a little after, The Church is not counterfeited by contentious opinions, but is proved by divine testimonies. And in the 166. Epistle, We have learned Christ in the Scriptures, there we have learned the Church. And chap. 2. of the Unity of the Church, Between us and the Donatists, the question is, Where the Church is? What shall we do then? Shall we seek her in our words, or in the words of our head the Lord Jesus Christ? I think that we ought rather to seek her in his words. And a little after, I will not have any to show me the Church by human documents, but by divine oracles. And chap. 3. Let us then seek the Church in Canonical books. Again, There are books of the Lord, about whose authority we both consent; we believe them, we serve them. There let us seek the Church, there let us decide our cause. But above all, these words of the 16. chap. are express: Let them show us whether they have the Church, Only by the Canonical books of the divine Scriptures. He receiveth no other proof of the Church but by the Scriptures. Jerome upon the 133. Psalm saith all in two words, Ecclesia ibi est, ubi sides vera est. The Church is there where true faith is.

To these M. du Perron, in the 71. chap. of his first book against his Majesty, answereth, that Austin means not that we must judge of the doctrine of the Church by the Scriptures, but only that we must seek the marks of the Church in the Scriptures. This is already a great point granted; for thereby he confesseth, that in the question concerning the marks of the Church, Scripture must be Judge. If then Scripture be Judge in that question, why not in other questions? But whosoever shall converse a little with Austin 's writings, shall find, that in all points of Religion he taketh Scripture for his Judge, and that there is hardly one leaf in all his works, where he doth not allege some text of Scripture for that end. For indeed that means of judging of the Doctrine of the Church being removed, what doth remain, but that the Church be judge in her own cause, and that about the doctrine of the Church the only verdict of the Church be credited. Whereupon the Cardinals words are very notable; That in the question about the body of the Church, Austin will have the matter decided by Scripture, because that in the controversy where the debate was, which of the two societies was the Church, the voice of the true Church could not be discerned. The like, or rather stronger reason will be found in all the points of controversy, where is question of the duty of the Church, or of her authority; For there the Church cannot be Judge; else she should be Judge in her own cause. If in the contention between two contrary Churches, to know which of them is the true Church, Scripture must be Judge, as the Cardinal doth acknowledge; In the dispute between us and the Church of Rome upon that point, why shall not Scripture be Judge of our difference? And what will become of that fine maxim of the Cardinal in the 7. chap. of the 4 part of his first book, where he affirmeth, that to cleanse the Church from her pretended corruptions, one must not have recourse to the time of the Apostles; that is, Scripture must not be received for Judge, neither must we in our controversies look upon the primitive pure time, or that doctrine of the Apostles, which themselves have set down in writing.

The same words of the Cardinal, overthrow that thredbare objection of our Adversaries, that one cannot know that such a book is Scripture but by the Church. For behold one of the most eminent Cardinals of the Roman Church, who confesseth with Austin, that one cannot know the Church but by the Scripture.

Now that not only in the question of the marks of the Church, but in other questions Austin will have the Scripture to be judge, it is easy to prove it. In the book of grace and free-will, chap. 18. he chooseth the Apostle Saint John for Judge in that matter, Sedeat internos judex Apostolus Johannes, &c. Let the Apostle John sit Judge betwixt us. Upon which he alledgeth a Text of that Apostle. And in the second book of marriage and concupiscence, before he alleges the words of the Apostle, he useth this preface, Let the Apostle judge with Christ, for Christ himself also speaks by the Apostle. And in the second book against Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5. he saith, that the authority of the Canonical excellency, is set on high, as on a certain throne, to which every faithful person, and every understanding must subject himself. Chrysostom in the thirty third Homily upon the Acts, asketh, how a Pagan that seeth Christians quarrelling among themselves about Religion, may know to what Church he must aggregate himself? Then he answereth, If we say that we believe the Scriptures, they are both simple and true: If any conform himself to these, he is a Christian.

The same Fathers words are most express in his forty ninth Homily of the imperfect work upon Saint Matthew, Heretofore they shown many ways what the Church of Christ was, and what the society of Pagans: But now this is known no other way, but by the Scriptures only. And soon after, He then that will know which is the true Church of Christ, how shall he know it but by the Scriptures?

CHAP. 28. Reasons of the Cardinal and others, to prove that the true Doctrine and conformity to the word of God, is no mark of the true Church.

AMong the marks of the true Church, our Adversaries use to put the conformity with the ancient Church, that is, with the doctrine of the Fathers: Whereupon one may with great reason wonder, why they will not do unto holy Scripture the like honor, as to the writings of the Fathers; and why they will not have the conformity with the word of God, to be also a mark whereby the true Church must be known? Who seeth not, that they put conformity with the Fathers for a mark of the Church, because they know that the people cannot perceive that mark, and seeth nothing in the writings of the Fathers, which are Greek and Latin, and of an endless length? And that they will not have conformity with the holy Scripture to be a mark to know the Church by, because that mark is easy to be known, and for fear that the people should be obliged to read Scripture, which they fear as much as Felons do Laws?

Yet let us see what reason they can give for their avoiding of that touch-stone, and denying, that their Church should be known by the Word of God, to be the true Church.

They say (and M. Du Perron with the rest) that this mark is both obscure and controverted, because all Churches, how corrupt soever they be, say that they have the true doctrine, and conformity with the Word of God.

By speaking thus, they overthrow all the marks which themselves attribute unto the true Church, as antiquity, holiness of doctrine, multitude, the name of Catholic, &c. for there is none of those marks but is controverted and challenged by other Churches besides the Roman. Besides we maintain, that those marks for the most part are not proper to the Roman Church. If we give to the Church no other marks but such as are not controverted, she shall have none at all. Thus giving Laws, sending Ambassadors, judging ultimately of all causes, coining money, &c. are marks of Sovereignty, although an usurper assume them unjustly.

This may serve to answer the Cardinal, who argueth thus; If the Doctrine be the mark of the Church, it must be either a controverted or an uncontroverted Doctrine: Not the controverted, for it is the thing in dispute: Not the uncontroverted, for it is a Doctrine common to the two contending parties. I answer, that the whole and entire Doctrine of salvation, is a mark of the true Church: Of which Doctrine, if some part be controverted, ye the truth is on the one side, and may be discerned by those that will subject themselves unto the Word of God.

M. du Perron saith in the fourth chapter; that the examination of the Church is easy and certain, but the examination of the saith is perilous and hard, and that the most learned are often deceived in it: For which he giveth this reason; that he that hath the Church, is sure to have the true faith, although he knows not distinctly all the Articles thereof, and to be in the way of salvation; whereas he that hath faith, and is not in the Church cannot hope for any salvation. The Reader may observe an affected ambiguity in these words, He that hath the Church: For one knows not whether he understands thereby he that is in the true Church, or he that hath a true knowledge that such a Church is the true and the good. For in the first sense it is false, that every man that is in the true Church hath the true faith. There are many hypocrites in the Church, that believe not what they profess: There are many profane persons in the true Church, which know nor what belongs to true Doctrine, and in their heart laugh at Christian Religion. Many are in the true Church by their birth, and by custom, or by the public stream, not caring for Religion: But if by him that hath the Church, he understands him that hath a true knowledge of the true Church, then it is certain, that such an one hath also the knowledge of the true faith, because it is the knowledge of the true faith that makes him to know the true Church. And thus he must know the true faith, before he can know the true Church: The Church is the Assembly of the faithful: Those are faithful that have the true faith: It is then impossible to know that one belongs to the Assembly of the faithful, not knowing what is the true faith.

The same ambiguity he useth in the fifth chapter, saying, that to know the whole Doctrine in all the points or instances thereof, is a thing harder to know then the society of the Church. The ambiguity is in these words, to know the society of the Church: For either he speaks of that superficial knowledge whereby Pagans and Infidels see the Christian Church, as one seeth a society of men that call themselves Christians, who yet care not for Christian Religion: In that sense I grant, that it is easier to know the Church, then to be instructed in the Christian Doctrine; But that Doctrine is useless; and is not that which is in question in this place: Or else he speaks of a certain knowledge, that such a Church is the true Church, to which they must join that will be saved. Of that knowledge, I say that it cannot be acquired but by the knowledge of the true faith and doctrine, which therefore is more known then the true Church.

He goeth on, and to prove how difficult it is, to know the true Church by the true Doctrine, he saith, that to know the true Church by the Doctrine, it is not enough to know the right of the Church in some particular difference with one Sect or another; but that it is necessary to know the truth of the Doctrine of the Church in all the particulars controverted by heresies both past and present, before one can judge (by virtue of that examination of the Doctrine) where the true Church is. For (saith he) if that Church be in the wrong but in one controversy, it is enough for her to forfeit the title of true Church.

Upon the whole matter, to fright men away from examining the Doctrine of the Roman Church, the Cardinal makes the way so long, that a thousand years of study would not be enough: For he will have one to know all the Objections and Answers that ever were made upon every point of Divinity; And yet in the end, if one be deficient in one point, he holds that all is lost, All that, to the end that nobody may busy his mind about Scripture, and that all be afraid of the Doctrine of Salvation, as of a laborious and perilous study, and so take the shorter way, which is to believe the Church; never enquiring what the Church ought to believe; and to be persuaded that the Roman Church is the true Church, without troubling themselves to get instruction in the Faith.

But it is easy to show that the way which our Adversaries trace to the world by sending men to the Church, without examining the doctrine, is much the way about; yea that it is infinite, and hath no end. For they will have us to know the true Church by the antiquity and the succession of Chairs. A knowledge not to be attained but by getting information upon every point of controversy of that which was believed in every age, and in every Country. There, besides the infinite length, many dark intervals will be found, and a labyrinth of inextricable perplexities.

Whereas he that ruleth his faith by the holy Scripture, takes a short and certain way, avoiding curiosities and useless questions, and contenting himself with that which is clear in Scripture, for there he shall find all that is necessary to salvation.

If by Scripture he believeth that God hath created the world, he needs not know all the Objections of Philosophers against Creation. If by Scripture he believeth that Jesus Christ is a true man, the simplicity of that belief will be sufficient for him, although he never heard of the Objections of the Eutychians or Marcionites. What needs a Husbandman or a Tradesman to know how Austin confuted the Donatists? seeing that it is not necessary for him to know so much as that Austin or Donatus ever were in the world. Neither doth a necessity lie upon him to undertake the examination of the whole doctrine either of the Roman Church or ours. Let him but stand firm in that resolution, not to receive any Doctrine as necessary to Salvation, unless he that teacheth it, show it in the Word of God. By this means the most heavy and slow understandings come out of all difficulty. If any tell him, that to have God's favor he must call upon Saints, and venerate Images or Relicks, or that Jesus Christ is sacrificed in the Mass, he will go to the Doctors of the Roman Church, and tell them; My Masters, you will have me to believe these things, I beseech you to let me see them in Scripture; If these things be shown him in express or equivalent terms, he will acquiesce: If they be not shown him in Scripture, he will not believe them, and he needs no other examination of the doctrine.

In one point appeareth the great advantage of our cause over that of our Adversaries; That whereas they object unto us, that by seeking to make the true Church known by the true Doctrine, we take a long and difficult way; We object unto them, that by enjoining the people to know the true Church, without knowing and examining the Scripture, they take an impossible way: For how can one know which is the true Christian Church, without knowing Jesus Christ before, and the Redemption by Jesus Christ? How can one know whether a Church be pure, and no Heretic, but by the rule of purity? And since the true Church is a Society united together by the profession of the true Faith, (for so our Adversaries define it) how can one know whether such a Society be the true Church, without knowing the true Faith?

The Cardinal adds, that the marks of the Church must be outward and sensible, and therefore other then the Doctrine. Note, that when we say, that the true Doctrine is the mark of the true Church, we understand, that to know whether a Church be true, pure, and Orthodox, we must know whether she holds a doctrine conformable with the Word of God. Now that conformity as well as the difformity is a thing sensible and discerned by the eye and ear. Do we not see with our eyes, that in the Roman Church the people is denied the Communion of the cup? Do we not see pictures of the Trinity, and the people bowing the knee before Images? Do we not hear public Service and Prayers in an unknown tongue? And if these things be formally prohibited in the holy Scripture, are they not unto us sensible marks of a false and erroneous Church?

Some will use this argument, That Society that teacheth the true Doctrine, is more known then the true Doctrine.

I answer, that by that reason all those marks fall to the ground, which our Adversaries give unto true Doctrine; For doth the people of the Roman Church learn these marks from the Roman Church? It follows then, that the Roman Church which teacheth these marks, is more known then these marks; and by consequent, that they are no marks, since they are less known. In effect, although the Church be easier to be known then the Doctrine by a superficial, and many times unprofitable knowledge, whereby Pagans know the Church without knowing whether it be good and sound in the Faith; yet to know that such a Church is the true, and not an heretical Church, we must first know the true Doctrine: So is a Mathematician known as he is • man, before he that knoweth him in that notion know what belongs to the Mathematics. But one cannot know whether he be a good Mathematician without some previous knowledge of the Mathematics. Thus the Keeper of a treasure is known before the treasure; but none can know whether he be keeper of a good treasure, but he that knoweth that it is a good treasure, and wherein the goodness of it consisteth. By that superficial knowledge the Church may be known before the Scripture, when the Church testifieth to a Pagan that such a Book is the holy Scripture: But that Pagan shall never certainly know that such a Church is the true Church, before he hath comprehended and believed the Doctrine contained in the Scripture.

But (say some of them) if true Doctrine were the mark of the true Church, every Church that hath the true Doctrine, should be a true Church, which nevertheless is not; for the Churches that are merely Schismatical have the true Doctrine, and yet are not the true Church. This Objection is frequent with the Cardinal.

I answer, That never any Church was Schismatical that maintained the true Doctrine: For under the true Doctrine, I comprehend that of Manners and Charity, which is violated by the Schismatical Churches: Neither do I find any Schismatical Church, but hath presently added unto the Schism some Error in the Faith, as when the inflammation comes presently after the wound given.

But (say they) if the Church show which is the Scripture, the Scripture cannot show which is the Church; for two things cannot show one another.

I answer, that this is a false assertion: Many times two several things evidence one another mutually. The causes are demonstrated by the effects, and the same effects by the causes. The Church may testify that these Books are Divine and Sacred, and the same Books show which is the true Church. But Scripture showeth the Church in a far more excellent manner then the Church showeth Scripture: For the Church is a witness unto Scripture; but Scripture is a rule unto the Church. The Church makes not these Books to be divine; but the rules of Scripture being practiced formally, make a Society of Christians to be the true Church; Herein this difference is evident, that a false Church can yield that true testimony to Scripture, and yet makes it not to be Scripture.

CHAP. 29. That the word Catholic cannot be a mark of the true Church.

AMong the marks of the Church, the word Catholic, that is, Universal, is set in the first rank of our Adversaries. In that title the Roman Church doth especially triumph: Being a particular Church, and a corrupt one, she assumes the name of Universal Church; as if a rotten finger were called a man.

That the word Catholic cannot be the mark of the true Church, it is evident: For the natural and infallible marks of a thing are not words, but things. The marks of a good Horse are not words, but natural things: For men will often give false titles, and contrary names, and the same title may be usurped by dissenting Churches. The names proper to a thing arise from the essential form thereof, but words and titles are given by the will of men.

Also it is necessary that the names and titles attributed unto the Church be given to her, either by herself, or by her enemies. If by herself, that hath no force; for she is not a competent Judge in her own cause, and everyone will take titles to his own advantage. But if those titles be given her by her enemies, there is yet less reason to stand upon them, whether the enemies dishonor the Church with odious titles, or extol her in derision. It is not just that the marks of the true Church be left to the discretion of her Adversaries.

Besides, the marks of the right and good Church must show her goodness; but that word Catholic or Universal imports no goodness, and designs no virtue, but only signifies her extent.

The same appears, in that the most false and corrupt Churches will put on also the title of Catholic, and will be called so. Lactantius in the last chapter of the 4. Book, speaks thus; Each Congregation of Heretics holds herself above all to be Christian, and her Church Catholic. Salvianus in the 5. Book of Providence; So much they hold themselves Catholics, that they defame us with the title of Heretics. Cyprian to Jubaian; Novatianus will attribute unto himself the authority and the truth of the Catholic Church. Austin in the Book of the utility of believing, chap. 7. saith, that all the Heretics affect the name of Catholics. Even the Donatists against whom the name of Catholics hath been especially used, and the Rogatists which were but a branch of the Donatists, would be so called, as Austin saith in the 48. Epistle to Vincentius. And the Greek Church, which is an enemy to the Roman, retains that name still, and her Patriarch is still called Oecumenical Bishop, as if he governed the whole habitable earth. In one point chiefly it is evident how that mark of Universal or Catholic is wide of all likelihood of reason; that the dispute between divers particular Churches is, which of them must be called Universal, as if Africa and Europe were contending which of them two must be called the whole earth.

Here truth is so evident, that a distinction between the Catholic Church, and the Roman will slip sometimes from our Adversaries, as acknowledging that they are different things. Bellarmine in the 2. Book of the Sacraments in general, chap. 27. goeth about to persuade that Baptism doth not leave to be a true Baptism, although he that baptizeth have no intention to do that which the Roman Church doth. It is enough (saith he) to have intention to do that which the Universal or Catholic Church doth. It is ordinary with our Adversaries to call the Roman Church the Mother of all the Churches; speaking so, is, saying, that the Roman Church is not the Universal or Catholic Church: For the Mother and the Daughters are not the same thing. Themselves would not say, that the Roman Church is universally everywhere, seeing that there are so many great Churches more ancient then the Roman, which are separate in Communion from the Roman. Could the Universal Christian Church be called Roman, when Christianity had not yet reached to Rome?

CHAP. 30. Of the word Catholic, and in what sense the Church is called Catholic by the Ancients. That Cardinal du Perron hath not at all understood what Catholic signifieth, nor the sense of Vincentius Lirinensis.

THe Church of the Elect is called Catholic or Universal in the Symbole, because she comprehends all the Elect; both them that triumph in Heaven, and them that are or shall be militant here on earth. And if that Church mentioned in the Symbole, comprehends also the visible Church upon earth (which we would not deny) then that visible Church is called Catholic or Universal, to distinguish it from the Jewish Church, which was affected and restrained to one particular Nation, as his Majesty of Great Britain saith, and Bellarmine acknowledgeth it in his Book of the marks of the Church, chap. 7. That the Church (saith he) may be Catholic, it is requisite in the first place, that she exclude no time, no place, and no sort of men, whereby she is distinguished from the Synagogue, which was a particular, not a Catholic Church. The Jesuit Salmeron saith the same. The Church (saith he) is called Catholic, that is, Universal; wherein she is different from the Synagogue, in that she is not circumscribed with certain limits of people or place. But Cardinal du Perron being wiser then they all, in his first chapter against the King, is of another opinion; for he saith, that the word Catholic is rather added in the Symbole to discern the true Church, which is pure, and neither heretical nor schismatical, from the heretical and schismatical Churches. But the evident reason is on the Kings side; for since the word Catholic signifies Universal, it is fitter to distinguish the Universal Church from the particular, then to distinguish the Orthodox Church from the Heretical; between Church Universal, and Church Heretical, there is no opposition.

The Fathers take that word Catholic two ways: Sometimes by the Catholic Church they understand merely the Universal, distinguishing her by that word from the particular Churches. Optatus Milevitanus in the 2. Book; The Church is called Catholic, because she is spread everywhere. Austin in the 152. Epistle, The Catholic Church is spread over all the Earth. And in the 170. Epistle, The Church is called Catholic, because she is spread over all the world. He saith the same in the 2. Book against Petilianus, chap. 38.

But sometimes the Fathers abusing the word, by the Catholic Church, understand the Orthodox Church, that is, the Church pure and sound in the Faith, joined in her parts by Communion: Quod totum veraciter teneat, saith Austin; Because she holds the whole truth, of which Heresies hold but part. Sozomenus in his 7. Book, chap. 4. saith, it was constituted, That that only Church should be called Catholic which serveth the Trinity with equal honor. In which sense there might be many Catholic Churches. Every particular Orthodox Church is Catholic in that sense. Austin in the 152. Epistle, Not only (saith he) the Catholic Churches beyond the Sea, but also the African Catholic Churches; Where the word Catholic cannot signify Universal. See the Subscriptions of the Bishops set to the will of Gregory Nazianzen. There every Bishop calls himself Catholic Bishop of such or such a Town. Austin in the 166. Epistle calls the Emperors Catholics, that is, Orthodox and sound in the Faith. The Roman Synod under Hilary Bishop of Rome, begins thus, Hilary Bishop of the Catholic Church of the City of Rome. There it is clear, that Hilary calls not himself Bishop of the Universal Church, since he restrains his Episcopacy over the Catholic Church unto the City of Rome.

The reason why true Faith is called Catholic, or Universal, is not because it is received everywhere; for that never was, and never shall be; but because all without exception must receive it; as Pope Pius II. saith in the Acts of the Council of Basil; Faith is not called Catholic, that is, Universal, because all receive it, but because all ought to receive it.

That in these two significations the Church is called Catholic, Austin expressly saith it in the Book De Genesi ad literam, chap. 1. The Church our Mother is called Catholic, both because she is universally perfect, and halteth not in anything, and because she is spread over all the world.

The like Cyrillus of Jerusalem saith in the 18. Catechesis; The Church is called Catholic, because she is spread over all the habitable Earth from one end to the other, and because she teacheth universally, and without deficiency all the Doctrines that must come to the knowledge of men.

And Optatus Milevitanus in the 2. book against Parmenianus, Ecclesia inde Catholica, quod sit rationals & ubique diffusa, The Church is called Catholic, because she is conformable to reason, and because she is spread everywhere.

Which if M. du Perron had observed, he would not have spent his labor to devise absurd and unreasonable reasons, why he will have the true Church to be called Catholic. The first, because it is larger and in greater number. The second, because heretical Churches have been plucked off from her like branches from the stock, which stock in respect of the branches, is an habitual whole, and that the Catholic Church towards heretical Churches, is not an actual but an habitual whole. His first reason shall be hereafter confuted, and we hope to show that multitude is not always on the side of the true Church.

The second reason is but and extravagant conceit, of which he is the first inventor. For there is no such thing as an habitual whole, which words are but a Chimera. The branches are no part of the stock in any respect, whether they be joined to it, or cut from; especially when they are cut off. The stock is not a whole that contains, or can contain the branches, or that can be called an habitual or an actual whole. So then a Church from which other Churches were separated, is not a whole, containing in any respect the said separated Churches, especially since she did not contain them before the separation, but only they were joined with her: much less then doth she contain them, since they were separated from her. How can she have any habit or aptness to contain them again, having never contained them before?

There is more; For thereby the Cardinal devesteth the Roman Church before he be aware of the title of Catholic or Universal Church. For the Greek Church is the root and the stock from which the Roman is sprung. Christian Religion is past from the Grecians to the Latins. Thus Austin Epist. 170. saith that the Eastern Churches are the root of the Church, and that from them the Gospel past into Africa. And in the 178. Epist. which is a Dialogue of Austin with Pascentius, he saith, that faith was born among the Grecians. For as these words Jesus, Messias, Amen, Allelujah, which the Greek Churches use, testify that the Gospel past from the Jews to the Grecians; Likewise the words of Christ, Bible, Evangelium, Ecclesia, Baptism, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Litany, Chrisma, Antiphone, &c. which are Greek words, yea all the most ordinary terms used in the Roman Church, show that the Romans have received the Religion from the Grecians, and that they have been their Disciples: And therefore, by the Cardinals reason, the Greek Church shall be the Catholic Church, as the stock and the origin. And (to speak with him) she shall be the whole, though not actual, yet habitual, containing the Roman Church.

Note by the way, that the Fathers called the Orthodox Church Catholic or Universal, because it spread far and wide, over Europ, Asia, and Africa. But now that these Churches are dissenting and separate in communion, that reason ceaseth: neither is there any pretence of reason, why any of these parts can alone retain the title of Universal Church.

To the same purpose the Cardinal, after others of his party, objecteth to us incessantly, the counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis, who writ about the year 450. That Author in his book against profane novelties, to free a man's spirit from all errors, giveth him two directions. The one is, to stick to the holy Scripture, of which he saith, that the Canon is most perfect, and more then sufficient for all things. The other is, than since there is a dissention about the interpretation of Scripture, we must hold the tradition of the Catholic Church, and take the Scripture for our Interpreter, Secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus normam, according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense. Then he declareth what he understands by that Catholic sense, namely, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditor: est hoc enim vere proprieque Catholicum. That which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all; for that is truly and properly Catholic.

Nevertheless he adds an exception, that he would not advise one to take that course, or to make use of that Catholic tradition, against heresies deep rooted by a long continuance, and such as are spread and received of old among many, but only against new and springing heresies, which he would stifle in their birth, by opposing that tradition unto them. But as for ancient and far spread heresies, he would make use of the holy Scripture only, and of the authority of Universal Councils.

That Counsel of Vincentius being well considered, not only doth not at all annoy us, but even cuts the throat of Popery. For since our Adversaries say, that we are infected with ancient heresies, and complain, that our heresy is diffused in many countries, and very deep rooted, they cannot practice against us the counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis, who will have such heresies convinced with the only Scripture, and by the ancient Universal Councils. For indeed restraining our Adversaries to Scripture, and to the ancient Councils, is compelling them to impossibilities: since they maintain, that all the doubts about the faith, cannot be decided by Scripture, and send us to an unwritten word; herein opposing Vincentius Lirinensis, who saith, that Scripture is more then sufficient to teach us all things; and averting the people from reading the holy Scripture, for fear (say they) that they should fall into heresies. And as for the ancient universal Councils, they find nothing in them contrary to us, but many Canons contrary to them. They find in the Council of Chalcedone a Canon equalling the Bishop of Constantinople, with that of Rome in all things. They find in the Council of Laodicea, approved by many universal Councils, that the books of Judith, Toby, and Maccabees are not Canonical. They find in the Council of Gangra, approved likewise and inserted in the Codex of the Universal Church, a condemnation of those that despise married Priests. They find in the Canons of the VI. Universal Council, a Canon which expounds these words, This is my body, and This is my blood, with these words, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. They find in the same Council two Canons which expressly and by name condemn the Roman Church for pohibiting Priests and Deacons to dwell with their wives, and for fasting upon Saturdayes. They find that the Pope did not preside in the Councils of Nice, nor in the first Council of Constantinople, nor in the first Council of Serdica, which M. du Perron puts among the Universals, nor in the Council of Chalcedon. And that he called none of the ancient Universal Councils. But that the first Council of Constantinople and that of Chalcedon, did sit against his will, and against his Counsels and humble petitions to the Emperors.

And if our Adversaries finding no help in the ancient Universal Councils, are reduced (according to the advice of Vincentius Lirinensis ) to the holy Scripture only, what text can they find there, to prove that the Pope is St. Peters successor in the quality of head of the Universal Church, or to prove that he can put down Kings and dispose of their crowns? Or to prove that we must yield a religious service unto images, and call upon the Saints departed, and worship their relics? or that God prohibiteth the marriage of Priests? and many the like things, which have no ground but in the unwritten word?

Or if the Counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis take place, so that nothing be received for a Catholic tradition, but that which was always believed, and by all, and at all times; what will become of Monks and Monastaries, of whom no mention is found in the first ages, before Paul and Antony the Hermits, who lived in Constantine's time? What will become of the images of the Trinity, and the adoration of images, and the Popes power to depose Kings? And how shall the Maccabees subsist among the Canonical books, which M. du Perron confesseth to have been rejected by the Greek Fathers, and by Jerome and Ruffinus, and others that have followed their opinion? Yea I maintain, that of all the Articles of Christian doctrine, scarce two or three shall be found, but were opposed by some heretics, and of whom one may truly say, that they were believed everywhere, and at all times. But how can women and tradesmen know what articles have been believed always and by all, since so much cannot be known but by the reading of Fathers, and Greek and Latin histories, where the people understands nothing, and the learned themselves have litte knowledge?

Truly, I dare say, that if Vincentius Lirinensis were believed and followed, there should be no more Popery upon earth. Especially in that he will not have the Church to seek to Catholic tradition for adding of doctrines not received in Scripture, but only for the interpretation of Scripture. Also in thal the admitteth of no traditions as Catholic, but such as were believed by all and at all times; for the Roman Church teacheth a thousand things, which the Greek and Syrian and Ethiopian Churches believe not, and which have been unknown in the first ages of the Christian Church. As for us, I make bold to affirm, that we believe and receive all the doctrines necessary to salvation, which have been believed by all and everywhere. And none can justly reproach us, that ever we departed from the universal consent of all ages.

CHAP. 31. Of holiness in doctrine.

THe whole Word of God is true and holy. But between the truth and the holiness of a doctrine, there is that difference, that the same doctrine is true as it declineth errors, and holy as it declineth vices. Truth enlighteneth the understanding, but holiness purifieth the will and affections. Whence it appeareth, that truth goeth before holiness, because the instruction of the understanding goes before the motions of the will: because also the holiness of a doctrine doth presuppose it to be true.

A doctrine then is called true, which turns men away from vices, and formeth them to good works and virtue.

Our Adversaries put that holiness of doctrine among the marks of the true Church, wherein I would not contradict them; for thereby they would have good doctrine to be a mark of the true Church. Now the doctrine can neither be good nor holy, unless it be conformable with the Word of God; we must then be instructed in the Word of God before we can know the true Church.

Two things only, I cannot sufficiently wonder at; The one, that they put the holiness of the doctrine among the marks of the true Church, and will not put the truth of the doctrine among these marks, and yet holiness presupposeth truth. It is impossible to know that a doctrine is holy, while one doubteth whether it be true. The other, that they choose that for a mark of the Church, which less fitteth the Roman Church then any Church in the world. I speak not of the vices which reign in the Roman Church, but of the rules and doctrines that teach vices and corrupt manners. In other Churches vices are sicknesses, but in the Roman Church they are set forth as virtues, and have the force of Law.

No Church but the Roman teacheth perjury, and by the order of a Council declareth, that one is not bound to keep faith unto Heretics. This is found in the XIX. Session of the Council of Constance, where the Fathers of the Council declare to the Emperor Sigismund, that he may proceed to the execution of Jerome of Prague and John Hus, notwithstanding the safe conduct and the oath given them to send them home safe. The Pope dispenseth the Kings Subjects and Officers from the obedience and oath of allegiance given to the King, of which the histories are full, since Gregory the VII. and it was seen in France of late.

Is it a holy doctrine to set up brothel-houses by public order, and permit whoredom? Or to set on the people to rebel against their sovereign Prince, promising them the remission of sins for their reward? In the time of the French League, in the year 1588, 1589, and 1590. one might see in the market places, and other places of public resort, Papal indulgences set forth, granting nine years of pardon to all that would join with the League against the King. Remission of sins and salvation was propounded to the people as a recompense of rebellion against their King and murder of their fellow-Citizens.

Is it an holy Doctrine that the Pope can dispense against the Apostle, and against the Old Testament? and that he dispenseth in the Gospel by an interpretation? For with such sentences the Glosses of the Roman Decree are stuffed.

Is it a holy Doctrine, that God after he hath pardoned the fault, exacteth satisfactory pains? Doth not that teach men to make fraudulent reconciliations, and to take revenge after they have pardoned? For why should men be more true or more merciful then God?

Are these holy Doctrines, to dissolve marriages under pretence of a Monastical life? and to free children from the fatherly power, when for anger, or other causes, they have taken Sanctuary in a Monastery, as an Azyle of disobedience? and to tread the Laws of God and nature underfoot, which oblige children to obey their Parents?

Is it an holy Doctrine, to prohibit the people to read Scripture, which is the treasure of all the Doctrines of holiness? and putting prayers and alms among penances or satisfactory pains? Is not that turning virtues into pains, to make them odious?

Of these accusations and many of the like nature they strive to avenge themselves by recriminating, that we teach that good works are not necessary to salvation, and that God is the Author of sin; and that we are enemies of the Saints and of the Virgin Mary: Abominable Doctrines, falsely attributed to us: The Confession of our Churches doth protest against them.

To shut up this question; I acknowledge the holiness of Doctrine to be a mark to know the true Church, so that under holiness truth be comprehended, and conformity with the word of God. But if holiness be taken as a thing distinct from the truth, then we must know the truth of a Doctrine before we be able to know the holiness of the same: And so we shall need another mark to know that mark.

CHAP. 32. Of the succession of chairs. Whether it be a mark of the true Church? And what that succession is, of which the Fathers speak.

AMong the marks of the true Church, they put the succession of Pastors in the same chair, ever since the Apostles: Certainly that succession is a goodly ornament, if with the succession of persons, there may be a succession of Doctrine and conformity of virtue: But there are many chairs in which they that sit, hold a contrary Doctrine to their Predecessors. Thus the Scribes and Pharisees were sitting in the chair of Moses, and had the personal succession; nevertheless Jesus Christ commandeth his Disciples to beware of the leaven of their Doctrine, and reproacheth them that they had transgressed the Law of God by their tradition, Mat. 15. Thus the Bishops of the Churches of Antioch, and Rome, and Alexandria, boast themselves to be Successors of Saint Peter, and yet are dissenting and separate in Communion. The Bishops of Constantinople, fetch their succession from the Apostle Saint Andrew, as Nicephorus goeth about to prove in the eighth book of his Chronology, chap. 6. Yet these Bishops by the judgment of the Roman Church, are Schismatics and Heretics. Whence it appears, that the succession of chairs cannot be a fit mark for the true Church, since it is found in heretical Churches, as Tertullian saith in the thirty second chapter of the book of prescriptions. Their Doctrine compared with the Apostolical Doctrine, will make it manifest by its diversity and contrariety, that the Author thereof is neither an Apostle nor an Apostolical man; because as the Apostles have not taught different things among themselves, so they that followed the Apostles, would not have set forth things contrary to the Apostles, excepting only those that have withdrawn themselves from the Apostles, and have taught otherwise. And a little after: Therefore they shall be summoned to answer that form of examination by the Churches; which though they cannot produce any of the Apostles, or any Successor of the Apostles for their Author, as being much later in time, and some of them every day erected; yet agreeing in the same faith, they are not held less Apostolical by reason of the consanguinity of their Doctrine [with the Apostles. ] And soon after, he saith, that the Heretic Churches are not received to the Communion by the Apostolic Churches, because Heretics cannot be Apostolic, ob diversitatem Sacramenti, by reason of the diversity of the sacred Doctrine; for so the Fathers take the word Sacrament. And in the twentieth chapter, after he hath said that the Apostles have spread the Doctrine of faith, and that from thence all the Churches have their origin, he addeth, So all the Churches are first Churches, and all are Apostolic, as long as the communication of peace, and the name of brethren, and the mutual mark of hospitality, prove that there is one unity among them all; which rights are ruled by no other reason then the tradition of the same Doctrine. Thus if Tertullian be believed, true succession consisteth in conformity with the Doctrine of the Apostles: which being found in a Church, whether great or small, of old or fresh date, such a Church is truly Apostolical, although for lack of Histories, she cannot show the line of her succession.

Then to know whether that succession of chairs be good, we must of necessity know before whether the Doctrine agree with that of the Apostles; and to know that, we must be instructed in the true Apostolical Doctrine. Whence it follows, that this succession of chairs cannot be a mark of the Church, since to know her, we have need of another mark which is the truth of the Doctrine, and conformity with the Doctrine of the Apostles; and that the succession of persons in the same chair, is no perpetual mark of a true Church, since there are true Churches which cannot prove that continual succession. Where conformity with the Doctrine of the Apostles is evident, to what end should a Church be required to show by histories the thread of a continual succession, unless it be to tire men's spirits by an infinite length, and keep them from seeking for the conformity in Doctrine, which is easy to be found? What doth it import from how far the water of a brook comes to us, so that the water be quick and good? And if the brook be spoiled, because it past through unwholesom fens, what have I to do to follow the whole course of the stream, when I may drink at the spring?

Where the way is short and easy, why do they labor to make it long and intricate? Such as love error, purposely loose themselves in an endless length and an in extricable maze. How much labor and time must one lose? How many Greek and Latin Books must one read, to know upon every point of Doctrine the belief of all the Bishops of one Church from the Apostles time unto ours? and to show upon every point the succession of Doctrine from Bishop to Bishop? Certainly we are not saved by chairs, but by rules; nor by titles or succession of persons, but by the precepts of faith and godliness. The Apostle Rom. 10.15. saying after Isaiah, How beautiful are the feet (that is, how is the coming pleasant) of them that bring peace, that bring gl d tidings of good things! showeth, that in vain one boasteth that he is sent, if he bring tidings of evil things.

Truly if chairs did teach, or if truth was sticking to those chairs, we ought to believe it without anymore ado. But in those chairs men are speaking, who many times abuse them to give authority to untruth, as the Scribes and Pharisees made use of the specious title of the chair of Moses to resist Jesus Christ.

Besides, that cannot be a mark of the true Church, which is unknown to the people. For how small is the number of those that have read all the Greek and Latin Histories, where that succession is set down? They give to the people a list of successive Bishops in a picture, but the people know not whether nothing be false and forged in that picture: They know not whether the last entered into the chair by usurpation, or violence, or gifts. They know not whether the last Bishops teach the same as the first, or whether of those that came between, none erred in the faith. Certain it is, that many Popes have been notorious heretics, as Liberius and Felix who were Arians, Honorius a Monothetite, and John the XXIII. that denied the immortality of the soul. In the Papal See, several Schisms have been, and divers times many Popes together, excommunicating one another, and reciprocally calling one another Antichrist; and of those Antichrists, the worst commonly overcame. So according to the very Canons of the Roman Church, factions and corruptions in the creation of the Popes, have several times made their election void, and therefore have broken the thread of that succession

Some places indeed are found in the Fathers, especially in Tertullian and Irenaeus, where disputing against Heretics, they oppose unto them the authority of those Churches that were able to show their succession of persons and Doctrine since the Apostles, and question those Heretics about their succession. But they speak of succession of chairs in the same Doctrine. Besides, those allegations have not the same force in these last ages, as they had then, when the line of their succession from the Apostles being short, was also easy to show. It was easy to show at Ephesus since Saint John, and at Jerusalem since Saint James, that seven or eight successive Bishops had still taught the same Doctrine. But now after an interval of above fifteen hundred years, and so many changes and revolutions, the Churches which then agreed, being now at odds, it is impossible to make such a deduction. And our Adversaries would find themselves shrewdly plunged, if they were put to show of every Bishop of Rome, or Alexandria, or Antioch, that all successively have believed the Purgatory, or the invocation of Saints, or Transubstantiation, or the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, or the Communion under one kind.

Consider also that these Fathers alleging unto Heretics the succession of Bishops, spake unto Heretics that rejected the Scriptures, either whole or in part; against which they had nec • to use probable reasons without the Scripture. But we have to do with men that make a show of the succession of persons, without speaking of conformity and succession in the Doctrine. Upon that the words of Irenaeus are pregnant, We must obey those that are Priests in the Church, that have succession from the Apostles, and with the most dear succession of Episcopacy, have received the certain gift of the truth, according to the Fathers will. And Tertullian in the thirty seventh chapter of Prescriptions, summoning the Heretics to produce the succession of their chairs, showeth, that in the Church where he was, they had a true succession, because since the Apostles time they had always retained the same Doctrine. I am (saith he) an heir of the Apostles: That which they have ordained by their Testament, that which they have committed to our faith, that which they have sworn us unto, that I hold: But certainly they have always dis-inherited you, and disallowed you as strangers and enemies. Now how come Heretics to be strangers and enemies to the Apostles, but by the diversity of Doctrine, which everyone of them hath set forth, or received according to their own fancy against the Apostles? For a succession of chairs without truth, is either a continuation of error, or a corruption of the truth: which succession, the longer it is, the more pernicious, because it hath deeper roots; as Gregory Nazianzen saith, in his oration concerning Athanasius, Where there is the same Doctrine, there is the same See; but where there is contrariety of opinions, there is also contrariety of Sees, [or chairs] The one hath the name, the other hath the truth of succession. He addeth, that he that corrupts the Doctrine is no successor, unless it be as sickness succeedeth health, and darkness light. Athanasius speaks the same language; Behold (saith he) we show the succession of our Doctrine from Fathers to Fathers. And Ambrose , That man hath not the succession of Peter, that hath not the faith of Peter. And Irenaeus, in the 4. Book. 43, & 44. chap. calls succession in the true Doctrine, the principal succession; for having said that those must be held for suspect that depart from the principal succession, he addeth, that such are fallen from the Truth.

Wherefore we detest the beastial impiety of the Canon Non nos, which in the 40. Distinction of the Roman Decree, pins the holiness of the Popes to their Chairs, saying, Who makes a doubt of that man's holiness who is raised to such a high dignity, who if he have no good acquired by his merit, he hath good enough afforded to him by his predecessor in that place? It is not the Chair that sanctifieth the Pastor, but it is the holiness of the Pastor and his preaching that sanctifieth the Chair; which the older it is, one may think that there is the more to mend in it; and the higher it is, and exalted to honor, the more pernicious, when the authority thereof is employed to authorize Error and oppose the Truth. It is the complaint that Bernard made of the Church of his time; Alas, alas, Lord Jesus, Those are the first in persecuting thee, that love primacy in thy Church, and hold the principality of the same. Then he addeth, Multi sunt nostris temporibus Antichristi; There are many Antichrists in our days. And soon after; This we must dissemble, and hold our peace, especially about our Prelates and Masters of Churches. And in the same place, Iniquity proceeded from the old Judges, thy Vicars, which seemed to govern thy people. And in the 33. Sermon, speaking of the Papal Court; They are Ministers of Christ, and serve the Antichrist. They that honor not the Lord, march honored with the Lord's goods. Whereupon after he hath bewailed the corruption of the Church, proceeding from them that govern her, he saith, that it remains no more, but that the Antichrist should be revealed, even that Antichrist, saith he, who shall lift up himself above all that is called God. And in the 77. Sermon, speaking of that succession of Chairs, he saith, They will all be Successors, but few will be imitators, &c. It is a small thing to say that our watches do not keep us, but they even destroy us. And in the fourth Book De Consideratione, speaking of the Roman Court; If I durst speak it, These are rather pastures of Devils then of Sheep. And speaking directly to Pope Eugenius, who boasted of the succession of Peter; We find not that ever St. Peter marched adorned with Jewels, or clad in Silk, or covered with Gold, or riding on a white Horse, or attended with guards, or with a multitude of servants making a noise about him. He believed that without these things one might fulfil that salutary command, Feed my sheep. In these things thou hast succeeded not Peter, but the Emperor Constantine. That good man, who felt the Truth in a dark age, would have spoken far more plainly, if he had lived in an age enlightened with the Sun-shine of the Gospel: For in the fervency of his zeal seeing two Popes excommunicating one another, and mutually calling one another Antichrist, he goeth so far as to say, That Beast of the Revelation to whom a mouth was given, speaking blasphemies, and [power] to make war against the Saints, holds St. Peters Chair like a Lion prepared for the prey. And the other Beast is hissing near you, like a wild beasts cub lurking in a close place. He useth the two Anti-Popes alike, leaving to us to judge on which side the right of the succession was.

Above 500 years before him, Pope Gregory the I. seemeth to have prophesied after the example of Caiaphas: For so he speaks in the 38. Epistle of the 4. Book; All that is foretold is now a doing. The King of pride is at hand; and (that which is shameful to say) an Army of Priests is prepared for him: foretelling that the Antichrist will be upheld by a multitude of Priests, and therefore by them that shall hold the chairs, and boast themselves of the ordinary succession.

We will shut up this discourse with a sentence of Austin in his 46. Treatise upon John. If sitting in Moses chair, they teach the Law of God, God teacheth by them; But if they will teach that which is of their own, (that is, their own inventions) hearken not unto them, and do not what they say.

CHAP. 33. What the Succession was, and what the calling of those who in our Fathers time took in hand the Reformation of Popery.

OF this matter we have treated more at large in another place: Where we have shown that the charge of Pope, who calls himself the Head of the Universal Church, and the Cardinals dignity, are not descended from the Apostles by succession, but that they are human inventions, and that the charges of Bishop and Priest, which of their nature are lawful, and descended by succession from the Apostles, have yet so much good left in the Roman Church, that they that enter into them are obliged by Oath in their Ordination to teach the truth of God's Word. Also that these charges are corrupted and perverted in the Roman Church, in that Bishops are become Princes of the Papal Hierarchy, and in their reception take an Oath of allegiance and obedience to the Pope: Which form of Oath herein is notable, that there is never a word in it of any duty towards God, or of his Word, or of the obedience due to him. That form of Oath is found in the Roman Pontifical, and is most worthy to be read, as one of the most express marks of the son of perdition: For it is the Oath of a vassal to his Prince or Liege-Lord, not the Oath of a Pastor of God's Church. Likewise the charge of Priest is corrupted, in that Priests in their ordination are established Sacrificers of the body of Christ, for the living and the dead, of which office the institution is not found in the Word of God.

Now it happened in our Fathers time, that some Priests, Doctors, and Bishops of the Roman Church, having acknowledged by the Word of God the abuses of Popery, would fulfil their Oath, and in the same Chair began to change language, and teach the Truth, to bring their Office to the right use again, and to the first institution; for an Idolatrous and heretical Church can confer a good calling, and admit a Pastor to his charge by such express forms and promises, that thereby he shall be obliged to discharge the office of a Pastor aright: For although a Church be heretical, yet the Office of Pastor in the same is (of its nature and first institution, and by the expectation of the people) destined to preach the true Doctrine of Salvation: and every Oath about a thing good and just, into which a man hath not intruded himself, must be inviolably kept. If in an Arian, or Nestorian Church, a Pastor came to be converted to the true Doctrine, the nature of his charge and his promise in his reception authorize him sufficiently, yea and oblige him to change language in the same Chair, and to teach the Truth. Wherefore also the ancient Church allowed the Office of heretical Bishops, when they converted themselves to the true Faith; neither did they confer a new Ordination upon them. The Imposition of hands which they bestowed upon them, was not a new ordination, but only a blessing, as Balsamon teacheth. I say then, that the first Reformers of Popery had the ordinary calling and succession received in their Country, and had besides that an extraordinary Commission to preach against the intention of their Ordinator, for the due accomplishing of their charge, and to keep the Oath taken in their reception.

We must not believe that they held from the Prelates of the Roman Church that good which remained unto them in their ill ordinary calling; for they held it from Jesus Christ and his Apostles, from whom those charges first proceeded, which from them are come to us by succession, although for some ages the Pastors of the Roman Church have abused those charges, and turned them to another use. So we have the water of a Brook from the Spring, not from the infected channel that it hath run through. It is one thing to have our calling by the intervention of the Roman Church, and another thing to have it from the Roman Church, and from her authority.

It came to pass then, that those faithful servants of God beginning to preach, the Truth in the very Chairs of the Roman Church, were believed by part of the people, who long before had some sight of the Errors, and were sighing under the yoke. But the other part which would not receive their Doctrine, thrust them out, and excommunicated them, forbidding them the exercise of their charge. But they stood out, and for their Inhibition would not forsake their flocks, holding that they ought not to be deprived of their charge, because they used it well. In vain should they have hoped to be confirmed in their places by the Pope, since they preached against Popery. Besides, the opinion of the Roman Church favors us in this point: For they hold that a Priests Office cannot be taken away, and that it prints an indelible character in a man, although the use thereof be interdicted by those that cannot suffer that their Errors should be brought to light. Thus they remained in their charges, and their Successors remain in them still: God making use of them to gather a people unto himself in the midst of the darkness of this world, and to bring many souls to salvation.

CHAP. 34. That in the time of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and in the ages next to the Apostles, many have preached the Word of God in the Church, without succession and without ordinary Calling.

ALthough in the age that we live in, it is expedient that none be admitted to the holy Ministry, but such as are duly called, and (as much as it is possible) established by the ordinary forms and ways; yet the Christian Church in her beginnings did not tie herself to that rule. The Christians of that time embraced with so much fervor the truth of the Doctrine, that they inquired not with what forms those that taught them the truth had been received into that Office. Doing the clean contrary to that which is done in the Roman Church, where the people is kept from the examination of the Doctrine by hiding from them the holy Scripture, and celebrating Divine Service in a languge which they understand not. They are instructed only to look to Chairs and Succession, and to pick a quarrel with our Vocation; following the example of the Pharisees, who eluded Christ's reprehensions of their false Doctrine, asking him, By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? and asking the Apostles when they preached Christ, By what power, and by what Name have ye done this?

That in old time many preached the Gospel without charge or ordinary calling, it is evident by many examples. Our Lord Jesus, Luke 4. teacheth in the Synagogue of Nazareth, and expoundeth the Prophet Isaiah, although he was neither Scribe nor Doctor, nor Levite, but of the Tribe of Judah; brought up, not under the Discipline of the Pharisees, but in a Carpenters shop.

Act. 13. Paul who was neither Levite nor Scribe, is desired by the chief of the Synagogue of Antioch, of Pisidia, if he had some word of exhortation to speak it. He had been indeed a Pharisee before his conversion; but the Pharisaism was not a charge, but a profession of austerity, and works of overplus.

Act. 8.4. The faithful of the Church of Jerusalem, scattered by persecution, went everywhere preaching the Word. The same is done by some Cypriots and Cyrenians that were fled to Antioch, Act. 11.

Act. 18.25. Apollos teacheth in the Synagogue, and speaks freely, although he was yet but meanly instructed in the way of the Lord, knowing only the Baptism of John. A certain proof that he had no ordinary charge; for with so little instruction he should never have been admitted to the charge of Pastor or Evangelist.

It is manifest by the 14. chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that all such as had some gift of God to prophesy and expound Scripture, or to speak strange tongues, were allowed to speak in the Church. If (saith the Apostle, v. 24.) all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all. And a little after, When ye come together, everyone of you hath a Psalm, hath a Revelation, hath an Interpretation, Let all things be done to edifying.

Origen Hom. 11. upon the 18. chapter of Numbers. If (saith he) in any City where no Christian is yet born, someone come and begin to teach, and labor, and instruct, and bring to the Faith; and after that become Prince and Bishop of those whom he hath instructed, &c.

Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. That then the people might increase and multiply, it was permitted to all in the beginning, to preach the Gospel and baptize, and expound the Scriptures in the Church: But he addeth that this was settled by an order since.

Theodoret, Ruffinus, and Sozomenus, relate that two young men, Aedesius & Frumentius, being come to the Indies for another end, planted there the Christian Religion. It is true, that Frumentius returning into Egypt, was persuaded by Athanasius to return into the Indies, and by him created Bishop of the Indies. But it must, be remembered, that he had already begun that work before he received the ordinary calling; and that if he could not have returned into Egypt, being kept in the Indies, either by the difficulties of the ways, or by sickness, or if the Indians would not have let him go; no doubt but that he would not have forsaken the work of God for want of a formality, and would not have left teaching, though he had no succession, and no ordinary calling. But I think that the Indians by him converted to Christianity would have met, and calling upon God's name, would have created him their Pastor.

The same must be said of Maturianus and Saturnianus slaves, which were the first that brought the Gospel among the Moors, where they were captive; who after they had sown the seeds of Christianity about the Country, sent for Priests out of the Roman Territories, as Victor Uticensis recites in the first Book of the History of the Vandals.

Yea out of the case of necessity the Antient Christians permitted Lay-men to expound the holy Scriptures, although there were ordinary Pastors in the same place. Of which we have a very express testimony in the 20. chapter of the 6. Book of the History of Eusebius, who relates that at the request of the Bishop of Cesarea, Origen being not a Priest, yet began to expound the holy Scriptures in the Church. At which one Demetrius complaining, as of a thing being contrary to custom, and unheard of before, Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea, tax him of ignorance, and tell him, Thou sayest openly an untruth; for where persons fit and capable are found, which may edify their brethren, the holy Bishops desire them to instruct the people in the Word; as at Laranda Euelpis was desired by Neon, and at Iconium Paulinus was desired by Celsus, &c.

If any Christian cast by shipwreck, or by other accidents into a Pagan Island, fifteen hundred leagues from Christian Churches, and having no use of Navigation, should learn the language of the country, and then instruct the Barbarians with good success in the Christian Religion, there being no possibility to get Pastors from other places; who doubts, but that the converted people, might with the invocation of God's Name, choose among themselves the fittest man for the Ministry of the Gospel? Should that man suffer Christian Religion to perish in the Country for want of succession and ordinary calling? For in extraordinary difficulties it is often impossible to use ordinary remedies. Besides, in a Country where there is an ordinary calling, it happens many times, that they that hold the chairs and have the succession, either are silent like dumb dogs, or preach untruth. In which case can one find it strange, that God raise some of the lay people to convince their false doctrine, or rouse their dastardness; as when the guards of the Capitol were asleep, the geese cried out and gave the alarm? Is it not a hardened stupidity, when an ignorant man will not come out of the gulf of error, before that he that would instruct him, hath shown him his succession? Such a man chooseth rather to be led into hell by a successive order, and by persons loaden with titles and filling the chairs, then into Paradise by men that produce not their Commission.

CHAP. 35. A difference to be observed, between the office of Pastor of the Church, and the means to enter into it.

THere is a wide distance between the charge of Pastor and the means whereby a man gets into that charge; For one can enter by ill means into a good charge, instituted by God: As when one enters into the Ministry of the Gospel by favor of factions, by corruption, by gifts, or by usurpation. But if the charge be of its nature evil, it cannot be made good and lawful by any formality, nor by any length of succession. Formalities do not change the nature of things; and there is no prescription against divine institution. It matters not with how many formalities one undertakes to make war against God.

Of these two questions, the one, Whether the charge be good of its nature? the other, Whether one be entered by good means? the first is much more important then the second; for it is necessary for salvation unto every Christian, but the other is not. It is necessary for the people, to know whether the offices of the Pope and of Sacrificer of the body of Christ, be good and lawful, and instituted by Christ, lest they be subjected to an unjust domination, and thinking to serve Christ, they serve Antichrist: Lest also that being partakers of a Sacrifice invented by men, they be guilty of vacating or wronging the only Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of defiling themselves with idolatry. But as for the succession of persons, and the forms of entering into the Office of Pastor, it is indeed necessary to a Pastor of the Church, not to usurp the holy Ministry; and he must be very certain in his conscience, that he hath followed the lawful ways, and hath not intruded himself; For of that he is to answer in God's Judgment, who will not leave an usurper unpunisht, but will call him to account, for making the holy Ministry a prey, and constraining God (as far as in him lieth) to make use of his service, by doing him that service to which God called him not; and for bringing the traffick into the Temple, and purchasing by faction and bribery that holy charge, which teacheth humility and innocence.

But it is not necessary for the people to know the vocation of their Pastors, and to have an exact knowledge by what ways everyone of them is come to the holy Ministry; For I find not any text in the Word of God, that obliges the people to that examination, or saith that the people must give account unto God of the calling of their Pastors. If a man crept into the Ministry by fraud and unlawful ways, yet preach the Gospel purely, and administer the Sacraments as Jesus Christ did institute them, the people believing his preaching, shall be saved nothing the less; for the sentence of Jesus Christ is without exception, that who so believeth on him shall have everlasting life: The Word of God loseth not its virtue in the mouth of a Pastor admitted against the forms, as good seed doth not change nature, and bears not the less fruit for being sown by a thief. As one may wear a suit of clothes, without knowing whether the workman be admitted of Tailors Hall; So one may profit at a man's preaching, without knowing whether the man got into the Office of Pastor by good forms and lawful ways. The people is not accountable unto God for the calling of his Pastors, but for adhering unto false doctrines, and partaking with a Sacrifice which God hath not commanded. Truly if the people that they may be saved, must exactly know, what and how long the succession of their Pastors is, and whether it be desended from the Apostles by a successive line of persons in the same chair, they are excluded from all hope of salvation; since that cannot be known but by the reading of Fathers, and Greek and Latin histories, where the people understand nothing; And if they understood them, yet should they find a discord between historians, and intervals, and interruptions, where the readers are at a loss. Therefore Lydia the Purple-seller, and the people of Berea, and the three thousand Jews converted at Peters preaching, inquired not about Peters or Paul's calling; Nor the Eunuch of Queen Candace, of the vocation and succession of Philip: But believed their preaching, because they proved what they said by Scripture, although they had neither succession nor ordinary calling. So much was enough for them to be saved.

Out of that which was said, we gather two things. The one, that in the Roman Church the people are preposterously instructed; for their Pastors hide from them the holy Scripture, by which only they might learn, whether the charge of Pope or Priests be instituted by God; but they are taught to insist upon the succession of chairs, and to question us about our calling. That which is necessary to salvation, is hidden from them, and they are taught to inquire of that which is not necessary for them to know, and about which they shall not be called to account before God. While they amuse men about formalities, they hide the doctrine of salvation from their eyes. These poor people fed with empty husks, content themselves to believe that their leaders have the chairs and the ordinary succession; but the means are removed from them, to know whether the truth be taught in those chairs: For so much cannot be known, but by comparing the doctrine preached to them with the Scriptures, after the example of the people of Berea, whom St. Luke praiseth for examining the preaching of St. Paul by Scripture, although the miracles and the holy eloquence of the Apostle seemed to give him authority enough.

Our second inference is, that our complaints and accusations against the Roman Church, are far stronger, and of higher nature, and better grounded, then those of the Roman Church against us; For the Roman Church doth not reproach us that the charge of our Pastors is of its nature evil; acknowledging that Jesus Christ hath instituted Pastors in his Church, to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments. He that limits his Office within these functions, cannot be accused to have an Office invented by men. Only the Roman Church quarrels with us about formalities, and about the means of entering into that Office, accusing us of intruding without ordinary calling and without any succession.

But we disputing against the Roman Church, bring heavier accusations against them, and stand upon far higher terms; For not only we accuse Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Abbots, of usurpation, and of getting their Office by sinister ways, and of want of lawful succession; but we question them about the prime and principal point, necessary to salvation, which is the validity of their charges; For we find not in the Word of God, that ever he instituted Popes, or any successors of St. Peter in the Office of Head of the Universal Church: And we say, that every living head must have a body: Whence it follows, that if the Pope be head of the Church, we must say, that the church is the body of the Pope. Now Scripture calls the Church the body of Christ, not the body of the Pope. But that question shall be agitated hereafter.

Neither do we find in Scripture any mention of Cardinals. The first Author that speaks of them, is Pope Gregory the I. who writ in the year 596. For the Roman Council where that word is found, is false and supposititious, as we shall show in the proper place. But in the time of that Gregory, to be Cardinal Priest, was nothing else but to be Parson or Rector of a principal Parish. Other Archiepiscopal towns as Ravenna and Milan, had their Cardinals as well as Rome. And Popes were elected, not by a College of Cardinals, but by the suffrages of the people and Clergy. At this time they are Princes of the Universal Papal Church, and have the right of making Apotheoses or Canonizations, and to elect a Pope, which a few ages since is taken only out of their body. In a word, there is nothing in that Court but of human invention.

As for Bishops, their Office indeed is good and holy as for the origene, but it hath degenerated. Bishops being grown Princes of the Papal Empire, to which they swear fealty and allegiance in their reception, without any mention of their duty to God, or of his Word, or of the virtues and functions which the Apostle requireth in a Bishop; they get into their places by the favor of Kings, and get letters of investiture from the Pope; A thing unknown to all Antiquity.

Likewise the Office of Priests, being good of its nature, is fallen from its purity. For whereas the charge of a faithful Priest, is to preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments; now a man may be a Priest and never preach. The charge committed to him by the Bishop, while he anoints him, and puts the pix and the chalice in his hands, is to sacrifice the body of Jesus Christ for the living and the dead: Of which Priesthood the Institution is not found in the Word of God, and never a word of it in the holy Scripture.

Here then we have a great advantage over our Adversaries; for we accuse them to have overthrown the Christian Religion by forging other charges in the Church, then those which Christ hath instituted, and changing the nature of those which he instituted. But they acknowledging the Office of our Pastors to be good of its nature, accuse us only of violating the forms, and of want of succession. We set their crimes before their eyes; And they upon that, question our Commission. Our accusation is of the ground and essence of faith, and is a point necessary to salvation. Their accusation is a point of history, and of Church Discipline, which is of no necessity to salvation. Such then is the quarrel between us, as if a woman should tax another woman of adultery, and that other woman in revenge should reproach her that she hath a high nose.

Yet let us see with what forms the Church of Rome admitteth her Pastors, and especially what is the Popes succession; For Bishops and Priests are not held such, but in as much as the Pope approves of them: And upon that chair an infinite multitude of miters and hats are hanging.

CHAP. 36. That the Popes have a false title, and without any Word of God, to the succession of St. Peter, in the charge of head of the Universal Church, and that such a charge is not grounded in God's ordinance.

TO begin at the spring, If St. Peter had no successor in his Apostleship or in the charge of Head of the Universal Church, then Popes falsely boast of that succession. Upon that we insist often, but can get no answer. Let our Adversaries say if they can, where, and when God hath appointed successors to St. Peter in his Apostleship, or in his Headship over the Universal Church. For such a succession can have no place, if God hath not instituted it. But about that, there is not one word in God's Word. Thus Aaron had successors in his charge of High Priest, because God had instituted it in his Law. But Moses being Prince, Lawgiver, and Priest, had no successor in those joint qualities, because God had instituted none. John the Baptist had no successor. None succeeded in the Apostleship of St. John, St. Paul and the other Apostles, because Christ did not command it, and spake never a word about that. That succession then in Peters primacy is imaginary and an human invention. We find indeed in Scripture, that the Apostles going from place to place, preaching the Gospel, would create Pastors and Presbyters in every town where they past, and those Pasto • s were successors of the Apostles, in the government of those particular Churches. Neither must we doubt, but that if Peter ever was at Rome, he settled Pastors there, to succeed him in the conduct of the Church of Rome. But of providing a succession for him in the Apostleship, or in the Primacy over the Universal Church, there is a deep silence in Scripture; For since the other Apostles left no successors in their Apostleship, there is no reason why St. Peter should have left any in his. And whereas St. Peter writing his second Epistle to the Universal Church, was near his death, as himself saith, in the 1. chap. and the 14. verse. one might wonder, if any successor should have been expected in his Office of Apostle, why he did not give notice unto the Church, what successor he was to leave in his room, that he might be acknowledged and obeyed after him without contradiction.

And if there had been need of a successor to St. Peter in that primacy, which they say, he had over the Universal Church, no doubt but that dignity did belong to some of the Apostles that outlived him; to St. John especially, that excellent Apostle, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who remained in the world thirty years after Peter? Is it credible, that Linus or Clement were preferred before him? the first a man, whose name hardly remains, And of the other we have but some suppositious Constitutions, and some Epistles ascribed to him, where there are orders about mice dung, and where he commendeth Plato for banishing the words meum & tuum out of his Commonwealth, and for instituting community of goods and of women.

Or if Linus or Clemens were to be preferred before the Apostles, at least, as Matthias was chosen by the common suffrage of the Apostles, they ought to have been called, and so much respect should have been deferred unto them, as to have had their advice for that election.

And whereas in the first age after the Apostles, the Bishop of Rome was elected by the common suffrage of the people of the Church of Rome: is it credible that the people of one City, had the power to give a head to the Church of all the world, without calling the other Provinces, that had the like interest in it, and never yielded their right to the people of the Church of Rome?

Yet suppose that Christ had instituted a successor to St. Peter in that imaginary primacy; doth it follow therefore that this successor must be the Bishop of Rome? and why rather he then James Bishop of Jerusalem, who by Clement himself Bishop of Rome is called Episcopus Episcoporum, the Bishop of Bishops, ruling the Churches of all the world? For this is the inscription of the first Epistle, which he writes unto James, Clement to James Brother of the Lord, Bishop of Bishops, governing the holy Church of the Hebrews, which is in Jerusalem, yea and all the Churches which are founded anywhere by the providence of God.

If one saith, that Peter hath been at Rome, I will say also, that Christ who is greater then Peter, hath been at Jerusalem, and that all the Apostles have lived there many years. If one alledgeth that Peter is dead at Rome, I will say that Christ is dead at Jerusalem, and James the Apostle, and after him, the other James Brother of the Lord: And that there is no reason, why that which ought rather to be a reproach unto Rome, to have put to death such an excellent Apostle, should turn to that Cities honor, and to an occasion of so great a privilege. Had Peter suffered martyrdom in a Village, must that Village therefore be the Seat of the Monarch of the Universal Church?

And since it is believed, that Peter resided seven years in Antioch, Can any show by good proofs, that Peter removing from thence, and going to Rome, removed the Primacy from Antioch, seeing that the person of Peter could not be in one place, and the Seat of his primacy in another? When Peter was in some Town of Pontus or Galatia, was the Seat of the Universal Church in that Town? Chrysostom was not of that opinion; For he speaks of the Church of Antioch in this manner, in the third Homily to the people of Antioch, according to the version of Bernard of Bress, revised and corrected by the Jesuit Fronto Ducaeus, a learned man in the Greek tongue; Consider, (saith he) the greatness of the Town, and that our care at this present, is not of one soul, or two, or three, or ten, but de millibus infinitis, de totius orbis capite, of infinite thousands, of the capital of all the world: It is the City, in which Christians were first so called. And in the seventh Homily upon Matthew, he speaks thus to the people of Antioch; When it is question of disputing of precedency, you raise your ambition so high, as to presume to have the presidency over all the earth, because this Town hath the first given name to Christians. Whence it appears, that the Church of Antioch would at that time prefer herself before the Church of Rome. The same Father in his Sermon upon Ignatius, having said that Peter, to whom the Lord Jesus gave the keys, and to whom he permitted the government of the Church, hath long sojourned in Antioch, he inferreth thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . that our City (meaning Antioch) may be set in the balance against all the world; Which expression in Greek, is as much as if he said, Our City is equal in dignity to any City in the world, and not inferior to any, and by consequent, yields not to the City of Rome. Which he would not have said, had he believed that Peter had taken the Seat of Primacy from Antioch, to transport it to Rome. Basil in the fiftieth Epistle, goes further, saying, that Meletius Patriarch of Antioch, did preside over the whole body of the Church. For Basil Bishop of Cesarea, was under the Patriarch of Antioch, whom he esteeemed not to be inferior to the Roman Bishop, as we shall see hereafter.

So we come to this issue, and here hold fast, that since the Word of God saith not that the Bishop of Rome must be successor of Saint Peter, in the Office of Head of the Universal Church, yea and gives no successor to him in his Apostleship, nor in his primacy over the Universal Church, the Pope hath but a false title to that succession which he brags of, and that it is a mere human invention without the Word of God.

Here I call upon the consciences of all lovers of truth (for here the spring of the error is laid open) to see with what spirit of stumbling God hath smitten the Adversaries. Cardinal Bellarmine in his preface to the Books de Pontifice Romano, speaks thus; What thing is in question when we treat of the Primacy of the Pope? To speak in few words, it is then the question of the sum [or the main substance] of Christianity. For the question is, whether the Church must subsist any longer, or be dissolved and perish? For what is it else but to ask Whether the foundation must be taken away from the building? It is no wonder that he speaks so, since the Roman Church holds the Pope to be the foundation of the Church, and the sovereign and infallible judge of matters of faith, whose authority is above the Scriptures, which receive from him (belike) all the authority they have. So that by this account, the Popes authority being overthrown, down falls the Church, and the authority of Scripture, and the whole Doctrine of salvation vanisheth away.

Since then from the Popes succession in the primacy of Saint Peter, the whole Christian Religion doth depend, reason did require, that this succession should be instituted by God and grounded on his Word. But that Cardinal himself acknowledgeth, that God hath taken no order about it in his word, and that this point is not a matter of divine right, as in effect our Adversaries allege no divine testimony, nor one single word of Scripture to prove that succession. These be the very words of that same Cardinal Jesuit, in his second book de Pontifice, in the twelfth chapter, We must observe (saith he) that although perhaps it is not a point of divine right, that the Roman Pope, as Roman Pope, be a successor of Peter; yet that belongs to the Catholic faith: For to be of the faith, and to be of divine right, are not all one. It is not a thing of divine right, that Paul had a cloak; yet it is a point of faith, that Paul had a cloak. Then he doth ingenuously confess, That it is not found in Scripture, that the Roman Pope is successor of Peter; tacitly acknowledging, that Saint Paul's cloak is far more certain then the Popes succession, since Scripture speaks of that cloak, but of that succession not one word.

Everyone that hath some liberty of Judgment, will easily acknowledge, that by this Doctrine, all Christian Religion is blown up, and that the enemy of our salvation brings us this way strait to Atheism, since they will have the authority of Scripture, and by consequent that of God's Law, and of the Doctrine of salvation contained in the Scripture, to be grounded upon the authority of the Church, and the authority of the Church upon the Popes authority, and the Popes authority upon his succession to Saint Peters primacy; And that this succession is not of divine right, as our Adversaries confess, and is destitute of all testimonies of God's Word. So that to come to the basis of their building, it is found that they ground the certitude of the divine oracles upon an human tradition, and such a tradition as we have shown to be false, and will further show it hereafter.

CHAP. 37. Of the succession of Popes and Cardinals. By what ways the Popedom useth to be obtained. Of Schisms: And that the Popes have no lawful succession.

WHo so shall truly know the succession of the Pope and the Cardinals, and by what means both they and other Prelates enter into their charges, will wonder how persons destitute of all lawful succession, who have corrupted the charge of Pastor of the Church, and have turned it to other uses, having intruded themselves by violence and fraud, and made of their charge a merchandize, can be so urgent to ask us a reason of our calling. It seems that they look for companions of their usurpation, and think themselves less guilty if they can involve us in the same guilt.

Since the Pope claims the succession of Saint Peter, it will be to good purpose to compare them together. Peter going to preach from Town to Town, on foot, without money or provision for his journey, paying tribute unto Caesar, teaching chastity, fidelity and innocence, dispensing not unto the other Apostles the free and entire use of the keys; The Pope not preaching the Gospel, riding upon men's shoulders, wearing a triple Crown sparkling with Diamonds, giving his pantable unto Kings to kiss, making Caesar to pay tribute to him; suffering himself to be called God, and the Divine Majesty, causing himself to be adored; Canonizing Saints; fetching souls out of Purgatory; deposing Kings; giving and taking away Crowns; bestowing pardons of an hundred thousand years; putting Kingdoms and States in Interdict, and exposing them as a prey to the first Conqueror; dispensing men from keeping their vows, and the Oath made unto God, and the obedience sworn to their Sovereign Prince; dissolving marriages; exempting children from the subjection due to their Parents; setting up Brothel-houses, permitting whoredom, and forbidding marriage; robbing other Bishops of part of the use of the Keys, reserving certain cases to himself, from which none but he can absolve; prohibiting the reading of the holy Scripture, and giving instead of the Scripture Images, and a service in an unknown language. Whosoever will make this comparison, will easily acknowledge that the Pope cannot be a successor of St. Peter; but as night suceeeds the day, and sickness health; and that the name and succession of St. Peter is set forth by the Popes slaves, rather to mock the world, then out of any opinion that the Pope is a successor of that Apostle. For is it possible that it should be the same charge, when the Functions are so contrary, seeing that St. Peter hath done nothing at all of all that the Pope doth, and the Pope doth nothing at all of all that St. Peter hath done? It is not then without cause, (and there is some mystery in it) that the Popes renouncing the name of their Baptism when they become Popes, and taking another name, never take the name of Peter, as not convenient for them. Yea if any before he was Pope was named Peter, he leaveth that name as soon as he is Pope to take another. So did Peter de Luna, who having obtained the Popedom of Avignon, took the name of Benedict the XIII. but Gregory the XIII. his Anti-Pope called him Peter, to reproach him, and anger him. Before him Peter Bishop of Pavia, being created Pope in the year 984. would be called John the XIV.

The like comparison can be made between the ancient Bishops of Rome, and the new. For in the first ages of the Christian Church, the Bishops of Rome qualified themselves Bishops of the City of Rome only, and took no notice of the businesses of any Church never so little remote from Rome. They preached the Gospel, and were eminent only in Martyrdom in the eyes of the world, men full of zeal, and in deep poverty, as we will show hereafter.

The Roman Bishops of the latter ages who have led Armies, given battles, fulminated Emperors, filled Christendom with blood, set up a worldly Monarchy, and heaped up wealth beyond the greatest Kings; can they be successors of those good Bishops? Certainly where the nature of the Office is altogether changed, there may be a succession in in the place, but not in the Office of the ancient Bishops of Rome.

In that succession of place, the lower we go, the worser things do we find. Our Adversaries hold that Heresy breaketh the succession in Episcopacy: Now the Chair of the Bishop of Rome was stained with many Heresies, which the very Roman Church doth condemn. Athanasius in his Epistle to the Solitaries, saith, that Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed to Arianism; and Hilary in his Fragments, very often doth anathematize him, because he had subscribed the Confession of the Arians formed at Syrmium. Jerome saith the same in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers.

Viglius Bishop of Rome, hath approved by Letters the Eutychian Heresy. His whole Letters are set down by Liberat Deacon of Carthage, in the 22. chap. of his Breviary, where he openly declareth that he doth not acknowledge two Natures in Christ; for which Baronius taunts him. Hinckmarus saith that Vigilius, from an Apostolical Pope is become an Heretic, and that after many horrible Oaths, when he was detained at Constantinople. Cardinal du Perron calls that Vigilius Simoniacal, Heretic, false Pope, and a favourer of Heretics, whilst his Anti-Pope Sylverius lived; but that he became a true Pope after the death of Sylverius, whom he cruelly put to death in Prison. Thus that Vigilius from a false and heretical Pope, and an Usurper, is become a holy and a lawful one by the murder of the lawful Pope. Being propped with the power of Belisarius who had sold him the Popedom for ready money, he could do what he would with the Roman Clergy. But though the Clergy approved him, yet was he a Symoniacal man, and a murderer of his Predecessor, and he never revoked his Heretical Epistles. Neither did his instalment hinder Reparatus Bishop of Carthage, from gathering a Council of African Bishops in the year 549. where Anathema was pronounced against that Vigilius, as Victor Tunensis relates in his Chronicle.

Honorius the I. Bishop of Rome, is condemned as an Heretic Monothelite by three Universal Councils, the sixth, the seventh, and the eight. And Leo II. Bishop of Rome, successor to that Honorius, doth detest him as one that had defiled the Roman See by his heresy. Innocent the I. hath taught that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to little children to be saved. This Doctrine is condemned with Anathema by the Council of Trent, Sess. XXI.

John XXIII. was condemned and deposed by the Council of Constance, Session XI. for divers crimes, one of the least being that he publicly and notoriously taught and maintained that the soul is mortal, and that there is neither Paradise nor Hell. There was at that time three Popes Excommunicating one another, and a Schism which lasted well nigh 50. years. And by consequent, the Popes that now reign, are Successors to Heretical and Schismatical Popes.

The Antient Canons declare him that hath bought the Episcopacy with money, to be no lawful Bishop. The 29. Canon of the Apostles is such. If any Bishop or Priest, or Deacon is entered into possession of that dignity with money, let him be deposed, both himself, and he that ordained him. And that Canon is repeated in the second Council of Nice in the 5. Canon. The second Canon of the Council of Chalcedon saith, If any Bishop giveth ordination for money, and puts to sale such a grace wich is not saleable, let him be endangered to lose his own degree; and let not him that is so ordained receive any benefit by his ordination or promotion, but let him be expelled from that dignity and charge which he hath obtained with money. See in the Roman Decree in the first question of the first cause many the like Canons, and many places of the Fathers. Against that rule Vigilius obtained the Popedom, having bought it of Belisarius Lieutenant to the Emperor Justinian in Italy, for two hundred marks of Gold, the which nevertheless he refused since to pay, and cosened Belisarius. The time in which the Harlots Marozia and Theodora reigned at Rome, is full of such examples. And yet at this time Kings and Princes give Pensions to Cardinals residing at Rome, and buy their suffrages very dear to have a Pope of their party. The factions made for that are shameful. This reproach Bernard makes to Pope Eugenius in the 4. Book De Consideratione; Canst thou give me any in this great City that hath received thee Pope without reward, and without some hope of gain intervening? See then what their succession is; It is a mere traffick: So that a Simoniacal Pope succeeds another bought Pope. But yet they will have us to presume that such a Pope who sets up the bank in God's Temple, is presently filled with the Holy Ghost, and cannot err in the Faith.

In the year 882. Marin, or Martin, attained to the Papal dignity, of whom Platina saith, that he came to the Popedom by ill ways. There was then one Formosus Bishop of Porto, who by the will of Pope John the IX. had been obliged by Oath never to receive Episcopacy, though it were presented unto him. But that Marin delivered him from that Oath by a dispensation, giving him leave to be forsworn with a good conscience. At that time the Counts of Tusculum had such a power at Rome, that they made Popes such as they listed. Marin being dead, they promoted Adrian the III. to the Popedom, and after him Stephen the VII. to whom Formosus succeeded, who made no difficulty to receive the Popedom against his Oath. This Formosus had but a short reign; he had Boniface the VII. for his successor, whom Steven the VIII. succeeded, who unburyed the body of Formosus, and having arrayed him with his Priestly Robes, put him in full Synod upon the Popes Seat; then having cut his fingers wherewith he gave the blessing, caused him to be dragged and cast into the Tiber, declaring him a perjured man, and an unlawful Pope. That Steven for his tyrannies was taken by the Roman people, and strangled in prison.

To that Steven Romanus succeeded, and to him John the X. both which restored Formosus again to his good name: For this John assembled a Council at Ravenna, where all the Acts of Formosus, were made valid, and his perjury approved. But Sergius that came after, abrogated all that, and again unburyed the body of Formosus with a thousand reproaches. From this Formosus Usurper of the Popedom against his Oath, the following Popes are descended.

It is a particular stain to that age, that in it the Pope began to authorize perjury, and to dispense from Oaths. A power which the Popes have often used since: See the 6. question of the 15. Cause of the Decree, which is full of such examples. Now the Word of God forbids nothing more expressly then perjury; and calls it a profanation of God's Name, praising the man that sweareth to his own hurt, and disappointeth not. Joshua deceived by the Gibeonites, yet preserved their lives rather then violate his faith. King Saul resolveth rather to kill his son, then to go against his Oath; For an oath is that which decideth all differences among men: And whosoever brings in the license of for swearing, breaks all bonds of Society among men. Wherefore the Mohammedans, who are very religious in keeping their Oath, fear to contract with a Christian, because they know that the Pope dispenseth from oaths. This truly is exalting ones self above God: for who so dispenseth a servant from obeying his Master, is greater then that Master. Bellarmine daubeth this with a sly, yet a slight excuse, in the 21. chapter of his Book against Barklay; saying, that the Pope by that dispensation hinders not a man to be faithful to God, but only declareth that God will not have him in this or that matter to keep his Oath: For he will have us to believe, that the Pope knoweth God's intent about it, and that God hath revealed it unto him. A thing which none will believe but such as will be deceived.

But to return to Pope Formosus, Baronius is angry with Pope Steven for condemning the memory of Formosus, and for determining by a Council ruled by his authority, that a Pope come to the Popedom against his Oath, was an unlawful Pope, not regarding that Pope Marinus had dispensed him from his Oath. Baronius then holding that a Pope can dispense from Oaths, and discharge a man from the promise made unto God, holds also that this Steven was in an error, and that he was no lawful Pope. If we granted (saith he) that Steven the VII. hath erred in the Faith, the authority of the holy See should not be hurt by it, because he attained to the Papal dignity by tyranny, not by lawful Election. And yet from that Pope, and from others of that age, who had likewise got up by intrusion, the following Popes are descended; and upon that depends the succession of the Popes of this age.

The same Baronius on the year 897. saith, that the Princes of Tuscany domineering over the people and Clergy of Rome, have intruded by arms and money into St. Peters Chair, which is the Throne of Christ, monstrous men of a most impure life, whom he acknowledgeth not for lawful Popes. Which disorder having continued at Rome above one hundred and fifty years; I do not see where that succession from St. Peter can be found; or how the thread of that succession so many times broken could ever be knit again: For in that ninth and tenth age, well nigh fifty Popes will be found who came to the See either by the power of the Counts of Tuscany, or by the faction and credit of Theodora an infamous harlot, and of her two daughters Marosta and Theodora, who reigned at Rome many years, and made and unmade Popes. Of which disorder Cardinal Bellarmine speaks thus What was then the face of the Roman Church and how ugly, when most powerful and most filthy whores bore the rule at Rome? at whose pleasure Popes were changed, and Bishoprics were given: and that which is the most horrible to hear, and not fit to speak, their ruffians false Popes were thrust into Peters See. Wherefore the same Cardinal acknowledging such Popes to have been unlawful, saith that the history mentioneth those Popes only to mark the years of so long a time: Thereby acknowledging, that for a long time the Roman Church hath been without Popes. And that one may know how great that interval is, and how long that disorder continued in the Church of Rome, hear Genebrard speaking, who was a flatterer of the Popes in the highest degree. So he speaks in the year 901. of his Chronicle. In this thing only this age was unfortunate, that for the space of well nigh a hundred and fifty years, above fifty Popes did altogether degenerate from the virtue of their ancestors, being rather Apotactick or Apostatick then Apostolic. Sigonius makes that space of two hundred years.

In the year 912. John the X. before Archbishop of Ravenna, was chosen Pope. He bestowed the Archbishopick of Reims upon a Child of five years old, as Frodoard relates in the 19. chap. of the 4. Book of his history. Whereby it is evident, that it is not of late years that the calling is corrupted in the Roman Church, and the Office shamefully prostituted. Of this Baronius himself is ashamed, and saith, that is a prodigious thing, unheard of before in the Christian world, and never entered into man's mind, that a child who scarce was learning his letters under the rod, should be elected Archbishop of Reims. Of this Pope John the X. Baronius saith, that his entry into the Popedom was most infamous, and his end most wicked. And on the year 908. §. 7. he saith, that then God had forgotten his Church.

In the year of the Lord 931. John the XI. came to the Popedom. He was a bastard, son to Pope Sergius, by the whore Morozia. Upon which Baronius saith, The holy Church of God, that is the Roman, suffered herself to be shamefully trodden under by such a monster.

After him came many Popes creatures of the forenamed harlots, until John the XII. son to a Roman Consul, who was created Pope by his fathers faction, being but eighteen years old, as Baronius relateth, who detesteth that John as an execrable monster. The Emperor Otho called a Council where he was deposed, and Leo the VIII. set in his room An. 963. That Pope renewed the constitution of Adrian I. whereby it is ordained, that the Pope be thenceforth elected by the Emperor. But as soon as the Emperor was gone out of Italy, Pope John returned to Rome, expelled Leo and degraded him, having called a Council against him. Soon after being taken in adultery, he was so beaten that he died of it. Luitprandus in the 6. Book, chap. 11. and Fasciculus temporum, say, that this John lying with some bodies wife, was so beaten by the Devil in the temples of his head, that he died of it a sevennight after. This Pope for money created children Bishops, drunk the Devils health, playing at dice he called upon Jupiter and Venus, and conferred holy Orders in a stable.

At that time there was two Popes, for the Romans would have none of those which the Emperor had elected, and created others; and those Popes killed one another. One of which called Boniface, put two Antipopes to death, keeping the Popedom by violence; for then the strongest and the craftiest carried it, and there was no other succession. And one Crescentius usurping a tyranny within Rome, would make and unmake Popes, in spite of the Emperor, who in the end took him and put him to death.

At the same time, a Council was held at Reims, Hugh Capet then reigning; In which Council Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans bewaileth thus the state of the Roman Church. O deplorable Rome, which in our ancestors time hast produced Fathers that were bright lights, now thou hast spread monstrous darkness, which shall be infamous in future ages! And after he had represented the enormity of the Popes of his time, he addeth, Is it a thing decreed, that so many of God's Priests over all the world, men eminent in learning and in holy life, must be subject to such monsters of men, full of infamy, and empty of knowledge of divine things? And a little after, What think ye then Reverend Fathers, this Pope to be, who sits in a high throne, glittering with scarlet and gold? If he have no charity, and is puffed up with learning only, He is the Antichrist, sitting in the throne of God. Again, in the same vein; But for the animosity of Kings dissenting, it seems that we ought rather to be judged by them then by that city [of Rome] which being herself venal, weighs judgments by the weight of money. He saith more, that Antichrist is near, and that the mystery of iniquity advanceth itself. To which purpose he alledgeth the Epistle of the VI. Council of Carthage to Celestinus, where the Bishops of Africa warn him not to medle anymore with their businesses, to receive no appeals from Africa, not to send his Legates thither, and not to bring the pride of the world into the Church. Of which Epistle we shall speak afterwards in the right place. It is very observable, that this Arnulphus, for thus dealing with the Pope, fared never the worse, neither did any censure pass upon him, but he kept in his place and in the Kings favor; For at that time France was but half subject unto the Papal See, and the French Kings feared not to be deposed by the Pope.

In the year 984. according to Sigonius, in the beginning of the 7. Book of the Kingdom of Italy, or according to Baronius, in the year 985. Boniface, who would be called John the XV. having killed two Popes, invaded the Popedom by violence and bribery. Baronius calleth him a robber and a thief, who had not so much as a hair of a true Pope.

In the year 998. John the XVIII. (as Platina relates it) having won Crescentius a Roman Consul with money, possessed himself of the Popedom which he had bought.

In the year 999. Gerbert Archbishop of Reims, and since Archbishop of Ravenna, was promoted to the Popedom by the Emperor Otho the III. who had been his scholar, and was surnamed Sylvester the II. Historians with a great consent say, that to obtain the Popedom, he made a paction with the Devil, and made him an absolute gift of his soul, to be carried away by him after his death. Baronius in the year 999. saith this to be a fable, but brings no proof to confute it. Genebrard in his Chronicle in the year 1007. speaks thus of the Popes of that time, The Popes of that time being intruded by the Emperors rather then elected, were monsters: Whereby the lawful succession was interrupted, as sometimes under the Synagogue in the time of the Antiochi.

In the year of our Lord 1033. Benedictus the IX. son to Albertus Count of Tusculum, being but ten years old, was created Pope by the authority and faction of his father, as it is acknowledged by Coeffeteau Bishop of Dardanie. Cardinal Benno saith, that he was addicted to Magical arts. Such was the succession of St. Peter: Children and Magicians were admitted to it. Cardinal Peter Damianus saith, that after his death he appeared to a man in the shape of an asse, and said, that he was so transformed because he had lived like a beast. Platina saith the same, & Fasciculus temporum. And Coeffeteau in the fore-alleged place saith, that Benedictus the IX. was infamous for all sorts of crimes, which give probability to that vision that Damianus and others relate of him.

That Benedictus being expelled by the Romans Sylvester the III. was put in his place, being but ten or twelve years old, and that by faction and bribery, as Platina saith. Such was the succession in those days; but after nine and forty days Benedictus was restored by his faction. Whereupon Platina addeth, Popedom was then come to this, that he that prevailed, not in holiness of life and learning, but in gifts and ambition, attained to that great dignity, good men being oppressed and rejected; and would to God that our time had not retained that custom. Likewise Baronius, An. 1024. of his Annals, speaking of John the XX. brother to Benedictus the IX. saith, that he invaded the See unworthily and tyrannically, and climbed to it by wicked ways. And yet this is the same Pope who put Romualdus in the list of the Saints, and St. Martial in the number of the Apostles, as if a devil should carry a soul into Paradise. Where the great absurdity is, that this St. Martial is an imaginary Saint, who was put in heaven, and never was in earth; For he of whom Gregorius Turonensis speaks in his first Book, chap. 30. is above an hundred years posterior to that false Martial, whom they say to have been cosen to St. Peter, and to have been sent by him to preach in Gauls. Of such Popes then the Popes of our time are successors.

Never was the like confusion. That Benedictus the IX. being made Pope, not long after sold the See to John Arch-priest of Rome; And after he had received the money, expelled the same John: So there were three Popes together, the one of which put the two others out by devilish ways. And all three in the end yielded the See to Gregory the VI. for a great sum of money. But the Emperor Henry the II. turned them all out in the year 1044. and made Syndeger Bishop of Bamberg Pope, who called himself Clement the II. Of those Popes Platina speaks thus: Henry the II. coming into Italy with a great army, called a Synod, and constrained Benedict the IX. Sylvester the III. and Gregory the VI. three horrible monsters, to leave the Magistracy. In that time it was hard to find any in the Monasteries that could read. And Coeffetenu upon this place saith, that in that time the chair of St. Peter was a shop of Simon Magus. From those merchants the Popes of these times are descended. At the same time in the year 1045. the Kingdom of Poland was made subject to the Roman See, and obliged to pay to the Pope an obol by the pole. England also about that time, was brought under the same yoke, and that tribute by the pole was called Peter 's penny.

Sigonius in the 8. Book of the Kingdom of Italy saith, that Henry the II. created a German Pope, to heal the Church of Rome, that had been sick 200. years. And the sickness which he means, is that which we have represented before, that the Papal See was exposed as a prey, and a price for violence, covetousness and ambition. That the Popedom was for a long time conferred by harlots that reigned at Rome, or by secular men, whose faction was prevalent at Rome, who made their children Popes by strong hand at nine or ten years of age. That the Popedom was put to sale and possessed by Necromancers, adulterers, and murderers. That ordinarily there was many Popes together that expelled one another. And that the most wicked and strongest in faction, or he that gave most would carry it. So that among all those wild doings a lawful succession is no more to be found then fire in ice.

The Emperor thinking to have mended all disorders, came short of his hope; for Clement the II. whom he had made Pope, was persently after poisoned. Platina saith, the Historians affirm that he was poisoned by his successor Damasus the II. For (saith the same Platina) that custom had got strength, that to every ambitious man it was permitted to invade St. Peters See. But that Damasus was used as he had used his predecessor, and he died three and twenty days after his creation.

Leo the IX. succeeded him, who playing the Captain, led an army against the Normans, who routed him in battle, and took him prisoner.

In the year 1057. Victor the II. successor to Leo, died with poison, which was given him in the chalice of the Mass. His Subdeacon did him that good Office, who thereby gave work to the Doctors that maintain transubstantiation. For they ask whether the blood of Christ can be poisoned? Whether accidents, that is, lines, shape, whitness, redness, can be poisoned? For if that be, accidents must become the subject of a substance. In that Victor 's time began the custom of changing bodily penances, as fasting and pilgrimage, into pecuniary pains. Peter Damianus Bishop of Ostia and Cardinal, speaks thus of it, Thou knowest, that when we receive from the penitent grounds and fields, we bate of the penance according to the proportion of that they give. And Baronius freely acknowledgeth with Damianus, that thereby the stock of the Church was raised.

In the year 1061. two Popes were elected, the one by the Romans, who was called Alexander the II. the other by the Emperor Henry the IV. who called himself Honorius the II. Between whom there was hard scuffing and much bloodshed; Honorius had the worst of it, and was in the end constrained to quit the place.

In the year 1084. the Emperor Henry the IV. having caused Gregory the VII. to be deposed by a Synod, made Clement the III. Pope. Gregory expelled from Rome, died soon after out of grief at Salernum. But after his death, the Countess Mathild or Maud, who called herself St. Peters daughter, helped by the Normans, set on Desiderius Abbot of Mount Cassin to take the Popedom; And he born up by the Normans, set upon Clement, and after great slaughter drove him out of Rome, and making himself Pope, called himself Victor the III. Platina following Martinus Polonus, saith, that he was poisoned in the chalice of the Mass. Urban the II. succeeded; who presently fulminated Clement the AntiPope with excommunications; but he was maintained by the Emperors power, and kept his See at Placentia, thundering likewise against Urban, who for his safety left Rome, and retiring into France, assembled a Council at Clermont in Auvergne against Clement, and Clement another at Rome against Urban. This is that Urban who by an express Decree for bad keeping faith to an excommunicate person.

Urban being dead, Paschal the II. succeeded, Clement the III. the Antipope still living, and the Roman Church having two heads. This Paschal put Clement out of Rome by force of arms, and caused the Emperors son to rebel against his father. That great Emperor loaden with so many victories, was in his old age put down from the Empire by his son Henry, at the Popes instigation, who would not so much as give the son leave to bury his father. This was the ruin of Clement the III. so that Paschal remained victorious. But by the just Judgemennt of God it came to pass, that this same Henry whom Paschal had set on against his father, was angry with Paschal, and took him prisoner.

Paschal being dead, the Romans created a Pope who called himself Gelasius the II. But the Emperor caused another to be chosen, who was called Gregory the VIII. Gelasius beind dead shortly after, at Vienna in Daulphine, Calixtus the II. succeeded, who having found the way to lay hold on Gregory the VIII. clad him with raw and bloody goat-skins with the flesh-side outwards, made him ride about upon a Camel with his face towards the tail, and giving him the title of Antichrist, condemned him to perpetual prison. Thus strength prevailed; for one must always presume (if we believe our Adversaries) that the strongest Pope was the lawful. This is that Calixtus that sent John de Crema Legat into England, to take the Priests wives from them. But that Legat was found in a baudy-house at London, lying with a harlot, whereby his legation was made odious.

In the year 1130. which was the time of Bernard, part of the Cardinals elected Innocent II. But a contrary faction elected Anacletus the II. These two Popes were excommunicating one another, and continually calling one another Antichrists, and assembling contrary Councils. Of these two Popes Bernard gives this verdict in the hundred twenty fifth Epistle. This Apocalyptical Beast to whom a mouth was given speaking blasphemy, and that makes war with the Saints, holds St. Peters chair like a Lion prepared for the prey; and the other Beast silently bloweth near you, like the cub of a wild beast lurking in a close place, These Popes were fulminating one against the other and fighting cruelly.

Anaclet having held the See eight years, and put Innocent out of Rome, died: His death put life into the courage of Innocent, who soon after installed himself at Rome. That Innocent was the true Pope, there is no proof, but that he overcame, and had the better success.

The like happened in the year 1160. For Pope Adrian the fourth being dead, the Cardinals were divided into two factions: The one chose Octavian, who would be called Victor the IV. The other chose Rolland; who took the name of Alexander the III. Victor having made himself Master of Rome, put Alexander out: Whence followed many reciprocal excommunications, whereby they sent one another, and all their adherents into hell; so that there was not one in the whole Roman Church, but was excommunicated. Victor was confirmed by a Council held at Pavia: But Alexander fled into France, where he assembled a Council against Victor, and against the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Shortly after Victor died, whom Paschal the III. succeeded, and Calixtus succeeded Paschal: But Alexander held out, and by his practices got himself, called by the people of Rome: Being in Italy, he created many enemies unto Frederick, and made the Towns of Lombardy to revolt from him: Whereby the Emperor was constrained to be a Sutor to Alexander for peace, whom he came to meet at Venicei.

This Pope received the Emperor upon the stairs of the Church of Saint Mark at Venice. Whereas the Emperor was stooping to kiss the pantable of Alexander, the Pope trod upon his neck with his foot, saying, Thou shalt tread upon the asp • and adder, the Lion and the Dragon shalt thou trample under feet: That History is related by Nauclerus, Sabellicus, Papirius, Masso, Petrus Justinianus, and many more. And the Jesuit Azorius puts this heroical act among the triumphs of the Church. The ill success of the businesses of Frederick, made this Alexander to be held a successor of Saint Peter. If the Emperor had prospered, Calixtus would have been the lawful Pope, and Alexander an usurper. For our Adversaries to maintain the succession of the Popes, presuppose always that the stronger of the Antipopes was the lawful Pope, although he was the most vicious, and although he had crept into the Popedom by fraud and corruption, and kept it by violence.

Observe that the Antipopes had created many Bishops, and those Bishops many Priests, and that he that remained victorious would degrade all those Bishops and Priests, as unlawfully created by an usurper. Whence it happened, that the Sacraments and absolutions conferred by those Bishops and Priests were void, by which means many died without Baptism, and without Sacraments, and without Remission of sins.

In the year 1191. Celestin the III. came to the Popedom, being fourscore years old. The Emperor Henry the VI. came to him to receive the Imperial crown from his hands. And as he bowed to kiss the Popes feet, Celestin with his foot smote Henries crown, and made it fall, to show that he had the power to take it from him, when he listed: Baronius approveth that action.

In the year 1269. died Pope Clement the IV. after whom, the Roman Church was two years and nine months without a Pope. So that the • thread of that imaginary succession was long interrupted. The like vacancy of the Papal See, was after the Death of Nicolas the IV. which lasted two years and three months, because the Cardinals could not agree about the election of any. In the end, as by contempt they elected a poor silly Hermit, who would be called Celestin the V. that Pope would ride upon an Ass, after the example of Jesus Christ, and would bring all the Cardinals to do the like. One Cardinal Benedict plaid upon his simplicity to make himself Pope; for he would make admonitions to him, saying, that he must leave the Popedom, if he would be saved; and that it was too great a burden for him, to have so many souls to answer for unto God. Then he suborned a groom of Celestins chamber, who In the night spake in his ear out of an hole, Celestine, Leave the Popedom, if thou wilt be saved; saying, that he was an Angel of God sent to him: The good man frighted with this, resigned the Papal Dignity, which was transferred to that Cardinal Benedict, in the year 1294. This was that famous Boniface the VIII. Wherefore when some years after this Boniface was apprehended by Sarra Colona and Nogaret, sent by Philip the Fair King of France, and carried prisoner to Rome, for excommunicating the said King, and bestowing France upon the Emperor Albert, if he would get it, upon which disgrace Boniface died with anger and grief, the world said of him, that he entered into the Papal dignity like a Fox, reigned like a Lion, and died like a Dog. I leave it to the Readers Judgment, whether the succession of this Boniface into Celestins place, was lawful and valid.

The succession of John XXII. was not lawfuller: For Clement the V. who had transported the Papal See to Avignon, being dead, the Cardinals were two years, three months and an half about the election of a Pope; and found no other way to end their difference, then to defer unto James d' Ossa Bishop of Porto, the power of naming a Pope: But he deceived them all, and named himself. This is that Pope that taught, that the souls shall not enjoy the vision of God before the resurrection, as Ockam witnesseth in his work of ninety three days, Gerson in his Sermon of the Passover, Erasmus in his Preface upon the fifth book of Irenaeus, Genebrardus in his Chronicle upon the year of the world. 5422. Wherefore also that Pope was censured by the Sorbon. Thus the following Popes are successors of an heretical Pope: Now our Adversaries hold, that heresy breaks the thread of succession, as we have shown in this chapter.

The most horrible Schism that ever was in the Papacy, was that which begun in the year 1377. between Clement the VI. a French man, and Urban the V. an Italian. For that Schism continued almost fifty years with unheard of cruelties and violences, which tore Italy, France, and Germany in a strange manner. Urban was residing at Rome, after whom came successively Boniface the IX. Innocent VII. Gregory XII. But to Clement residing at Avignon, succeeded Peter de la Luna, called Benedict the XIII.

Gregory was elected Pope at Rome upon the oath which he took, that he would resign the Popedom whensoever he should be required, for the peace of the Church. The same his Antipope, Benedict the XIII. did promise: But both broke their oath; for whereas they dispensed others from keeping their oaths and vows, they could easily give dispensation to themselves. Who so will know the confusions, rapines, perjuries, treacheries, and devilish tricks of these two Antipopes, let him read Theodoricus a Niem, Secretary to the four Italian Popes abovenamed; who hath writ a book purposely of that matter.

To make up that rent, the Cardinals being assembled, held a Council at Pisa, in the year 1411. in which, Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII. were declared Heretics, Schismatics, and false Popes; Whence it follows, that the Popes come since, are successors of heretics. And since these Antipopes, as well the one, as the other, were false and unlawful Popes; it follows, that the Roman Church hath been many years without a Pope, like a body without a head; and that the Popes come since, are successors of false and imaginary Popes.

Here is worse: For the same Council elected a Pope named Alexander the V. But Gregory the XII. and Benedict XIII. kept themselves in the Popedom by force and arms, so that instead of two Popes, there was three, each of which called himself successor of Saint Peter. France, and Spain, and Scotland acknowledged Benedict, and obeyed him. But now, even in France, the Doctors hold that both he and his Predecessor Clement the VI. were usurpers and unlawful, and the same they say of Gregory the XII. sitting at Rome.

That Alexander the V. created by the Council, lasted but little. Balthasar Cossa who is John XXIII. succeeded him, having bought with money the suffrages of the Cardinals. Three Popes then were reigning together, John XXIII. Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII. who were exchanging excommunications among themselves, breaking and disannulling all sentences, bulls, judgments and ordinations, each of the two others; So that over all the Roman Church, there was neither Priest, nor Bishop unquestionably such, and of whom it was not doubted, whether they had a lawful power to make the consecration in the Mass; Which being not made, they hold that the people worship bread, and fall into idolatry.

That John, the most abominable of all, as teaching openly that there was neither Paradise nor Hell, assembled a Council. Nicolas de Clemangis, Archdeacon of Bayeux, who lived among all that confusion, saith, that over that Pope in the midst of the Council, a great Owl sat shreeking hideously, and that for many Sessions. The common saying was, that the Holy Ghost descended upon his Holiness in the shape of that Dove.

In the end, the Emperor Sigismond with much ado prevailed so far, that a Council was called at Constance in the year 1416. where Pope Gregory the XII. being fourscore years old, resigned the Popedom, sending to that purpose his Papal Cloak or Pall to the Council, to show that he devested himself. Benedict would not appear, nor resign, but fled into the I will of Paniscola, near the coasts of Spain, where he kept many years the title of Pope until death. John the XXIII. came to the Council: But seeing that they went about to proceed against him, he ran away: But he was overtaken, and brought back, and committed prisoner. Against him fifty four accusations were brought; Of which this was one notoriously known, That he had publicly taught, and maintained, that the souls of men died like those of beasts, and that there was neither Paradise nor Hell. For which crimes, and for getting the Popedom by bribery, he was deposed; As also Gregory the XII. and Benedict the XIII.

The Popes which came since, are not well resolved from which of these Popes they must fetch their succession; For they were all declared Heretics and false Popes by the Councils of Pisa and Constance; And it is not yet known in our days, which of them was Pope in the Roman Church. Yet the succession of the following Popes showeth, that John XXIII. that honest man, successor to Alexander the V. was held to be the lawful Pope in after ages, since the next that took the name of Alexander since Alexander the V. called himself Alexander the VI. Behold then the line of the chair. Behold that continued thread of Apostolical succession, which is so much boasted of. Here is that chair in which Devils are playing at in and out. With what face now can these Gentlemen question us about our succession?

In that Council of Constance, the three abovenamed Popes being deposed, Martin the V. was elected; whom the Emperor Sigismond worshipped, and kissed his feet in full Council. That Martin sent Ambassadors to Constantinople, to whom he gave instructions, which begin thus; The most holy and most beat, who hath the heavenly Empire, who is Lord on earth, the successor of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the Master of the Universe, the Father of Kings, the light of the world, the Sovereign Pope Martin by the divine providence, commandeth Mr. Antony Mason, &c. Such doubtless were the titles which Saint Peter assumed in his instructions to his Ambassadors whom he sent to the King of the Parthians, or to the Emperor Nero!

The example that followeth, is no better proof of a goodly succession. This Martin died in the year 1431. whom Eugenius the IV. succeeded, who was deposed by the Council of Basil, assembled by himself to reform the Church. In the place of Eugenius, the Council chose Amadeus Duke of Savoy, who called himself Felix. But Eugenius brought against Basil the Daulphn of France, who was since Lewis the eleventh, who in all things opposed his Father Charles the VII. and his confederates. He brought four thousand horse against Basil, to break the Council; which yet he could not have effected, had not the pestilence within Basil, forced the Fathers of the Council to separate themselves after they had condemned Eugenius as an Heretic, and unworthy to govern the Church.

But Eugenius took arms, and being held up by Princes, maintained himself against the Antipope Felix, who after he had been five years Pope, retired to Ripaille, a pleasant house in Savoy, there to lead a private life. So the Popedom remained in the hands of a man deposed by a Council, assembled by the Pope himself, where Bishops met out of all parts of the Roman Church. Note that after his deposition, he created many Cardinals and Bishops, whose office was null and illegitimate, since they were created by an usurper, who had by force maintained himself in the office of Pope after his deposition. And yet those very Cardinals created by Eugenius an usurper of the Popedom, are those very men that elected the successors of Eugenius, Nicolas, and Pius the second, from whom is descended the succession of the Popes of our time.

Peruse all histories ever since there was any Empire in the world, and see if ever there was any Monarchy that bore more marks of the wrath of God on the forehead, or any throne stained with more vices, or troubled with more confusions. It is not then without reason, that two of the less evil Popes, Adrian the IV. and Marcel the II. would say with grief, that they thought that a Pope could not be saved, as Onuphrius an Augustinian Monk relateth. Which is a notable confession, and extorted by the sense of the truth.

I pass by the busy mysteries of the Conclave, when they are about the election of a Pope; How the windows of the Conclave are walled up, and all doors but one, so that no day-light gets in. How meat is thrust in for the Cardinals by an hole, their bread cut into small bits, for fear of some letter hidden; their drink in clear glass bottles: How they eat everyone by himself, and are forbidden to present anything of their meat to one another. How there are commonly three factions, the one of France, another of Spain, and the third of the Princes of Italy. There is no Cardinal but sels his suffrage very dear, and gets pensions out of France or Spain, whose factions are always contrary: That of Italy joining with this or that, carrieth it by the plurality. There are employed all the arts possible to cross and traverse the suffrages one of another. In a word, all things there are done, as the question being not to choose a Pastor for the Church, but a Prince whose inclinations further or hinder the affairs of other Princes, and are a casting weight in the balance. He that hath the two thirds of the suffrages, is chosen Pope, who is presently devested of his clothes, and invested with Pontifical robes, and crowned with the tripple crown; he is carried up, and laid upon the Altar, which is God's place, and then everyone of the Cardinals doth him the homage of adoration. In that election none enquires, whether he that is in election, be fit to teach, nor whether his Doctrine be pure, or his life holy? So much is presupposed without difficulty.

To all these, add the eleventh Canon of the VII. Session of the Council of Trent. If any say, that in the Ministers, when they do, and confer the Sacraments, the intention is not requisite to do at least that which the Church doth, Let him be Anathema. By that rule, if a Bishop who is come to confer the sacred Orders, hath no intention to confer them, or to confer any true Priesthood, or to consecrate a true Bishop (for it is that which the Church that the Council speaks of, pretends to do) the order conferred is null, and the Sacrament of the Orders is null. The like of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is null, if he that baptizeth, hath no intention to confer a true Baptism. That intention is presumed by conjecture; for none can have a certain knowledge of the thought and intention of a man but God alone. Now who knows not that there are many Atheists, and many profane persons that laugh in their heart at that they do? It may then happen, that a Pope was baptized by one that had no intention to baptize him really; and it is impossible for a Pope to be certain of the intention of him that baptized him. And if for want of intention, the Baptism which he received, is null, it followeth, that he is incapable to receive the sacred Orders, through which he must of necessity pass, before he can exercise the Office of Pope.

No more can the Pope be assured of the intention of him that conferred Orders upon him. Whence it follows, that the Pope knows not whether the Orders which he hath received, be valid or invalid: He is a conjectural Pope, who knows not whether he be Pope, or whether he be so much as baptized.

Yea it is possible, that he that conferred orders unto the Pope, received them from another that had no intention to confer them. And that other from another again that had not that intention, or was baptized by another, that had no intention to baptize him. So that by remounting upwards, the uncertainty is still doubled; and multiplied, even to infinity.

CHAP. 38. Of the ways whereby Cardinals and other Prelates come to their Charges.

AS defluxions will flow from the head upon the body, so the corruption and Simony which hath infected the Papal See is fallen from the Popes to the whole body of the Clergy. Everyone knoweth what traffick is made of Benefices; how Bishoprics and Abbeys are swapt, giving money to boot, to make even bargains; and what solicitations are made in the Courts of Kings, and in that of Rome, to come by them. We have seen already in the precedent chapter, how John the X. gave the Archbishopric of Reims to a child of five years of age, which Baronius condemneth, although he knew that it is an ordinary thing in these days. Younger Brothers of great houses have Benefices and Bishoprics bestowed upon them in their Cradle. Hardly are they come out of the womb when they enter into the Episcopal Dignity.

I have known Bishops that could not read their Mass. An unlettered Prince is possessed of an Archbishopric, in which he placeth a Coadjutor, who contents himself with the third or fourth part of the revenue; the rest is for the Prince that hath obtained the gift of the same.

The famous Thuanus, in the sixth Book of his history, in the year 1550. relates an action of Jules the III. when he was newly made Pope, which is worthy of memory. The custom (saith he) being that the new Pope giveth his Cardinals Hat to whom he pleaseth, he bestowed his upon a youth called Innocent; who because his Office in the house was to keep an Ape, retained the name of Ape after he had attained his Cardinals dignity; and to him the Pope gave also his on surname and coat of arms. Whereupon when the Cardinals expostulated with him for raising an unworthy person to such a high Dignity, he answered them pleasantly enough, And you, what perfection did ye find in me to make me Head of the Christian Common-wealth? With that answer he stopped their mouth.

Everyone knoweth that the Embassy of M. du Perron to Clement the VIII. to desire him to receive King Henry the IV. into the bosom of the Church, served in part to promote him to the Cardinalship. That recompense he had for prostituting the dignity of the King his Master, having cast himself at the Popes feet, and received by the Penitencer, blows with a wand both upon the back and the belly; as representing the Kings person, upon whom the Pope inflicted penance, admitting his Majesty to receive it by proxie. But the chief, yea the only cause that moved the Pope to receive the King, was that the party of the League was going to wrack in France, and that the Towns returned to the Kings obedience. Nevertheless all past as if Clement had been moved by divine Inspiration to receive the King. But unto M. du Perron to recompense him for blemishing the dignity of the King his Master with such a base submission, the Pope gave some bags full of Medals, little Crosses, and blessed Beads, to scatter them among the people, to which Beads and Crosses he gave that virtue, that whosoever should kiss them, and say certain Prayers, should get an hundred years of pardon. Which liberality brought to the King and to the Kingdom of France a great measure of Consolation. I remember that myself at Fontainbleaú did upbraid M. du Perron with this, in the presence of the late Kings sister, he being then Bishop of Eureux. His answer was, that the Pope did like Jesus Christ, who sent those he healed to the Pool of Siloam, although he could have healed them without that.

If I would stir this sink further, I could bring forth persons who have got the Cardinals Hat for a recompense of unchaste and dishonest services done to great men. The very form used to get that dignity, which is to employ the favor of Kings to obtain it for persons incapable, is an accusation. That Hat the Pope sends packed up. Such Hats doubtless were sent by Saint Peter to those that he would advance to honor!

At Rome in the Church of Saint Agnes, some white Lambs are kept, with whose wool white cloth is made, and with that cloth little white cloaks, which are laid over St. Peters Tomb. None can exercise an Archbishops function, but he must first buy one of these cloaks, and there is such a cloak for which forty or fifty thousand Ducats must be paid. By that gate they enter into the Archiespiscopal Dignity: Behold the Vocation, behold the Succession that is so much cried up. Note, that if an Archbishop die one day after he hath paid for that Cloak, his Successor must buy another; so that mortality among Prelates is exceedingly lucrative to his Holiness.

This also is to be observed of the charge of Cardinals, that as soon as a Bishop is made Cardinal, he is presently discharged of the care of that Church which was committed to him: For he ceaseth to be Pastor of a flock, and becomes a Prince of the Papal Hierarchy, and capable to receive Benefices of all sorts. After that, with what conscience can these Gentlemen open their mouths to speak of their Vocation?

What shall I say of the titular and imaginary Bishops? to whom a Church is assigned, which is not in being, and a Flock forged in the air. The Pope will create a Bishop of Dardania, or Damascus, or Alepo, where there are no Christians. As if the Ministers of Amsterdam, or Sedan, would create a Minister of Fez, or Cairo, or Maroco. But these Bishops take a long term, to think whether they ought to visit their Churches; and they have need of time to learn to speak Arabic or Turk; then it is not good to venture overmuch. Wherefore they make no haste to go. In the interim that title gets them a place, and the privilege to enjoy some Benifices, while they look for a better Bishopric. Thus a Cardinal living in France, is Priest of a Parish in Rome, which Parish he hath never seen, and makes no account ever to see it.

CHAP. 39. Of the perpetual Duration, which M. du Perron calleth Indefectibility.

PErpetual duration is also put among the marks of the true Church. Which mark being admitted, serveth for a proof that the Roman Church is not the true Church, since her Doctrine is new, and was not in the Apostles time.

Between Duration and Antiquity there is this difference, that antiquity regards only the time past, but duration regards also the time to come. Which is enough to prove, that although the true Church must always endure, yet that duration is not a mark to know her by: For the marks of a thing are things actual and present. But perpetual duration is not yet, but is expected and hoped for: For that which is not yet, cannot be an evidence of a thing that is. Our hopes and desires cannot be marks of the true Church: For to that hope one may oppose a contrary hope, and say that the Roman Church is not the true Church, because we hope that she shall not last always, but shall be cut off, of which she is threatened by St. Paul, Rom. 11.22.

Since then one cannot certainly pronounce of any particular Church, and by consequent not of the Roman, that she shall endure unto the end, because no particular Church hath any promise of God of a perpetual duration, and that one shall never be able to affirm with certainty, that the Roman or the Greek Church are of perpetual duration, but when the world is at an end; therefore that dispute about the perpetual duration must be put off till the day of judgment.

As for that duration which is already past, it cannot be a proper mark of the true Church, since it is common also unto Paganism and Judaism; which have been in the world before Christianity. The Greek and Syrian Churches continue still, and have begun before the Roman. And the Roman Church which is now questioning the Churches which she hath endeavored to extermine about their duration, could not yet give an account of hers, nor show that she hath been in the Apostles time, nor in five hundred years after Christ produce one man that professed a Religion in any wise near that which she now professeth.

That I may not stand long upon an unnecessary thing, we are agreed that the Church must last always, and that there will be always some faithful Christians in the world. But that which is properly attributed to the Church, is not always a mark to know the Church by. And it followeth not that a thing, which lasteth always, must always be visible to everyone. But the marks of the Church must be sensible and perceived by everyone.

CHAP. 40. Of the multitude and great number; and that the multitude is not a mark of the true Church.

AMong the marks of the true Church, our Adversaries, who boast of their number, put multitude. As good as saying, that to find the Church where we may be saved, we must get a Cord to measure the Country, or have Counters to number the persons. This is very strange, that the true Church should be discerned by that mark wherein Pagans go beyond Christians; and that this should be given for a mark of the true Church, which by the judgment of Scripture is rather a mark of Error. Before the flood, the family of Noah was very small in comparison of all mankind. What was the family of Abraham compared to the rest of the world? or the people of Israel in comparison of the Empires of Babylon and Persia? And of that very people of Israel ten Tribes revolted. And in the two that remained, many times the Idolaters and profane were the greatest number. Against one Prophet of God, Micaiah, four hundred false Prophets rise, 1 King. 22.6. And after the death of the Lord, the Church consisted in very few Disciples. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil, saith our God, Exod. 23.2. In the 10. of Luke, the Lord Jesus calls his Church a little flock. And Matth. 7, he commands us to take the narrow way which leadeth unto life, and saith, that few there be that find it; and that the broad way leads unto perdition. And Rev. 13. the Spirit of God foretells a time, when all the earth shall run after the Beast. Likewise Luk. 18.8. the Son of God speaking of the time next before his coming, saith, When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the Earth? Where shall at that time that visible multitude be, and that Church eminent in number and splendor? And when wings are given to the Church to fly and hide herself in the desert for a time, Rev. 12. it is not like that then she was or shall be great in number; for a great multitude cannot be hid.

There was always more Pagans then Christians, and many times heretics have past the Orthodox in number. A time when Arians were the greater number, as Vincentius Lirinensis saith, The venom of the Arians had defiled not a small portion, but well nigh all the world; so that almost all the Latin Bishops were deceived, partly by force, partly by fraud; a deep darkness had overspred the spirits. Among those Latin Bishops were the Bishops of Rome, Liberius and Felix; the one of which by fear, the other in earnest, had embraced Arianism. And Jerome in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith, All the world groaned and wondered to see itself turned Arian. And upon the 133. Psal. The Church consisteth not in the walls, but in the truth of the doctrine. There the Church is where the true faith is; for it is but fifteen or twenty years since heretics possessed all the walls of these Churches; but there the true Church was where the true faith was. The Author of the life of Gregory Nazianzen speaks thus, The heresy of Arius did hold well nigh the whole breadth of the world, being backed with the help of an ungodly Emperor.

Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration against the Arians, and concerning himself, Where are they that upbraid us with our poverty? That define the Church by her multitude, and despise the little flock? As they have the people, so we have the faith. They have the gold and the silver, we the faith and the doctrine. Himself in the verses of his life, It is a small people, but of great price before God, who numbereth not the multitude, but the hearts. And in the 32. Oration pronounced before a hundred and fifty Bishops, he speaks thus to the Adversaries who boasted of their great number; God delighted not in the greatest number. Thou countest the thousands, but God those that are saved. Thou countest the infinite dust, but I the vessels of election.

The second Tome of Athanasius, hath an express treatise against those who judge of the truth by the multitude, How miserable (saith he) are those that attribute the strength of reason unto the only multitude! He that finding himself unable to resolve a question propounded, and wanting proofs, hath recourse unto the multitude, confesseth himself overcome, as having no provision to maintain the truth. Why dost thou boast of multitude, as if thou didst threaten God to build another tower of Babel, &c. That text is very long and very express. In the end he concludes, Dost thou strengthen untruth with the multitude? Thou showest thereby that the evil is so much the greater. In the 16. chap. of the 2. Book of the history of Theodoret, the Emperor Constantine who was an Arian, upbraideth Liberius, that he was alone of the party of Athanasius: to which Liberius answereth, Although I be alone, the word of faith is not thereby weakened. In old time three persons only were found that resisted the ordinance; he durst not add, of Nebucadnetsar, for fear of offending the Emperor. Pope Nicolas the I. in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael, The small number doth no harm where piety aboundeth. The great number availeth nothing where impiety reigneth; yea the more the congregation of the wicked is numerous, the more is she powerful to compass her evil designs, &c. Glory not in the multitude; for it is not the multitude, but the cause that makes one condemned or justified.

Austin is the only Father, to whom it happened to go about sometimes to discern the true Church by the multitude; for disputing with the Donatists, whose Church was small, compared to the Orthodox Church, he maintains in several places, that the true Church is always eminent and in greater number then the society of Heretics. Which text M. du Perron sets forth with a great show, and alledgeth them upon all occasions. But Austin