The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 41. Examination of the proofs which M. du Perron brings to prove that the true Church had always the greatest number.

THe Cardinal in the 88. chap. of his first Book against the King, brings many texts of Scripture which promise unto the Church a great confluence of nations. As that which is said to Abraham; Gen. 22. In thy seed shall all nations be blessed; and thy seed shall be like the stars of Heaven, and like the sand of the sea. And in the 2. chap. of Haggai, v. 9. The glory of this latter house shall be greater then of the former. And Cant. 8.8. We have a little sister and she hath no breasts, And Isa. 54.1. Sing O barren, for more are the children of the desolate then the children of the married wife.

These texts are Prophesies of the vocation of the Gentiles, by the preaching of the Gospel, and were fulfilled in the time of the Apostles and of their Disciples, and in the ages in which the Gospel was much propagated, and the Church much increased; whose multitude hath much exceeded that of the Church of Israel, which was enclosed in one only nation; but the Christian Church receiveth all nations; and must, not all at one time, but successively, be carried over all the world. So is understood the text of Psal. 2. I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and for thy possession the uttermost parts of the earth. And this of Psal. 72. He shall have Dominion from Sea to Sea. And that of Acts 1. And you shall be witnesses unto me unto the utmost parts of the earth. Which texts are abused, if one will prove by them that the Church must always extend over all the world, or fill the whole earth all at one time. That never was and never shall be, but she must go successively over all the world, and pass from one people to another. Which succession may as well be done, the Church being small as great; as one may carry through the house as well a little candle as a great one. St. Paul doth plainly intimate this, Rom. 10.18. where he applieth to the preaching of the Apostles, that which is said of the Sun and Stars, Psal. 19. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world; for the Sun and Stars give not their light to the earth all at once, but successively, to one part after the other.

With the like abuse these texts are employed to prove that at all times the true Church must be the most populous; for there is not one of all these texts that speak of a perpetual multitude and eminence. They are Prophecies that peculiarly regard the calling of the Gentiles in the time of the Apostles and their Disciples, in which there was a very great confluence of people converted to the faith. This clearly appeareth in the text of Isa. 2. where God promiseth, that many people shall go and say, Come ye and let us go to the mountain of the Lord; for presently after that promise Isaiah addeth, For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem; where it is evident, that he speaks of a time when the Word of God was to be carried among the nations from Jerusalem and Judea; which happened not but in the Apostles time.

CHAP. 42. Of Miracles.

MIracles are no fitter marks for the true Church, and that for four reasons. 1. Because false Churches make miracles also, and miracles are found among Pagans and Infidels. 2. Because miracles are neither necessary nor perpetual in the Church. 3. Because they may be false, and give fair play for Satan's impostures. 4. And lastly, because miracles are often hurtful, and it is sometimes expedient that there be none.

I. That miracles are not proper to the true Church, and that false Doctors will make some, Jesus Christ teacheth it, Matth. 24. False Christ's and false Prophets shall rise, making signs and miracles. And chap. 7. v. 22. In that day many shall say unto me Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? have we not cast out Devils in thy name? And the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2. foretells that the son of perdition will come, with all power and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, and that God will give them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the power of delusion. The Jews exorcists did miracles, and expelled the unclean spirits; of which we have an example in a Jew named Eleazar, that healed a man possessed of a Devil in the presence of Vespatian, as Josephus relates it in the 8. Book of the Antiquities, chap. 2. Philostratus relates the miracles of Apollonius Thyanaeus; and at this time yet miracles are done at Muhammad's sepulcher. See Suetonius in the life of Vespatian, chap. 7. Porphyrius a sworn enemy of Jesus Christ, opposed to the Christians the miracles which the Pagans did, as may be seen in Eusebius, in the fourth Book of Evangelical preparation: They make a great noise of there predictions, and oracles, and cures and healing of all kinds of diseases. The example of Actius Navius Augur is famous, who in the presence of King Tarquinius Priscus, cut a whet-stone in two with a razor.

After the Ascension of Jesus Christ, Heretics began to do many miracles. Tertullian, chap. 44. of Prescriptions, saith, that Heretics boasted, that they had exceeded all others in the confirmation of their doctrine by miracles; that they had raised the dead and healed the sick: And that Jesus Christ had foretold so much, saying, that many would come that should do very great miracles to authorize their false doctrine. And in the 3. Book against Marcion, chap. 3. he saith, that to do miracles was a thing very easy among the false Christ's, and that it was a rash part to hang our belief upon them. Theodoret upon Deut. 13. We are taught not to believe [miracles] when he that doth them teacheth things contrary to piety. Jerome upon Gal. 3. We must observe, that those are said to do miracles that hold not the truth of the Gospel. Then he addeth, This I say against heretics that hold it an approbation of their faith when they do some sign.

The imperfect work upon St. Matthew, attributed unto Chrysostom in the 49. Homily, The operation of miracles is now quite taken away, and it is found that many more feigned miracles are done among those that are false Christians. Austin in the Book of the 83. questions, in the 79. saith, that perverse and wicked men do miracles, which the Saints cannot do. Himself against the letters of Petilianus, lib. 2. cap. 55. For as for expelling Devils, and the power of miracles, because many do not these things, and yet belong to the kingdom of God, and that many do them which belong not unto that kingdom, neither your side, nor ours ought to boast of them. That especially is remarkable, which we learn of the nine and thirty four Canons of the Council of Laodicea, and of Balsamon upon the thirty fourth Canon of that Council, that the Orthodox would come to the Sepulchers of the Heretics, and there be healed. Whence it appeareth, that Heretics did true miracles, since healing followed. And Scripture witnesseth that the Magicians by their enchantments, did the same miracles as Moses.

II. Secondly, I say that miracles are neither necessary nor perpetual in the Church. We find not that before God appeared to Moses, any miracle was done in the Church of Israel, during their abode in Egypt. And the Church of the Jews hath been many years without miracles, since their return from their captivity of Babylon. And when in the time of King Josiah, the Book of the Law was found and published, God made no miracle to authorize that Law, because the miracles done in the first publication of the Law in the wilderness, were sufficient to give it authority with posterity. Likewise the miracles of Jesus Christ and his Apostles done in the beginning of the publishing of the Gospel, serve yet this day to confirm the same Doctrine, and no need of new miracles to confirm it. Many Prophets extraordinarily sent; as Hosea, Amos, Zechariah, did no miracles. It cannot be said, that their very prophesying was a miracle; for here by miracles, we understand sensible events, contrary to nature, which serve to authorize a Doctrine. Besides, Prophecies are not acknowledged to be divine and miraculous, but after the fulfilling, either wholly or in part; and by consequent, the inspiration of Prophecy cannot, before the fulfilling, be taken for a miracle. To this purpose, Gregory the I. in the twenty ninth Homily upon the Gospel saith very well, My brethren, do you forbear believing, because you do no miracles? But these things were necessary in the beginnings of the Church, that the multitude might grow in faith. If then any bring in a new Doctrine, it behooveth him to do miracles. But we of whom miracles are demanded, bring no new Doctrine.

III. Thirdly, miracles are dubious things, and imposture about them is frequent. Especially about the miracles of the Roman Church, which in our time are reduced to ejecting of Devils, where Satan hath fair play to deceive. But to raise a man from the dead, or to give sight to a man born blind, they are things which are not done in the Roman Church. The Legends of Saints are stuffed with miraculous tales, grossly coined: The Courts of Parliament have given many sentences against false miracles, and have often punished such impostures. Let these Gentlemen that cry up their miracles, send some miraculous punishment upon those that laugh at their miracles. But of that no example was yet seen; So gently they are pleased to deal with us. But indeed the Devil hath no power over God's children.

IV. Lastly, miracles are many times hurtful: For he that believeth not unless he see miracles, doth thereby, though against his mind, invite Satan to play some juggling trick, and exposeth himself to the wiles and craft of the Devil.

For these causes, Deut. 13. God commandeth his people to judge, not of the doctrine by the miracles, but of the miracles by the Doctrine. And that if one bring forth a dream or a miracle, and say together, Let us go and serve strange God's; let such a Prophet be stoned to death notwithstanding his miracles.

As for the miracles which in the first ages were done in the Christian Church, God made use of them to make Pagans turn Christians. But we read not that ever any miracle was done to confirm the adoration of images, or Purgatory, or Transubstantiation; for the miracles which are alleged to that purpose, are later then the invention of these Doctrines, or are related by Authors manifestly fabulous, and so prone to be false and forged. I will shut up this discourse with a sentence of Prosper, drawn from Saint Austin. The Disciples ought to be imitators of Christ, not by doing miracles, which nobody requires of them; but by keeping humility and patience, to which the Lord hath invited us by his example.

CHAP. 43. Of Union in the visible Church.

UNion and concord are desirable things, so it be an union in things good and holy; for otherwise union is but a conspiracy. Thus the Apostle Eph. 4.15. commands us to follow truth with charity, rejecting that charity which maintaineth untruth. The Devils themselves have an union among them. And without a strict union, a company of thieves cannot subsist. When then our Adversaries give us union for a mark of the true Church, we ask Whether they understand union in the true Doctrine, or in the false? If they mean (as it is to be supposed) union in the true Faith and Doctrine, it follows, that before we can know whether union in a Church be good and holy, that Church must be instructed before in the true Faith and Religion. It appears then, that union cannot be a mark of the true Church, since to judge of that union, there is need of another mark.

Neither can that be an infallible mark of the true Church, which is not perpetual with the true Church, and may not less or more consist with the societies of Heretics and Infidels. For the ancient Christian Church hath been often troubled with dissensions; and before the Schism and separation between the Greek and the Roman Church, there was always something to mend, and some quarrel to appease: And the Roman Church which bears herself for the only true Church, hath many times been troubled with Schisms: And at this day, yet they are not agreed in the Roman Church, whether the Pope be above the Council, or the Council above the Pope. Now there can hardly be a greater and more important quarrel in a State, then to dispute to whom the Sovereignty doth belong.

Besides, union in the same religion is found also among Heretics, and therefore cannot be an infallible mark of the true Church. In the whole Empire of the Turk, which is the greatest of the world, there is a very great agreement about Religion. The Jews also keep among them an admirable union. Neither is there any, though never so small heretical Church, but is united in her error. For it is not the great number that makes the union to be good or evil, but the agreement to do well or ill, or to believe well or ill.

That union is inculcated by our Adversaries to upbraid us, that we agree not with the Lutherans and Anabaptists. But herein the Roman Church upbraids us with nothing, but what she may be upbraided with: For she also disagreeth with the Lutherans and Anabaptists. The reproaches of the Roman Church to us upon that Subject, are of no force, since the Pagans and Jews make the same reproach to the Roman Church with the like force, and to all Christians in general. For thence they gather, that Christian Religion is false, since Christians are at odds about their Religion, and the Greek Church hath a Religion, the Roman Church another, the Ethiopian Church another, &c.

Let our union then be with our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Jesus Christ with God, and with them that serve him, according to his Word. For in vain do we seek union with men, while we are in discord with God. Now the way to be united with God, is to follow his Word, and to conform ourselves unto his Will; By consequent that we may enter into that union, we must be instructed in his Word: For it is an open contradiction to reason, and a willful blindness, to think to agree upon an union, and not know about what we must be united; and to press concord upon the people, and at the same time to hide the truth from them, without which, all agreement is a conspiracy against God.

CHAP. 44. Whether the Universal Church must be called Roman.

ALthough the Roman Church be a particular Church, yet she will be called Universal. Nowadayes to be a true Christian, and to be Roman, are taken for one and the same thing; and the same man is called a Catholic Roman, that is, an Univesal Particular. But the Word of God doth not oblige us to be Romans, or to be of the Roman Church or Religion to be saved: Nay the Apostle Rom. 11.22. threatens the Romans, that they shall be cut off, that is, that they shall fall off from God's Covenant. For although that threatening be spoken generally to the Gentiles, grafted in the place of the Jews, yet it is not without cause, that it is particularly addrest by the Spirit of God to the Roman Church. Saint Paul indeed commendeth the faith of the Romans, that is, of the Christians of the City of Rome; but he giveth the like praise to the faith of the Thessalonians, saying, that from them sounded out the Word of the Lord, and that in every place, their faith to Godward was spread abroad. And yet he obligeth not thereby all Christians to call themselves Thessalonians, or belonging to the Church of Thessalonica. It is very considerable, that Saint Paul having written such a long Letter to the Roman Church, did not think of exhorting them to their duty, by the consideration of the dignity of their Church, and of the superiority of the Church of Rome. It is certain, that Christian Religion was planted and spread over Judea, Syria, Egypt, Natolia, Grecia, &c. many years before there were Christians at Rome. It would be a great error to think, that at that time the Universal Church ought to have been called Roman. Neither do we find, that in the first ages, the Christians of Syria, or Persia, or Armenia, or Egypt, did style themselves Romans, or of the Roman Religion. That Title is grown with the Papal domination, and is now one of the marks of his Empire. It is very probable, that this word Roman, is that mark of which it is spoken, Rev. 13.16, 17.

Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, on the year 45. §. 10. brings some Texts of the Ancients, to prove that in old time to be a Roman, and to be a Catholic, was all one. He alledgeth Theodosius the II. speaking thus in an Epistle to Acacius, Shew us by an evident proof, that you are approved Priests of the Roman Religion. That passage is mistaken by that Cardinal; for Theodosius by the Roman Religion, understands not that of the Church or the Pope of Rome, but the Religion kept in the Roman Empire; as if one now called the Turkish Religion that which is established in the Turkish Empire.

Baronius brings another authority of Victor Uticensis, in the first book of the persecution of the Vandals, where an Arian dissuadeth King Theodoricus from putting an Orthodox man to death. For (saith he) if thou killest him with the sword, the Romans will begin to make a Martyr of him. But whosoever hath read Victor, knoweth that under the reign of the Vandals in Africa, there was three sorts of persons; The Vandals which were Arians; The Moors which were Pagans; And the Romans which were Orthodox, who having been subject to the Roman Empire, were oppressed by the victorious Vandals, and were called Romans, because they had been conquered by the Vandals from the Roman Empire. The like to this may be seen in Gregorius Turonensis, that the Gauls subdued by the Franks and Burgundians, and conquered from the Roman Empire, were called Romans not with any regard to the Roman Religion, but in relation to the Roman Empire.

CHAP. 45. Of Antiquity, whether it be a mark of the true Church.

WHen we speak of the Antiquity of the Church, we mean not the antiquity of the Temples; for in an old building one may teach a new Doctrine. Nor the antiquity of the Chairs; for they that sit in them may change the Doctrine of their Predecessors; but the antiquity of the Doctrine. Which antiquity is good, and of great authority if it be the first, before which nothing is more ancient: For all that which is instituted since Christ and his Apostles, is new; and the multitude of years cannot authorize a false Doctrine. We judge not of the true Church by the years, but by the rules. Jesus Christ is not the Custom, but the Truth. Yea, as unchaste women grow worse by age; the more an Error is old, the more it is pernicious, because it is deeper rooted. If time and multitude of years could make an evil Doctrine to become good, we would have the abettors of that opinion to set us down precisely, how many years are requisite to make that alteration, and to give authority to a false Doctrine. As then in the question of divorce, without cause of adultery, granted by Moses to the Israelites because of the hardness of their heart, Jesus Christ brings them back to the source, and to the first antiquity, saying, In the beginning it was not so, Matth. 19. We also, in all Controversies about the Faith, let us endeavor to bring men's minds back to the first institution, and to the doctrine of the ancient of days, and of our Lord Jesus, who correcteth the Errors of the Antient by his authority, saying, Matth. 5. It hath been said by them of old time, &c. But I say unto you, &c. For the Truth of God is Eternal, and there is no prescription against his authority. If in things civil and mutable one cannot prescribe against the right of Kings, much less against the Law of the King of Kings; and in things spiritual and eternal. A time was when these Doctors which are called ancient were new. And before that those that are called Fathers did write, Scripture had already a full authority.

The Roman Church in this point is intolerable: For she boasteth of Antiquity, but will not suffer the truth of her Doctrine to be examined, though it be the only way to discern true Antiquity. She will have us to judge of the Truth by antiquity, whereas we ought to judge of antiquity by the Truth, and by the conformity to the Word of God, which is the first antiquity. She boasteth to be ancient, and yet every age brings additions or alterations to her Doctrine; so that the form of the old building is no more seen, and yet that building keeps the same Name. She boasteth of antiquity, and yet brings new things every day. She makes a show of some old patched clothes, to make the world believe that she comes from far, as the Gibeonites did: But when one comes to examine her Doctrine by pieces, one finds that she comes not from very far, and that almost all is new. And indeed there was need of great alteration to make a Bishop of the City of Rome to become the Monarch of the Universal Church, and to make the Doctrine of the Gospel to serve for building an earthly Kingdom. We are ready to undergo any punishment, if it be found that the ancient Church many ages after the Apostles excluded the people from the Cup, or kept them from reading the holy Scripture; or made pictures of the Trinity; or yielded Veneration to the Images of the Saints; or called the Virgin Mary the Queen of Heaven; • or made mention of the Roman Indulgences; or of the power of the Pope to depose Kings, and fetch souls out of Purgatory, &c. In a word, as it is now another Doctrine, so it is another Church, because it is another Religion. And we have proved before by a multitude of very express passages, that the Roman Church boasteth that she hath power to add to the Symbole, and dispense against the Apostle, and to alter that which God hath commanded in his Word. M. du Perron hath bestowed a Chapter purposely upon that subject in the 674. page. Yet after that, these men speak of nothing but Antiquity and Fathers, hoping thereby to confound men's understandings, and avoid the Examination of their Doctrine by the Word of God. But of that we shall speak hereafter.

Now if it be demanded, whether Antiquity must be placed among the marks of the true Church; I answer, that although the first and true antiquity belong to the true Church, yet antiquity cannot be a mark of the true Church.

For to know that mark, there is need of another mark, even of the truth of the Doctrine, it being impossible to judge, whether the Church that professeth that Doctrine be ancient, but by examining it upon the Rule of Truth, which is the Word of God.

Besides, the marks of the Church must be proper to her at all times: Now a time hath been when the Christian Church was new. The Church of Israel had her beginning, and the Church could not be ancient when the world was new.

Also the essential marks of a thing must proceed from the form and essence of that thing: But time and years are not of the essence, and proceed not from the form of things that are measured by the time. Old age is not the mark of a true man, or of a good Common-wealth.

If Antiquity were the mark of a good Church, the Church should always grow better with the time; and with the antiquity the goodness and the truth of a Church should also grow: And the Church should be better in our days then in the days of the Apostles, because it is more ancient.

By that means also the Roman Church should lose her cause, for the Greek Church is her Mother; and Christian Religion hath past from the East to Rome, and to the West, as the History of the Acts of the Apostles shows it evidently, and there is no Church so corrupt but boasteth of Antiquity: The Jews boasted themselves to be children of Abraham, even when they reviled Christ, and said that he had a Devil. And the Samaritans called Jacob their Father, and by the authority of their Fathers who had worshipped God in their Mountain, they defended their Religion.

As the antiquity of a building is the cause that there is always to mend in it; so it is so far from truth, that the antiquity of a particular Church should be a mark of her purity, that on the contrary it gives just reason to presume that the multitude of ages had made it worse.

Wherefore St. Austin made no difficulty from to depart from his predecessors in the points of Nature and Grace, and Predestination; the Pelagians having sharpened his wit upon those points, which were not debated before, and obliged him to search the Scriptures with more diligence; whereby he hath got much praise, and was followed by them that came after, as Fulgentius, Prosper, Hilarius Arel • tensis, &c.

Upon that it is good to see Symmachus, a Pagan, Epist. 54. of the 10. Book, where writing to the Christian Emperors, Valens, Theodosius, and Arcadius, he desireth them to have a reverence for the Pagan Religion, by reason of her antiquity, If (saith he) the length of time gives authority to Religion, we must keep faith to so many ages, and follow our Fathers who have so happily followed theirs. Then he personates the old Pagan Rome, thus speaking to the Emperors; Good Princes, Fathers of your Country, respect my years, unto which the pious Ceremonies have brought me; permit me to use the Ceremonies of my Ancestors. This Religion hath subjected the world unto my laws: These holy services have beaten back Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the Capitol. Have I been preserved till this time that I should be rebuked in my old age? The correction of old age comes too late and is injurious. What could Ambrose and Prudentius answer, who confuted that Epistle, but that the Law of God is more ancient then Numa Pompilius, the Author of these Ceremonies? And that all is new which is not from the beginning? and that Error cannot be authorized by the number of years?

See Lactantius in the 5. Book of Justice, c. 10. where he saith, that the Pagans disputing against the Christians, when one asketh them a reason of their belief, they cannot give any, but have a recourse to the judgment of their ancestors who were wise.

CHAP. 46. Of the Fathers and Antient Doctors, and of their Authority.

THe writings of the Antient Doctors near unto the Apostles times cannot be despised, but by persons wedded to their opinion, that blame all that they understand not: For although everyone of them be subject to err, yet when they agree all in that they say, their consent is of great authority. But we must take good heed, how, and for what end it is used. For our Adversaries make a great noise about that, and make a flourish of Fathers, not out of any belief that these Fathers are favorable to them, nor out of hope to gain their cause before these Judges; but to make the people look off from Scripture, whose trial they labor by all means to avoid.

When the question is to resolve a conscience by testimonies of Fathers, we meet with many hindrances; For their writings are Greek and Latin, of an infinite length and multitude. They are Books which the people never see, and where they understand nothing. If to attain to Salvation it is necessary to be versed in the Doctrine of Fathers, hardly of a thousand Christians can one be saved. And among the Fathers writings many suppositiuous Books are mingled, and new corruptions are every day discovered: Then there is as much or more dispute about the sense of the Text of the Fathers, as about that of Scripture: So that if the Fathers be taken for Judges, there will be need of other Judges that judge infallibly of the sense of the Fathers. It were worth knowing whether the Roman Church, which boasteth to be an infallible Interpreter of the sense of Scripture, hath the same perfection in the interpretation of Fathers.

Again, when the Fathers dissent among themselves about the Exposition of Scripture, who shall be Judge of their differences? or who will undertake, to define which Fathers have most authority? Or how many Fathers are requisite to make an Article of Faith? For it is not reasonable, since our Adversaries take the Fathers for their Judges, that themselves be Judges of the Fathers.

Besides, when a passage of a Father is alleged, who knows whether other Fathers agree with him? Who knows whether the same Father speak otherwise in other places, as it is usual with the Antient?

Another hindrance troubleth men's minds very much, That the words which the Antient used have lost their signification, and are now taken in a quite different sense; as the words of Mass, Sacrifice, Indulgence, Oblation, Pope. Purgatory, Satisfaction, Prayer for the dead, &c. have lost their ancient signification, and are taken in our time in another sense then in old time. Whereby the ignorant are deceived, not knowing that such words in those days signified quite another thing then in ours, and that the Roman Church puts old words upon new inventions. He that will lead the spirits of a people that way, instead of bringing them to the Word of God, doth involve them in a dark labyrinth, puts them in a way that hath no end, and makes men Judges in God's cause.

As then on the one side, we reverence Fathers as lights that have been shining in their time, and recommend the reading of them to such as have leisure and capacity; so on the other side, when it is question of giving laws to the Church, we acknowledge no other Lawgiver but God, and no other rule of faith but his Word; which, in matters necessary to salvation, is so clear, that it needs no interpreter; which also is as strong alone as attended, and suffers wrong in its authority, when it is defended with the testimony of men.

The Fathers themselves acknowledging their infirmity, and their subjection to Scripture, will not be believed but so far as they speak conformably to Scripture; and acknowledging themselves subject to err, return always to that rule.

Cyrillus of Jerusalem, in his fourth Catechesis, speaks thus, One must not teach the least thing concerning the divine and sacred mysteries of faith without the holy Scriptures. And a little after, Believe me not simply when I say these things unto thee, unless thou hast proofs of what I say by the holy Scriptures.

Jerome upon the 86. Psal. Although some man since the Apostles be holy, although he be well spoken, yet he hath no authority.

And Austin against Faustus the Manichean, Book, 11. chap. 3. speaking of his own writings and of other Fathers, These Books (saith he) are written by us, not by authority of commanding, but to profit by exercise. And soon after, having established the holy Scripture for Judge, he saith, that in other works of them that have written since, the Reader hath his judgment free, either to receive that which he approveth, or to reject that which displeaseth him. The same in the 1. chap. of the second Book of Baptism, (e) rejecteth the authority of Cyprian which was objected to him.

That by alleging the Fathers, our Adversaries intend only to avoid Scripture, and puzzle the spirits of the simple, it appeareth in that they assign for a mark of the true Church, conformity with the Antient Fathers, but will not assign for a mark of the same Church, conformity with the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures. Also in that there be many questions upon which they allege not the Fathers, silently confessing, that there the help of antiquity fails them, as is the point of denying the communion of the cup to the people. Such are also the images of the Trinity, and forbidding the people to read the Scripture, and the title of Queen of heaven given to the Virgin Mary, and the Roman Indulgences, and the Popes power to depose Kings, and fetch souls out of Purgatory, and private Masses, and the custom of praying in a language not understood by him that prays; and many other points. In this especially it appears, how little in effect they trust the Fathers, although they take them for Judges, that when these Fathers speak against the Roman Church, they make no difficulty to rebuke and taunt them, making themselves Judges and censors of the Fathers, yea and opposing them when they consent together: As we shall see in the following Chapter.

CHAP. 47. That our Adversaries condemn the Fathers, and by consequent cannot have them for Judges.

THe Glossary of the Decree upon the 9. distinction, endeavoring to elude some testimonies of St Austin, who saith, that the holy Scriptures have alone the perfection of infallibility, but that all other writings of persons never so holy are subject to err, and ought to be read with circumspection, hath put this Gloss in the margent, These words must be understood according to that time when the writings of Austin and other holy Fathers were not authentical, but now it is commanded to keep them to the last tittle. Against that Glossarie Alphonsus de Castro takes a quarrel in the 1. Book of heresies, chap. 7. and calls him a fool and liar, seeing that the writings of the Fathers are often dissenting among themselves: And Melchior Cano in the 7. Book of the Theological places, in the 3. chap. to the same purpose alledgeth many errors of the Fathers; of Cyprian among others, who believed that those that were baptized by heretics must be rebaptized; and of Hilary, who denieth that the body of Jesus Christ hath felt any pain, ascribing to him an impassible body; of Irenaeus, who was a Chiliast; and he goes so far as to say, that the Fathers sometimes bring forth monsters against the order of nature. Cardinal Baronius, whose writings are so highly esteemed by our Adversaries, censureth the Fathers with great liberty. On the year 34. §. 113. he acknowledgeth freely, that the Catholic Church doth not always follow the most holy Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture. Himself on the year 31. §. 24. rebuketh St. Austin, because he did not well understand these words of our Lord, Thou art Peter, &c. for want of understanding the Syrian tongue. And on the year 34. §. 185. Jerome hath erred for want of memory. And on the year 60. §. 20. he quarrelleth with Theodoret for rejecting the invocation of Angels. grounded upon a text of St. Paul; Hereby (saith he) one may see that Theodoret, by his have, hath not well comprehended the sense of the words of Paul. And on the year 369. §. 24. Hilary had also his errors.

Bellarmine everywhere beareth himself as judge and censor of the Fathers. In the first Book of the felicity of the Saints; I see not how we may defend from error the opinion of Justinus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius and Oecumenius. In the same place he heaps up the errors of many Fathers. Of whom also he saith in the second book of the Councils, chap. 13. The writings of Fathers are not the rule, and have no authority to oblige us.

Himself in the 1. Book de Pontifice Romano, chap. 8. speaking of the opinion of Jerome, that Priests are inferior to Bishops by Ecclesiastical right only, not of divine right: That opinion (saith he) is false, and must be confuted in the proper place. And chap. 10. §. Addo. Austin (saith he) hath been deceived by the only ignorance of the Hebrew tongue. And in the Book de monachis, chap. 13. he goeth about to prove, that the opinion of Austin, of Thomas, and of Bernard, seems not to be conformable unto the holy Scripture.

Sixtus Senensis, in his Preface upon the 5. Book of his Bibliotheca, saith, that in the holy Doctors which are read in the Church with authority, sometimes things evil and heretical are found.

Andradius in the 2. Book of the defense of the Tridentine faith, I will say nothing (saith he) of Austin, Basil, Athanasius, and the other Cyrillus, Chrysostomus, and Epiphanius, to whose opinions we are not always tied. And in the same place he saith, that the Fathers are contradicting one another, and then addeth, So many things there be wherein it is lawful for us to depart from the opinion of the Fathers.

Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of his Comments on Genesis, If (saith he) sometimes a new interpretation occurs agreeing with the text, and not contrary to Scripture or to the doctrine of the Church, let the Reader show himself an equitable censor, although that interpretation be divers from the stream of the holy Doctors. And in the same place, Let none detest a new sense of Scripture, because it is dissonant from the ancient Doctors, &c. For God hath not tied the exposition of Scripture to the sense of the ancient Doctors, but to the whole Scripture itself, under the censure of the Catholic Church; subjecting Scripture unto the censures of the Roman Church.

The Jesuit Pererius in the 8. Book upon Genesis, in the first disputation, I am ashamed (saith he) to say the things which I must say against very good writers, which say things not only false, but also shameful and absurd. Now the Fathers which he hath a quarrel with, are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Sulpitius Severus.

Salmeron in the second prolegomen acknowledgeth that the Fathers have often dissented among themselves, Cyprian (saith he) had many disputes with Pope Cornelius (he would say Steven ) Origen with African, Chrysostom with Theophilus Alexandrinus, Epiphanius with John of Jerusalem, Ruffinus with Jerome, Jerome with Austin, Austin with Simplicician, Prosper with Hilary, Gregory with Eutyches of Constantinople, and each of them made good his party.

And not only he saith, that the Fathers dissent among themselves about the exposition of Scripture, but also everyone with himself. Everyone of them (saith he) expounds a text otherwise then another doth, yea the same Doctor expoundeth a text diversely.

In the 51. dispute upon the Epistle to the Romams, treating of the conception of the Virgin without sin, he alledgeth against himself a multitude of Fathers, that hold that she was conceived in sin. To which he answereth, that the proof by authority is weak, and that reason must go before authority. And in the same place, Against that multitude [of Fathers] which is objected to us, we answer by the Word of God, Exod. 23. Thou shalt not speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest Judgment.

The Jesuit Maldonado in his Comment upon the Gospel, disputeth everywhere against the exposition of Fathers. As upon Matth. 6. treating of the supersubstantiall bread, he confutes the opinion of Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Victorinus, Athanasius, Juvencus, Jerome. And upon the 6. of John. I leave the opinion of Austin and Innocent the I. which reigned for 600. years, that the Lord's Supper is necessary to children.

The famous Bishop of Bitonto speaks very ingenuously to that purpose, upon Rom. 14. p. 606. where setting the Pope in the place of God, and comparing his authority with that of the Fathers, he speaks thus, Whatsoever is spoken by him whom we account for God in the things of God, we must hearken to it as to God himself. As for me (that I may confess it ingenuously in the things that concern the mysteries of God) I would give more faith to the only sovereign Bishop, then to a thousand Austin's, Jerome's, Gregory's, that I speak not of the Richards, Scotuses, and Gulielmuses; for I believe and know that the Sovereign Bishop only cannot err in the things that are of the faith, because the authority of determining matters of faith resides in the Pope.

Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius, freely acknowledgeth the errors of the Fathers, saying, pag. 205, & 244. We do not so much seek the errors of these divine men, as set them forth when they present themselves. Yea he saith, that if one would examine many things in the Homilies of Chrysostom upon the rule of truth, he should find neither sense nor reason in it.

The Jesuit Gregorius de Valentia, in the Book of Transubstantiation, ch. 8. to rid himself of Theodoret, who in his Dialogues confutes Transubstantiation, Theodoret (saith he) hath been noted of other Errors in the Council of Ephesus. The like will be found in the Preface upon the Dialogues of Theodoret printed in Greek at Rome. And the same Gregorius de Valentia, saith in the same place, that We must not wonder, if some of the Ancients have believed and written inconsiderately of this matter.

Wherefore our Adversaries in their Comments, and in their Books of Controversies use to allege divers opinions of the Fathers, and to chose that which pleaseth them best, and sometimes they reject them all. Bellarmine in the Book De Monachis, chap. 9. Five Expositions present themselves, which we must confute. The first is of Jerome and Beda, &c. and soon after, Jerome's memory failed him.

The Jesuit Maldonado upon Matth. 20. after a long enumeration of the opinions of Fathers, freely declareth that he doth not acquiesce to any of them. And upon Joh. 6. rebuking Austin, as one that had not apprehended in what sense Jesus Christ saith himself to be the Bread, saith, I am persuaded that if Austin had lived in our time, he would have been of another of opinion. And upon the same chapter upon these words, They shall be all taught of God; I do approve (saith he) the interpretation of Chrysostom much more then that of Austin. And upon Matth. 11. after he hath alleged divers opinions of the Fathers, he addeth, To speak freely, none of these contents me.

Pope Gelasius by Papal authority in the Canon, Sancta Romana, Dist. 15. beareth himself as Judge of the writings of the Fathers, and makes an enumeration of those that must be suspected, and names them Apocryphal. Among others he rejecteth Cassianus, the History of Eusebius, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyprians Opuscules, who are nevertheless authors of good note, and have their rank among the Fathers.

Alphonsus de Castro, c. 9. of the 1. Book against Heresies, shows that the Fathers will often contradict one another. That Jerome saith, that Paul rebuked Peter feinedly only, not in truth: Austin on the contrary maintains, that he was truly and justly reproved. — That Jerome holds, that he that had two wives before Baptism, may be promoted to the Priesthood after he is baptized; which affirmation Ambrose, and Austin, and all the other Fathers do resist. That Austin holds that the whole world was built in a moment of time, and interprets that circuit of days to be alternations of Angelical knowledge, but that all the others contradict that interpretation.

But Salmeron alone may serve for all. That Jesuitie in his thirteenth Tome in the sixth Dispute about St. Paul's Epistles, makes himself Judge of the Fathers with great authority, and makes a Collection of the Errors of the Fathers in these words. Such is that which Irenaeus saith concerning the age of Christ, that he attained unto forty years; and that the Name of Jesus is compounded of two letters and a half. And the Monogamy of Tertullian; and what he saith, that the death of Christ happened about the thirtieth year of his age. The opinion of Papias, of the Resurrection at the end of a thousand years, which Nepos, Cantor, and Lactantius have followed. Austin and Origen, and the Platonicians have said, that the Angels are made of airy and subtle bodies. And our Gregory in the Homily of the Epiphany of the Lord, calls an Angel a reasonable animal. The Doctrine of Cyprian, of the rebaptization of those that have been baptized by Heretics, which hath been determined by three Councils of Carthage, and confuted by the Church. The opinion of Eusebius Cesariensis, that the Son of God, who is the Word of the Father, is inferior to the Father, hath been rejected as most false. The opinion of Basil, that the roof of the Firmament is flat, that it may hold water, as he saith upon Genesis. Himself upon the 14. Psalm, maintains that under the New Testament, it is not at all permitted to swear, no more then it is permitted to circumcise. Which nevertheless Euthymius and Theophylactus upon Matth. 5. have followed. Yet this hath not been followed by them that are come since. Also it is a hard opinion of Nazianzenus, that he holds second marriages to be unlawful, and the third to be a prevarication, us he testifieth in the thirtieth Oration. This also is hard in Gregorius Nyssenus, to hold that in the state of Innocency, there should have been no generation by copulation of sexes, no more then in the Resurrection, as he testifieth upon Gen. 17. Euthymius teacheth the same upon Psal. 50. And Damascenus in the Book of Orthodox Faith, although the command of increasing and multiplying, and filling the earth had preceded. And so this in the same Book of Nyssenus, c. 30. that the reasonable soul is made by traduction, is absurdly said; although he contradicts himself in the second Book of the soul, c. 4. This also is hard in Athanasius, that our soul is drawn from the power of the matter; and that the souls of the Saints do not see God till the day of Judgment, in the 16. and 20. questions to Antiochus, if yet those questions be not falsely ascribed to him. It is a hard and unworthy saying of Chrysostomus upon these words of Joh. 2. They have no Wine, and upon these words of Matth. 12. Behold thy Mother and thy Brothers are without: and upon this sentence of the Psalm, There is none that doth good, no not one: That he saith, that the Blessed Virgin was ambitious and desirous of vain-glory. Which Theophylactus hath followed, and Euthymius upon Matth. 12. & Mark. 3. & Luk. 2. Tertullian saith worse things yet of the Virgin Mary, in the Book of the flesh of Christ, which have not been believed by posterity, but have been reproved. It is likewise a hard saying of Arnobius, that the souls are descended into the bodies by necessity of nature, and that pains come not by the Providence of God, but by the necessity of the matter, as he teacheth in the 2. Book against the Gentiles; and that the souls differ not in reason: and that the souls of the damned are reduced to nothing by their suffering. Lactantius teacheth, that the sin of the Devil is the envy of the first Angel that was made, or rather of the Holy Ghost, whom he seems to make a Creature, Book 1. chap. 9. It is a hard opinion in Hilary, that Christ did not fear death, and felt no pain in his passion, as he teacheth in the 10. Book of the Trinity. The opinion of Ambrose is singular, whereby he prayeth that the Emperors, Gratian, and Valentinian, may rise from the dead more early. And in another place he saith, that whensoever we celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection of the Lord, always some rise again, &c. Jerome in a certain Epistle, saith, That Christ is come out bloody out of the Virgins womb. Austin did retract himself in many things. And in the Book of the City of God he denieth Antipodes. In Bernard we could desire more perspicuity in that Doctrine, That the souls do not receive the glory of blessedness until the day of Judgment. In Damascenus we observe a Doctrine, which the Church admitteth not, That the Holy Ghost proceeds not alike from the Son, and from the Father; wherein he is followed by Theophylactus upon Joh. 3. and by Michal Syngelus in the Book of the praises of Denis. It would be indeed a very long thing, if I would run over all the Doctors, and all the particular opinions of everyone, whose belief the Church hath not approved. So speaks that Jesuit.

Villavincentius an Augustinian Monk, in the fourth Book of of the manner of well ordering the study of Divinity, cap. 5. makes the like enumeration of the Errors of the Fathers, and adds to those that Salmeron hath observed, that Epiphanius in Anchoratis hath interpreted these words, My Father is greater then I, as true even of the Divine Nature. That Jesus Christ praying that this Cup should pass from him, spake not in good earnest, but to abuse the Devil. That Ambrose is excessive in Allegories, going far from the sense of Scripture. That he excuseth Peters denial of his Master, saying, that he denied only Jesus Christ Man, not Jesus Christ God. That Jerome contending for Virginity, useth Marriage unworthily, and puts the second and third marriages almost in the same rank as fornication. That the Learned agree not with this Doctrine of Austin, that children dying without Baptism are eternally damned. And that the Church hath abolished the custom approved by St. Austin, to give the Lord's Supper to little children. Above all he is angry with Hilary, for attributing and impassible body unto Christ, which hath suffered not pain in his Death.

Thus our Adversaries are become Judges of the Fathers, and confute them with much liberty: and by consequent receive not the Fathers for Judges, since they make themselves Judges of the Fathers, and hold them to be erroneous and impure in the Faith.

CHAP. 48. That the Roman Church opposeth herself to the consent of ancient Doctors.

WHen we put our Adversaries in mind of the liberty which they give to themselves to reprove the Fathers, they will answer, that indeed every Father hath his Errors, but that their consent is an infallible rule; and that the Roman Church followeth the Fathers when they agree among themselves. This deserveth to be examined.

First, If to come out of a difficulty in Religion, and to attain to Salvation, we must have the consent of all the Fathers, I know not who can be saved, since of twenty thousand Christians, hardly shall one be found that hath read one half of the Fathers; and of those that read them, few understand them. Besides, Many Fathers of exquisite learning and goodness have written no Books, whose opinion therefore is not known unto us upon every point of Religion. And of those that have written, not one shall be found that saith his opinion upon the fourth part of the points which are nowadays controverted: For they are questions which for the most part are sprung since their death. Yet let us see whether the Roman Church keep to that rule, and whether they contradict not many times a multitude of Fathers consenting in one point?

I. Is there anything in all Antiquity upon which the Ancients consent more then upon the Communion of the People to the Sacrament under the two kinds? Can one example be found in all Antiquity of the Sacrament administered in the Church to a multitude of people, without administering the cup to any one of them? Shall it be found that ever they refused the Cup to any of the people that required it? Of that it were superfluous to bring proofs, since the Council of Constance, which made that abominable Law, acknowledgeth in the XIII. Session, that in the ancient Church that Sacrament was received by the people under the two kinds, and that Jesus Christ hath instituted it so.

II. How great is the consent of the Fathers to put the Book of Maccabees among the Apocrypha, and to deny them a place among the Canonical Books? So did the Council of Laodicea determine it, and Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium, and Melito Bishop of Sardis, and Ruffinus in the Exposition of the Symbole, and Athanasius in his Synopsis, and Eusebius in his Chronicle upon the 117. Olympiad, and in the 3. Book of his History, chap. 10. And Jerome in his Preface upon the Books of Solomon, and in his Prologus Galeatus, and Hilary in his Preface upon the Psalter; and Gregory Nazianzen in his Verses; and Epiphanius in the Book of measures, and Pope Gregory the I. in the 19. of the Morals upon Job; and many more, as we shall show it hereafter more exactly.

That consent so general hath not hindered the Roman Church of our days to receive the Maccabees among the Canonical Scriptures.

III. The words of the Jesuit Maldonado upon Joh. 6.53. are notable. I leave (saith he) the opinion of Austin and Innocent the III. an opinion which had reigned in the Church for 600. years, or thereabouts, that the Eucharist is neccessary to Infants. Then an opinion received in the Church of Rome for the space of six hundred years, is now rejected by the same Church.

To the works of Hinckmarus, an Epistle of Jesse Bishop of Amiens is added, whereby it appears that at that time, that is, in the ninth age, that custom was yet practiced in Gauls, to give the Lord's Supper to little children, presently after Baptism. In the same place there is a Constitution of Riculfus Bishop of Soissons of the same time, that such as are baptized, should receive the Lord's Supper presently after Baptism, because the Lord saith, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c. The Council of Trent, in the XX. Session, made no difficulty to pronounce anathema to them that hold that opinion, without respecting Pope Innocent the I. and Saint Austin, who have been of that opinion. Cassander in his consultation to Ferdinand and Maximilian, p. 936. saith, that he hath often observed that practice in Antiquity; and M. du Perron acknowledgeth, that this practice continued yet in the time of Charlemagne and Lewis the Meek. The Greek Churches to this day observe that custom; and so do the Abyssine Churches.

IV. Six hundred and thirty Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon, who have judged by an express Canon; that the Bishop of Constantinople must be equal in all things to the Bishop of Rome, are I hope a sufficient number to authorize such an order; yet that order was opposed by the ambition of the Popes.

V. How famous and received by the common consent of ages, were the Letters of the sixth Council of Carthage? wherein the Bishops assembled out of all Africa, write to Celestin Bishop of Rome, that from thenceforth he would abstain from sending Legates into Africa, and meddle no more to judge the causes already judged in Africa, or to receive appeals coming from Africa, because causes ought to be judged in the places where they begun; warning him not to bring the famous pride of the world into the Church; and telling him that the pretended Canons of the Council of Nice, upon which he grounded his authority, are supposititious, and are not found in the Original. Nevertheless the Roman Church did oppose that. Baronius in the year 419. §. 78. saith, that the things contained in that Epistle, are somewhat hard, especially that which the Bishops say of sending no more Legates into Africa. Bellarmine in the twenty fifth chapter of the second book de Pontifice, speaking of those African Bishops, saith, that those African Fathers were deceived through ignorance. And Cardinal du Perron chap. 57. of the first book against his Majesty of Great Britain, saith, that the wrath of contention hath fetched so much out of their mouth.

VI. All the Fathers with common consent exhort the people to read the holy Scripture carefully. Jerome in his Epistle to Lea, will have her Daughter Paula to read diligently the Old and the New Testament. Chrysostom in the third Homily concerning Lazarus, exhorteth to that Lecture the Tradesmen, the Women, and the least of the people. Athanasius is very express for that in the second Tome, p. 248. and Austin Epist. 146. to the Virgin Demetrius, and in the sixth book of his Confessions, chap. 5. The Roman Church by an example without example opposing that consent hath forbidden the people to read the holy Scripture. We will hereafter set down the very terms of the prohibition.

VII. Generally the Fathers before Austin, and Austin himself in the beginning, believed, that God had predestined men to salvation according to his foreknowledge, that such and such should do good works, and have saith. To that consent, the Jesuit Pererius upon Rom. 8. opposeth himself boldly, speaking thus in his twenty second Dispute; The Greek Fathers and many Latin Doctors have believed and written, that the cause of the predestination of men to eternal life, is God's fore-knowledge from eternity of the good works which they should do, cooperating with his grace, and of the faith whereby they should believe, &c. Nevertheless it is easy to show by many and evident Texts of Scripture, that God's fore-knowledge of faith is not the cause of the predestination of men. Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the same opinion.

VIII. It was a common opinion among the Ancients, that the Angels are fallen from their purity, by cohabiting with Women. It was the opinion of Justin Martyr in his second Apology, and of Clemens Alexandrinus, 3.5 & sexto Stromaton, and of Tertullian in the book of the behavior of women, chap. 2. And of Austin, in the third book of the City of God, chap. 3. And of Cyprian, in the book of the behavior of Virgins, chap. 11. and of Ambrose, in the first book of Noah and the Ark; And of Irenaeus in the first book, chap. 70. and of Lactantius, chap. 15. of the second book.

IX. Sixtus Senensis in the sixth book, in the annotation, 345. saith, that Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Aretas, the Pope John XXII. have held, that the souls of the righteous shall not before the day of Judgment enjoy the sight of God. He might have added Irenaeus, Tertullian, Prudentius, Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostom, and almost all the Grecians. He addeth, that it is the error of the Armenians, condemned by the Decretals of Innocent the II. and Benedictus the XI. and by the Council of Florence. See the Questions to the Orthodox, ascribed to Justin Martyr in the answer to the sixty and seventy fourth Questions.

X. In nothing the Fathers agree better, then in the opinion that all oaths are unlawful, and that no Christian ought to swear for any cause whatsoever. The Roman Church swears not only by the name of God, but by the Saints and their relics.

XI. Almost all the Fathers of the first ages, were Chiliasts, that is, defining the duration of the reign of Christ to the space of a thousand years, with feasting and earthly dainties; Pamelius in his notes upon the book of Cyprian, of the exhortation to Martyrdom, saith, that Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus, Severus, Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Apollinaris, were of that opinion. Justin Martyr goes so far, as to say, that they that are truly Christians, were of that belief. See Jerome in the book of Ecclesiastical Writers, where he speaks of Papias. Sixtus Senensis saith of Jerome, in the fifth book in the annotation 133. that he hath been doubtful about that point, and that Austin hath sometimes inclined to that opinion, as it appears by the twentieth book of the City of God, chap. 7. The Church of Rome hath departed from that consent.

XII. The Ancients believed, that the souls while they are separate from the bodies, cannot be tormented. A certain proof that they believed not Purgatory, which the Roman Church now believeth. Tertullian, in the 48. chapter of the Apologetic, The soul alone cannot suffer anything without solid matter, that is, without flesh. He saith the same, in the book of the testimony of the soul, chap. 4. Gregory Nyssen in the third Oration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, The fire can never touch the soul separate, and darkness cannot be troublesome to it, seeing it hath no eyes. By these convenient reasons, we are induced to believe the resurrection of the dead. Ambrose in the book of Penance, c. 17. The soul without the body, and the body without the soul, cannot be partakers of punishment and reward, seeing they are fellows in their actions.

Chrysostom saith the same, hom. 39. upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, The soul (saith he) shall not be punished without the body. Against that consent, the Roman Church hath forged her Purgatory.

XIII. It was a generally received belief in the ancient Church, that the consecration is done in the Eucharist by Prayer, not by speaking to the bread, but by speaking to God. Justin Martyr in his second Apology, calls that which is received in the holy Communion, a food consecrated by prayer. Origen in the eighth Book against Celsus, We eat bread which by prayer is made a body, which is some holy thing. Basil in the book of the holy Ghost, chap. 17. The words of invocacation, when one showeth the bread. Theodoret in the second Dialogue, introduceth the Heretic speaking thus; The signs of the body and the blood, are others before the invocation of the Priest, but after the invocation they are changed. The Roman Church in our days, makes consecration by speaking unto the bread, not unto God; contradicting her own Canons; Especially the Canon Corpus Dist. 2. of the Consecration. We call the body and blood of Christ, that which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer, is duly taken by us for the spiritual salvation in memory of the passion of the Lord.

XIV. It is the general opinion of the Ancients, that as soon as the dead are raised, they shall pass through the flame, and shall be purged by the fire of the last Judgment, which they call a Baptism of fire, and the flaming sword set at the gate of Paradise. Hilary upon Psalm 118. upon the Letter Gimel, makes the Virgin Mary to pass through that fire. And Ambrose in the twentieth Sermon upon the same Psalm, and in the third Sermon upon the thirty sixth Psalm, makes the Prophets and Apostles to go through it. Origen, Lactantius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Austin, Cyril of Jerusalem, say the same: Of whom, we have in another place set forth the words; and we shall speak of this matter again in the last book of this work. But the Roman Church hath put out that fire, and kindled another more lucrative to the Pope and his Clergy.

XV. It was a received opinion by most of the Ancients, that children dead without Baptism, are eternally tormented in hell. Austin in the first book, de bono perseverantiae, cap. 13. saith, that little children unbaptized, are led unto eternal dead. And in the first book of the merits of sins and of remission, chap. 28. dispusing against the Pelagians, who put the unbaptized children in a middle condition between hell and heavenly glory, he saith, There is no place between both, where he that is not with Christ, may be in another place from the Devil. Wherefore also the Lord willing to take off from the hearts of the half believers, I know not what middle most condition, which some endeavor to attribute to unbaptized children, said, He that is not with me, is against me. For at that time they did not believe the Limbus of children dead without Baptism. His Disciple Fulgentius speaks the same language, in his book of faith to Peter the Deacon, c. 27. Believe steadfastly (saith he) and doubt not at all, that not only men that have not the use of reason, but also the little children, which either have some beginning of life in their Mothers womb, and there die, or being born from their Mothers, go out of this world without the holy Sacrament of Baptism, shall be punished with the pain of everlasting fire. That opinion hath long prevailed, and was also followed by Pope Gregory the I. who (if our Adversaries may be believed) could not err in the faith. In the ninth book of his Morals upon Joh, chap. 16. he speaks thus of little children dead without Baptism, Some are gone out of this present life, before they can attain to the time of doing the good or evil merits of an active life, who because they are not delivered from the original offense by the salutary Sacrament, and have not done here any good of their own, go yonder to be tormented. And a little after, By an occult and just judgment of God their plagues are multiplied without cause. That opinion is displeasing to the Roman Church of this time, which makes these children to suffer an eternal punishment which they feel not, and in the day of Judgment puts them neither among the goats, nor among the Lambs. These Doctors have not considered, that since Jesus Christ hath satisfied for original sin by suffering torments, it followeth, that original sin deserveth to be punished with pains which be really felt.

XVI. It is the general belief of the Fathers, yea of most part of the Doctors of the Roman Church which are not of this last age, that Jesus Christ was the only man that ever was free of original sin, and that even the Virgin Mary was not free of it. Austin in the second book of the merits of sins, chap. 24. Jesus Christ alone being made man, remaining God, never had any sin, neither did take the flesh of sin, although he had taken [his flesh] from the nature of the flesh of sin, speaking of the flesh of his mother. And upon the 34. Psal. Sermon, 2. Mary come from Adam, is dead by reason of sin. Adam is dead by reason of sin, and the flesh of the Lord come from Mary is dead to take away sins. Leo the I. in the first Sermon of the Nativity of Christ; As Christ found no man free from guilt, so he is come to deliver them all. Ambrose upon Luke 2. Jesus Christ is every way the only among them that are born of women, that hath not felt the contagion of earthly corruption, by the newness of an immaculate birth. We shall see hereafter how Chrysostom accuseth the Virgin Mary of rashness and ambition. And Eusebius Emissenus in the 2. Sermon of the Lord's Nativity, chap. 4. as Cajetan alledgeth him, saith, None hath been free from the original bond, no not the mother of the Redeemer. Bernard bestoweth a whole Epistle upon that, which is the 174. to the Canons of Lions, where he proveth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, and that the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin was ill-instituted. And which is more, Hilary upon Psal. 118. on the Letter Gimel, saith, she must pass through the fire of the day of Judgment, by which sins shall be purged. Anselmus in the 2. Book, that showeth why God is man, chap. 16. The Virgin herself from which Christ is sprung, was conceived in iniquity, and her mother conceived her in sin, because she also hath sinned in Adam. Their reason is, because Scripture hath concluded all under sin, saying, that there is no man that sinneth not. And because Christ is dead for her, and she had need of the remission of sins, and that she is dead; now she is not dead for the sins of others; then for her own. Wherefore Austin in the Book of the perfection of righteousness giveth this rule; Whosoever thinks that there is or ever was in this life any man or men, excepting the only Mediator between God and men, to whom the remission of sins was not necessary, contradicteth the holy Scripture. And Fulgentius in the Book of the Faith to Peter the Deacon, Believe firmly and doubt not at all, that every man conceived by the copulation of man and woman, is born in original sin.

That consent of Antient Doctors hath not hindered the Roman Church of our time to hold the contrary, and to celeberate the Feast of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, though Bernard condemned that celebration. The Council of Basil in the year 1439. in the 36. Session, determineth and declareth, that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, forbidding expressly the holding of the contrary, and reneweth the Order for celebrating the feast of her Conception. Since in the year 1483. Pope Sixtus the IV. granteth to them that have heard Mass or caused Masses to be sung on the day of the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, instituted by Mr. Leonard de Nogarolles Clark of Verona, the like indulgences as to those that celebrate or say Mass on Monday, Thursday, or God's Feast. In which Bull the Virgin is called the Queen of heaven and the Mother of grace. By another Bull the same Pope declareth those Heretics, that say that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, and excommunicates them, thereby excommunicating all the Ancients that have spoken so. Wherefore the Jesuits, although they say sometimes that the Roman Church hath decided nothing as yet upon that point, yet maintain stiffly that the Virgin was conceived without sin. Salmeron, Vasques, and Bellarmine, insist much upon that, not fearing to oppose antiquity. Bellarmine saying that the Church of Rome hath defined nothing about that (although the Council of Basil hath decided it, and the Feast is celebrated) yet giveth one Chapter to that opinion. The title of the Chapter is, That the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin.

XVII. Hardly in anything do the Fathers consent more then in the enumeration of the Commandments of the first table of the Law; for (excepting Austin ) no ancient Author of any authority shall be found, that puts not four Commandments in the first Table, making of the Commandment about the images a Commandment by itself, distinct from the first, Thou shalt have none other God's before me.

The Jews writers that lived in the time of the Apostles, Philo and Josephus, are in this point idoneous witnesses; for they relate the Belief of the Church of the Old Testament. Philo in the book of the Decalogue, The first five are the more worthy; The other five less. Those first five more worthy, speak of the Empire of one God over the world. 2. Of images and statues, &c. 3. Of not taking the name of God in vain, &c. Josephus in the 3. book of Antiquities, chap. 4. The first Commandment teacheth us, that there is but one God, and that we must serve him alone. The second forbids to make any image of any animal, and to worship it.

Clement in the 2. Book of the Apostolical Constitutions, chap. 36. according to the Greek, and chap. 40. in Latin, Have always the fear of God before thine eyes, remembering his Commandments at all times. Love one only God with all thy strength. 2. Apply not thyself unto idols.

Origen in the 8. Homily upon Exodus, The first Commandment is, Thou shalt have none other God's then me. And after that follows, Thou shalt not make unto thee any image or likeness: Then he reproveth those that of these two make but one precept, saying, that by making these two precepts into one the number of ten Commandments should not be complete.

Athanasius in his Synopsis, saith, that the book of Exodus contains these ten Commandments written in Tables. The first, I am the Lord thy God; The second, Thou shalt not make any idol or resemblance.

Gregory Nazianzen in his verses, hath summed up the ten Commandments in verses, which begin thus; God hath graven his ten Commandments in tables of stone, but write them in thy heart. Thou shalt acknowledge no other God; for the service belongs to one only.

Thou shalt not set up vain resemblance nor inanimate image.

Thou shalt never make mention of the great God in vain.

Ambrose upon Eph. 6. It is a received truth that the Commandment is thus set down, Thou shalt have none other God's but me. And next, Thou shalt not make any likness of the things that are above in heaven, nor in the earth below. The third, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Jerome upon the same Chapter saith, that in the second Commandment, which saith, Thou shalt make no idol, there is a promise added.

The same is found in the imperfect work upon St. Matthew, attributed unto Chrysostom, in the 33. and 49. Homilies, and in the book of Questions of the Old and New Testament, attributed to Austin, in the 7. chap. and in Severus Sulpitius, in the first Book of the Ecclesiastical History. Clemens Alexandrinus 7. Stromaton seems to confound the second Commandment with the first; but he expounds himself afterwards, saying, that the fifth Commandment enjoins to honor father and mother, and that the tenth is of all sorts of coveting.

From that consent of the Ancients the Roman Church of this time is departed; for her Doctors not contenting themselves to mingle the first and the second Commandment, endeavor to abolish the second, having utterly razed it out of the Houres, Offices, Brevaries and Catechisms, which are given to the people for their exercise and instruction. In the Council of Auspurg held in the year 1548. the Commandments of God are put in German, where the second Commandment is suppressed, in which God forbids to make and worship images. These men that make images of the Trinity, and bow down before the images of creatures, think to cover their crimes by suppressing God's Law. But the original of the Law is in the Counsel of God, and cannot be blotted out by men. By that shall they be judged in the last day.

XVIII. This proposition that man is justified before God by faith only, is odious unto the Roman Church, as a doctrine that slackens the zeal, and averts men from good works as useless. Yet it is the ordinary language of the Fathers. Origen upon Rom. 3. saith, that the justification by faith only is sufficient. Basil in the Sermon of humility, Paul did acknowledge himself poor in true righthteousness, and that he was justified by the only faith in Jesus Christ. Hilary 8. Canon upon St. Matthew, Fides sola justificat, Faith only justifieth. Jerome upon Gal. 3. Because nobody keeps the Law, therefore it is said that the believers must be justified. And in the same place, Vobis ad justitiam sola fides sufficit, To be righteous, faith only is sufficient to you. And a little after, That the nations might be blessed in Christ by faith only. Ambrose upon Rom. 4. How do the Jews think to be justified by the works of the Law with the Justification of Abraham, since they see that Abraham was justified, not by the works of the Law, but by faith only? and a little after, Impius sola fide justificatur apud Deum, The wicked is justified before God by faith only. Chrysostom upon Gal. 3. They said, that he that stands upon faith only is execrable. But St. Paul showeth, that he that stands upon faith only is blessed. Austin 68. Serm. de Tempore, Abraham hath been justified by saith without works, and that only belief hath given him that which might be conferred upon him by the observation of the Law. Theodoret, We have not obtained the mystical goods by works, but by faith only. Bernard 21. Serm. upon the Canticles. Being justified by faith only he shall have peace with God.

These Fathers teaching that man is justified before God by faith only, did nevertheless exhort unto good works; for they spake of another faith then that of the Church of Rome, which our Adversaries say to be a belief that whatsoever God hath said is true; a faith which the Devils also have. But they spake of a lively faith working by charity, fruitful in good works; whereby a man resting upon the promise of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, is thereby induced to love and serve God.

XIX. We will show hereafter, that in the thee first ages of the Christian Church, and more then the half of the fourth, there was not any mention of calling upon the Saints; and that Transubstantiation is contrary to the doctrine of the Ancients, and that in the Temples of the first ages there was no picture, or statue, or image of God, and that they worshipped not images.

XX. None that hath some measure of knowledge in antiquity, but knows, that the form and the degrees of Penance observed in the Antient Church, are no more observed in the Roman, and that all the ancient penitential Canons are abolished. Read the Epistle of Basil to Amphilochius, and the Decree of Buchard, and all the penitential Canons that are found in the Councils, you shall find nothing in them, of that the Roman Church observeth in our days.

XXI We hope to show towards the end of this Book, that private Masses (that is, without Communicants and assistants, and said to the intention of him that payeth for them) are not only without precedent in the ancient Church, but also are generally condemned by the ancients, and by the very Orders of the old Roman Church. Bellarmine in his second Book of the Mass, chap. 9. doth freely confess it, saying, That no express passage is found in all the Ancients, which show that ever they offered sacrifice without the communion of someone or more with the Priest.

XXII. Who knows not, that in the ancient Church the public service was celebrated in Italy in Latin, in Greece in Greek, in Armenia in Armenian; and that everyone prayed in a language which he understood? That they made no elevation of the host over the head, turning their back unto the people? and that the people adored not the host; which was not a waser, but some quantity of bread which was distributed unto the people? That in those days the Bishop of Rome had no Court, and was subject to the Emperors and Kings? That the Bishops in their reception took no oath of allegiance and obedience unto the Pope? and that the Pope did not exercise a temporal domination over them by Annats, and the like oppressions? That they did not know what the treasure of the Church was, which now is made up with the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints? That then the nations did not run from all parts to Rome to gain pardons? That the prayers of the Ancients for the dead, were not to draw souls out of Purgatory? That then the images of Saints were not worshipped, and they represented not the Trinity in stone or colors? That the Virgin Mary was not called Queen of heaven? In a word, that the face of the ancient Church is altogether changed as well as the doctrine? How can now the Popes adherents be so destitute of conscience, as to boast of the consent of the Fathers after they have despised them and forsaken their doctrine?

The sight and consciousness of this, makes them hold forth this doctrine; That the Roman Church can without the authority of the Fathers, and without the example of the ancient Church, make new Laws about faith and manners; the Church of this time having no less authority then the Old. This Bellarmine teacheth in his Book against Barcklay, chap. 3. He judgeth not aright of the Church, that receiveth nothing but what he reads expressly to have been written or done in the ancient Church: As though the Church of the last time had ceased to be a Church, or had not the faculty of expounding or declaring, yea also of ordaining and commanding the things that belong unto faith and manners. And the Bull Exurge, which is in the end of the last Council of Lateran, puts this among the errors of Luther, that he had said, That it was not in the power of the Pope and the Roman Church to establish Articles of Faith. See Alphonsus de Castro, a Franciscan, in the first book against heresies; where he maintains that the Roman Church of this time is far more instructed and better then the ancient Church. Should the Church (saith he) be always in the same case, so that she can never grow better? God forbid, for she is proficient as in virtue and goodness, so in science and Doctrine. He addeth, That now many things are known of which the Fathers were altogether ignorant; and that because of the Decrees which vary and alter, that which was in old time lawful, is not so now. This is the esteem that this Doctor hath of Antiquity.

CHAP. 49. Doctrines in which the Roman Church rejecteth every Father in particular.

BEsides these Doctrines about which a great number of Fathers is consenting, which nevertheless the Roman Church rejecteth and condemneth: there are but few Fathers but have some particular opinion, which the Roman Church disalloweth as well as we, or which is displeasing to our Adversaries for speaking the truth too plainly.

CHAP. 50. How far the Ancient Church was from the belief which is now received in the Roman Church. Observations upon the eighteenth Chapter of the Book of Cardinal du Perron.

HIs Majesty of Great Britain had said, that there is a wide difference between the Roman Church of this time, and that of the time of Saint Austin. And truly who so will compare the Church from the Apostles to Austin's time with the Roman of our days, will find an extreme difference, and will wonder how the enemy of our salvation could work so great an alteration.

I. For then the public service was celebrated at Rome in a known language; as also it was in Greek among the Grecians, and is still to this day. In Armenia, the service was in Armenian, in Italy in Latin, because Latin was the vulgar tongue. Neither did they know then what it was to pray to God, and not understand ones self.

II. Then the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, were held Apocrypha, not Canonical, as we shall prove hereafter.

III. Then they believed that things necessary to salvation, were sufficiently and clearly contained in the holy Scriptures.

IV. Then the Pastors of the Church recommended to the people, Tradesmen, Husbandmen, Women, and all, the reading of the holy Scripture.

V. Then the Councils prohibited to have images in the Church, least that which is adored, should be painted on the Walls. And the Fathers of that time, said, that making images of Jesus Christ was a Pagan Custom; and those deserve to be seduced, that seek Jesus Christ in painted walls, instead of seeking him in the holy Scriptures. So contrary they were to images, that they would tear vails and hangings where there was any image of Christ or of some Saint. So far were the Christians of the two or three first ages from yielding any religious service to images, that the very trade of Painter was held unlawful and forbidden by God. Tertullian objects it to Hermogenes as a crime and a reproach. How far were they from making pictures of God and images of the Trinity?

VI. Then in the form of service and public prayers which were pronounced before the table of the Lord these words were said, Make that this oblation may be put to our account, reasonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Which words have been taken away, and blotted out of the Mass to bring in the Transubstantiation.

VII. The Fathers and Councils of that time give the interpretation of these words, This is my body, that is, This is the figure of my body, and say that Jesus Christ said, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body; And expound these words, the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, by the bread and the wine consecrated. They say that the thing which Jesus Christ called his blood was wine, and that the nature and substance of bread remains after the consecration.

VIII. Wherefore also in the ancient Church they did not adore the Sacrament with cult of Latria; They spake not of accidents without subject; They believed not that the body was whole in every drop of the Chalice; They believed not that mice could carry away, or gnaw the true body of the Lord.

IX. Then the people received the Sacrament in their hand, and sometimes would carry it home. The Priest made no elevation of the host, showing it unto the people over his head, turning his back unto them; There was then upon the table not a little round wafer, but a quantity of bread and wine for the whole assembly to communicate; The word of transubstantiation was not known, and no more the signification now put upon it.

X. Then the consecration was made, not by these words, This is my body, but by prayer; Not speaking to the bread, but to God.

XI. Then they believed that as the body of Jesus Christ was not in heaven when it was on earth, likewise that now that it is in heaven it is no more on earth, and that we apprehend him in believing, not in chewing; by faith, not with the teeth or belly.

XII. Then they believed that the wicked and unbelievers do not eat the body of the Lord, although they take the sign of it to their condemnation.

XIII. Then the whole faithful people did communicate under both kinds, neither is there so much as one example found in all Antiquity of denying the Cup unto the people, or of the holy Sacrament administered in the Church without giving the Cup to any.

XIV. Then it was not lawful to women to administer the holy Baptism, as it is usual now in the Church of Rome.

XV. Then they made no Masses without either Communicants or Assistants, and no Masses were said for private men that paid for them.

XVI. For three hundred and fifty years since the birth of our Lord, all the Fathers with one consent will have God alone invocated, and reject the address of prayers made unto creatures. After that time some began to speak of it doubtfully, as Gregory Nazianzen the first Father that ever called upon Saints, and yet he declareth that he doubteth whether the Saints understand him.

XVII. Then they believed that the Saints departed know not and understand not the things that are done here below.

XVIII. Then they believed that there was but two places for the souls after death, paradise and hell; and that for him who is not in Christ, there is no place left but with the devil.

XIX Then they prayed for the dead that sleep in peace, that they might rise to salvation, not to fetch souls out of Purgatory; The Mass itself hath that ancient prayer; for there they pray for the dead that sleep in a peaceable sleep.

XX. Then they believed that the souls separate from the bodies cannot be tormented, and by consequent they believed not the fire of Purgatory.

XXI. Then no Christian what authority soever he had in the Church, did boast of releasing souls out of Purgatory, and to give Pardons and Indulgences to the dead.

XXII. Then many Priests and faithful Pastors of the Church were married, and their habitation with their lawful wives was called chastity. And still to this day, in the Greek and Eastern Churches Priests are married.

XXIII. Then they held that S. Peter was the first and chief of the Apostles, as for honor and precedence; but that in power and jurisdiction all the Apostles were equal.

XXIV. Then they held that the multitude was no mark of the true Church, and that the great number was often on the heretic side; And that Heretics and Seducers are often they that make the greatest show of miracles, as we have proved before by a multitude of testimonies.

XXV. Then the Bishops that had any authority were called Popes, and writ Remonstrances to the Bishop of Rome, and being assembled in Council without their leave, writ to him that they did not like that he should send them Legates, or take notice of their businesses, or receive any appeal coming from their countries, and pronounced Excommunication against any man who being condemned by the Church of his Country, should appeal to Italy. Their election was made by suffrages of the people. Cypr. Epist. 52. & 68.

XXVI. Then the Bishop of Rome exacted not from the Bishops of Gauls, or Spain, or Greece, or Asia, an Oath of Allegiance at the time of their reception; They took no letters of investiture from him, They paid no Annats unto the Pope of Rome. They feared not a sentence of lapse from Rome upon their Benefices.

XXVII. Then the Bishop of Rome in his Epistles and Decrees took none of those Titles which he assumeth now, and called himself only Bishop of the city of Rome.

XXVIII. Then the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, had the care of all the Churches of the Roman Empire, as well as the Bishop of Rome, and were equally called Heads of the Universal Church, and of all the world that is of the Roman Empire.

XXIX Then the Patriarchs of Alexandria sent to the Bishop of Rome every year to point unto him Easter day; And the Bishop of Rome accounted it not an injury or a contempt to receive that order from them.

XXX. Then the Universal Councils were convocated by the Emperors, who by their imperial Letters called the Bishop of Rome to the Council. We find not that the first Council of Nice was assembled by Constantine, by the advice of the Bishop of Rome, or that he consulted with him about it: It is found also, that the second Universal Council, which is the first of Constantinople, was convocated by the Emperor Theodosius the I. without the advice of Damasus Bishop of Rome; And that the same Council having met the second year again, Damasus endeavored to transfer it to Rome, but could not effect it. In that Council there was not any Legat of the Roman Bishop, and there without his advice the order of the Patriarchs was altered. And so for the IV. Council, which was that of Chalcedon, which Leo Bishop of Rome went about to hinder by humble supplications to Theodosius the II. but he could not obtain it. In that Council, against all the efforts of the Legates of Leo there present, the Patriarch of Constantinople was declared equal unto the Bishop of Rome in all things; In the same manner as the City of Constantinople was equal in all things to the city of Rome for the civil. Neither shall it be found that before Charlemagne the Popes had Legates in the Councils of Gauls, or that his leave was demanded to convocate them, or that the causes of Bishops were evocated to Rome. That tyranny got footing in France under Carolus Calvus towards the end of the ninth age.

XXXI. Then the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors who have often punished, expelled and deposed them, and often also have granted them graces, immunities and privileges, and have imposed upon them certain sums of money for their entry into the Bishopric. It was then very far from the Bishop of Rome to think of degrading Emperors, and taking crowns from the heads of Kings.

XXXII. Then the Universal Church of all the world was not called Roman, and the Christians of Syria or Egypt were not called Roman Catholics, but only when by the word Roman the subjects of the Roman Empire were understood, or the favorers of that Religion which was professed in the Roman Empire.

XXXIII. About the year of the Lord 300 began the profession of Hermits who called themselves Monachi or Monks, living not in Cities but in Deserts, and getting their living with the labor of their hands, without any necessity of vow. The following ages have added to that profession the vow and the works of supererogation, and the counsels of perfection, and divers sorts of Monastical Rules.

XXXIV. In the ancient Church they knew not what belonged to Papal Indulgences, They knew nothing of the great Pardons of Rome, nor of the Jubilee, nor of the treasure of the Church composed with the overplus of the satisfactions of Jesus Christ and the Saints, nor of the Pardons of six hundred thousand years, nor of the Popes power to draw souls out of Purgatory, and to put an interdict upon a kingdom, and dispense from Vows and Oaths, and change that which God hath commanded in his word; Nor of Cardinals, nor of the Court of Rome. For then the Bishop of Rome was not a Prince, and wore not a Triple Crown glittering with diamonds. He gave not his feet to Kings and Emperors to kiss; He boasted not that he could not err in the faith. He did not canonize the Saints, and caused not himself to be adored.

XXXV. Then there was no mention of God's Feast, nor of the Mass of such and such a Saint, as now there is the Mass of St. Rock and of St. Genovesa, and of St. Anthony, and of the holy Ghost. For of late they have judged it reasonable that the holy Ghost should also have his Feast. Then the Altars were not consecrated to such and such a Saint, whose Relics are hid under the Altar.

XXXVI. Then it was an impious language to call the Virgin Mary the Queen of Heaven. They believed not her bodily assumption into heaven; They did not defer unto her the cult of Hyperdulia. And the Church of that time gave no charges unto Saints over a Trade, or a Town, or a sickness,

XXXVII. Then the Roman Indulgences were not in use, as Gabriel Biel acknowledgeth in the 57. lesson upon the Canon of the Mass, and the Cardinal Cajetan in the Book of Indulgences to Julius de medicis.

XXXVIII. In that time the public Service war pronounced aloud, and the people answered Amen, because they understood that which was said. That part of the Mass which is called Secreta, was a thing unknown to Antiquity.

XXXIX. The ancient Church carefully concealed the matter and the mystery of the Sacrament, and would not celebrate it in presence of those that were under penance, or of the Catechumenes. Now Jews and Turks, and Pagans may see what is done in the Mass, and the Sacrament which they call the Host, is carried in procession through the streets in open view.

XL. Then the Baptism was not ordinarily conferred but at Easter and Pentecost; and the most part to avoid the rigor of the penitential Canons, would defer the Baptism till they were at man's estate, and many even to the hour of death.

XLI. We shall see hereafter that the whole doctrine, and the whole form of Penitence, and all the Penitentiall Canons of the ancient Church are abolished in the Church of Rome.

In a word it is now quite another face of the Church, and another Religion. If any of the Christians of the first ages did return into the world, he would seek the Roman Church in the Roman Church, and should have much ado to observe in it the Relicks of Christianity.

I have been large upon this matter, to be even with Card. du Perron, who in the 18. ch. of his first Book quoteth many testimonies of the Fathers in the margin, whereby he pretends to prove the conformity of the Roman Church of this time with the Antient. All that to no purpose; for who knows whether these passages be faithfully quoted? or whether the same Fathers speak always the same language? or whether the words of these passages be not used in a sense contrary to the Authors mind? or whether the signification of the words be not changed? (As in effect the words of Pope, Merit, Sacrifice, Indulgence, Mass, Consecration, Prayer for the dead, Satisfaction, &c. have lost their ancient signification) Or whether the alleged Books be not supposititious? Or whether the several ages have been uniform, and have altered nothing in these matters? And after all, they are but men that speak, such men as the Roman Church condemneth in many things, and that will not be believed without the Word of God.

In effect, whoso will examine the authorities quoted in the Cardinals margin, and consult the authors themselves, shall find that of those passages some are taken in a wrong sense, some are of suspected Authors, some are out of purpose, and touch not the question, or they are about trifles and petty ceremonies not worth the staying upon, or that a Father having spoken thus hath spoken otherwise afterwards, and hath retracted his doctrine.

For example, he goeth about to prove by the Fathers, that in the ancient Church they adored the Eucharist, not only with words and inward devotions, but even with gestures and outward adoration: Upon that he quoteth in the margin Cyrillus of Jerusalem in the fifth mystagogicall Catechesis, which is a suspected book, whose style is different, and more concise then the other precedent Catecheses of Cyrillus, of which we shall say more in another place. He quotes also Chrysostom upon the 1. Ep. to the Corinthians, hom. 24. Austin upon Ps. 98. Theodoret dialogo 2. All Texts that say not, that the Eucharist was adored with adoration of Latria. The passage of Theodoret is this, The mystical signs do not change nature after the Consecration, for they remain in their first substance, figure and form, and are visible and to be handled as before: But they are understood to be the things which were made, and they are believed and adored as made that which they are believed to be.

Theodoret saith. That the mystical signs are adored; He speaks not then of the adoration of Latria due unto God alone; for the signs must not be thus adored. Besides, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Theodoret useth, doth many times simply signify to venerate and make obeisance or a congy. The testimony of Austin upon Psa. 98. is this, That none eat this flesh unless he hath first adored it; Where Austin speaking of manducation by faith, will have the flesh of Christ adored in the celebration of the Eucharist, but he saith not, Let the Eucharist be adored. It is one thing to worship Christ in the Lotds Supper, and another to worship the Lord's Supper, or to adore the Sacrament which is set upon the table; The Father also is adored in the Eucharist, although he be not enclosed under the accidents of bread. Chrysostom saith the same in the alleged place, and will have all those that partake of the Sacrament to worship Christ, which we acknowledge to be necessary. But he speaks not of the adoration of the Sacrament.

In the same Chapter also to defend the Communion under one kind, he quoteth in the margin such passages as say, that in old time they carried the bread home, that it was brought to the sick, carried upon the sea, and sent to remote Countries. Who seeth not that this doth not touch the question? The question is, Whether in the ancient Church the Eucharist was celebrated in the Temple without giving the cup to any of the Assistants; or whether the cup was ever denied to any of the people that required it, or whether it was interdicted to the Laity, as it is now in the Roman Church.

Also for the invocation of Saints, he quoteth in the Margin the book of Ambrose concerning Widows. But he saith not, that the same Father retracted his opinion; and that in the oration upon the death of Theodosius written many years after, he said, that God alone must be prayed to, and invocated.

But of all these Texts we shall speak in their proper place, for the Cardinal brings forth the same Texts, and many more in the Chapter, when he speaks of every question by itself.

CHAP. 51. Of the pretended power and authority of the Church to add unto Scripture. And of the unwritten Traditions. And why the Pope not only equalleth them unto, but preferreth them before the holy Scripture.

ONe of the chief proofs that our Adversaries bring to raise the authority of the Church above the holy Scripture, is the power which they ascribe unto the Church to add unto Scripture, and to make Laws (which concern faith and manners) not contained in the Scripture. The Jesuit Gregorius de Valentia saith, that the Scripture is not a sufficient rule of faith, because it contains not all things. The Jesuit Bail in the ninth question of his Catechism, I will make you (saith he) palpably discern, that Scripture is not sufficient. And so Charron in the fourth chapter of the third verity: Scripture is but a very little parcel of the revealed truth. Salmeron gives a reason why God would not have all the Mysteries of Religion to be written, namely, That the Commandment of Christ should be kept, Give not holy things unto Dogs. So that in his account, the holy Scripture is for Dogs: Costerus saith the same.

And that one may not think that the Traditions which the Church addeth unto Scripture, be of small concernment; Thomas Aquinas saith, that the Pope can make a new Edition of the Symbol. Upon which Text, Andradius in the second book of the defense of the Tridentine faith, saith, The Roman Popes by defining many things which had been hidden before, use to augment the Symbol of the Faith. Whence the Council of Florence, in the last Session attributes to the Pope and to the Roman Church the power of adding to the Symbol. The Bull Exurge, which is at the end of the last Council of Lateran, condemneth Luther for saying that it is not in the power of the Pope and the Roman Church to stablish new Articles of Faith.

Hence it appears, that our Adversaries hold, that unwritten Traditions which are wanting unto Scripture, are not only light things and indifferent customs, but such as are held to be Articles of faith, essential points, and necessary to Christian Religion, as the Jesuit Salmeron saith, The Doctrine of faith suffereth addition in essential things. Whence it follows, that Christian Religion had not yet all her essential Doctrines in the time of the Apostles, and was wanting in things necessary. For the same Jesuit in the same place is prolix in maintaining, that there are many Traditions, even in things essential, which the Apostles have not taught, neither by word nor writing. So that by a great abuse, they call all traditions Apostolical, there being many Doctrines of which the Apostles have neither written nor spoken. For (saith he) all things have not been taught by the Apostles, but such as were then necessary and fit for the salvation of Believers. By that reason there are some Doctrines that now are necessary and essential to faith, which were not so in the Apostles time. It were good to know when Christian Religion shall be perfected, and whether the Popes shall have always the power to add new Articles of faith.

M. du Perron in the fifth observation of the second book, chap. 3. is very ample upon that point. And as in the third observation, he maintains that the Church can change the Scripture, and make other Laws; so in this place he maintains that the Church can add to Scripture, and make traditions of equal authority to Scripture.

To this Tradition our Adversaries have recourse, when Scripture faileth them. So did the old Heretics, as Irenaeus saith in the third book, chap. 2. When one convicteth Heretics by Scripture, they will accuse the Scriptures as not being in good form, and having no authority, and diversely spoken, and because truth cannot be found in Scripture by those that know not tradition, because it was not given in Writing, but viva voice. For which cause, Paul said, We speak Wisdom among the perfect. Tertullian being turned Heretic defended his error by tradition, alleging these words of the Lord, I have yet many things to say unto you, but as yet you cannot bear them. Which Text Bellarmine and other defenders of traditions, make use of to establish them; as also of this Text alleged by Irenaeus, We speak wisdom among the perfect. A little after the Apostles, Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, applied his mind to unwritten traditions, which were parables, and strange Doctrines, and other fabulous things, as Eusebius saith in the last chapter of the last book of his history.

Clemens Alexandrinus, who among many virtues had also his defects, was much given to traditions not contained in Scripture. He taught that the Pagans were justified by Philosophy, and that it was necessary before the coming of the Lord, and that it was a Schoolmaster unto Christ. That Christ had prescribed to the Jews twelve years for a term of repentance; That not only Christ, but the Apostles also descended into hell to preach repentance, and many such Doctrines, which the Roman Church of our days doth not receive.

Within these traditions our Adversaries intrench themselves when they are pressed by the Scripture, and say that this unwritten word is found in the mouth of the Church, that is, that it depends from the will of the Pope, and of those that govern the Roman Church under him.

Now although the Council of Trent equal those traditions with the holy Scripture, commanding that they be received with the like reverence and affection of piety as the holy Scripture; Nevertheless traditions have really a greater authority with the Roman Church then the holy Scripture; Since the Romanists ground the authority of Scripture upon tradition, and upon the testimony of the Church. Certainly if the tradition of the Church can change that which God commandeth in Scripture (as the Cardinal will have it) it follows, that Tradition hath more authority then Scripture. Or if Scripture must be believed, because the tradition of the Church prescribes it, what followeth but that the tradition of the Church is more to be believed then Scripture? Whence also the Jesuit Costerus in his Manual, chap. 1. calleth the tradition printed in the heart of the Church, another kind of Scripture. The excellency of that Scripture (saith he) far surmounteth the holy Scriptures, which the Apostles have left in parchments; First, because that is written by the finger of God, the other is written with the Pens of the Apostles. Salmeron in the third part of the XIII. Tome, in the 8. Dispute, pronounceth this goodly Aphorism, Tradition hath all things necessary to salvation, yea more then Scripture. He addeth, Tradition is more ancient then Scripture. Again, Scripture cannot be Judge of doubts, because it is hard and dumb, and like a nose of wax which is drawn any way, &c. Wherefore such as will be insolent, cannot be convinced by Scripture; but with the only tradition we must cut their throats. Again, Tradition is more firm then Scripture. And a little after, Tradition is far more universal then Scripture, and extends to a longer time, and hath more matters, and more persons then Scripture; Yea that Jesuit goeth so far, as to say, that Scripture is subject unto the Church which hath the Spirit. Now to be subject unto the Church, and unto the tradition of the Church, is all one. Which is the same thing that Lindanus saith in Panoplia, The Church was not tied to Scripture by the Will of Christ. And the Jesuit Costerus in his Manual, Christ would not have his Church to depend from Scriptures of paper, and would not commit his mysteries to parchment. And Stapleton in the second book of the authority of Scripture, chap. 11. I have said, and say again, that Scripture in herself is not so much the rule of Faith, as the faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture. Now by the Faith of the Church, the tradition of the Church is understood; and by the Church, they understand the Roman; and by the Roman, they understand the Pope, in whom resideth the whole authority of the Roman Church. So the Pope is set above God, speaking in the Scriptures; Wherefore they are gravelled, when they are asked whether the Pope be subject to the holy Scripture?

Did ever any of their Doctors say of the Traditions, that which they say of the h • lie Scriptures? Did they ever call the Traditions a piece of a rule, a nose of wax, a stumbling block, a dumb rule, a sword for both hands, an obscure and ambiguous Doctrine which cannot be judge, &c? In a word, they will have Tradition, not Scripture to be Judge. And their practice justifieth it; for in the Roman Church, the people is a thousand times more carefully instructed in the tradition, then in the Doctrine of salvation contained in the holy Scripture. The very idiots among them know what belongs to Lent and Emberweeks; what meats are forbidden on certain days; and speak of Holy days, Vigils, Pilgrimages, Relicks, great Pardons, Obits, Beads, Rosaries, &c. But many that go for learned, are ignorant in the Doctrine of our Redemption, and free Adoption, and Justification by Faith, and about the Offices and Natures of our Redeemer, and about the relation between the New and the Old Testament, which are the funmentals of Christian Religion. Confirmation being of human invention, is more honored then Baptism, which is instituted by Christ. For Confirmation is not conferred but by the Bishop; But Baptism may be conferred by a Woman, yea by a Pagan Woman, yea by a Pagan Whore. Of sins against God's Law, as Fornication, Murder, Perjury, Adultery, Priests and Bishops give absolution; but they cannot absolve them that have molested those that go to Rome to gain pardons, or robbed the victuallers that carry provision to the Court of Rome, nor Princes and Magistrates that levy Tenths upon the Clergy, nor them that appeal from the Pope unto the future Council. These are cases reserved unto his Holiness, except only in the Article of death. They are traditions, which to transgress, is a greater sin then to transgress the Law of God. If a Priest marry for a remedy to his incontinence, according to the Apostles command, he falls into irregularity, and becomes unable to sing Mass; but not for keeping many Concubines, or for being a Sodomite, as we learn of Pope Innocent the III. and of Navarrus the Popes penitentiary.

It is no wonder that in the Roman Church Tradition hath more authority then Scripture. For the Popes succession in Saint Peters Primacy, is a tradition, which is the foundation of his Empire. He hath then a great interest to exalt tradition, upon which his domination is founded.

Besides, all traditions are lucrative unto the Pope, and serve to exalt and enrich the Pope and his Clergy. He draweth great profits from Indulgences, private Masses, Dispensations, Annals, Suffrages for the dead, and from Purgatory. By the confessions the Confessors know the secrets of families, and the intentions of Princes, and have a King kneeling before them, confessing his sins, and craving pardon, and undergoing penances at their discretion. Clergy-men reserving to themselves and Kings the Cup in the Sacrament, raise themselves above the people, and make themselves fellows to Kings. By the Transubstantiation they arrogate to themselves the power of making God with their word, and hold Jesus Christ shut up in a box. By the sacrifice of the Mass they make themselves Priests after the order of Melchizedek, and sacrifice Jesus Christ unto his Father, having no command of God for that. The images of God the Father arrayed like a Pope, make the ignorant to believe that the Pope is like unto God. By holy days the Pope usurpeth the power of shutting up the Shops, and hindering the sitting of Courts of Justice and Councils of State. By the distinction of meats, the Pope rules the markets, and the kitchins, and the bellies, and the Tables of Kings. By the canonization of Saints h • gives his servants to be adored by the Nations, and raiseth to heaven such as have faithfully served him: By the Sacrament of Penance he chastiseih Kings and Princes, imposing corporal and pecuniary punishments, and changing when he listeth the corporal into pecuniary: By the Absolution Priests forgive sins, and bear themselves as Judges in God's cause; For God is the offended party, and the Priest is the Judge. By the adoration of Images, and the prohibition of reading Scripture in the vulgar tongue, the Pope keeps the people in ignorance, that they may not know the abuse and the tyranny. By the service in the Roman language the Pope tameth the people to the Roman Religion, and giveth his language to the nations which he hath subdued. The dispensations which the Pope giveth to Princes, of marrying in the forbidden degrees and unlawful by the Word of God, oblige the children born of those marriages to maintain, the Papal authority; for if that authority were shaken, one might doubt whether they were lawful. The power which the Pope usurpeth to take from Kings both their Crowns and their lives, and to dispose of Kingdoms, makes him King of Kings, and Monarch over the whole temporal of the earth. Who shall wonder now that the Pope labors with all his power to raise the authority of Traditions above that of the Law of God, since they are so lucrative unto him? And whereas he is Master of Traditions, and having made them he can change them, no wonder if he sticks to them, but he can neither abolish Scripture, nor make another at his pleasure.

For our part, we know no other word of God but that which is contained in the Old and New Testament, which God hath inspired unto his Prophets and Apostles. And holding that word for a perfect Rule of our faith, we reject all additions unto the doctrine of salvation contained in the holy Scriptures, either in express words or in equivalent terms.

Yet do we not absolutely reject all traditions, since Scripture itself is a tradition, as Cyprian saith in the 74 Epistle to Pompeius. Whence comes this tradition? doth it come from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or from the doctrine and Epistles of the Apostles? And a little after, If it be commanded in Scripture, or in the Epistles, or in the Acts of the Apostles, let that holy and divine tradition be observed. Besides there be many things that concern Ecclesiastical policy and outward order, which we would not reject, although they be not in Scripture; so that there be nothing in them against good manners, and that they exceed not in number, and that they be not given as necessary to salvation, and equalled to the doctrine of faith contained in the Scripture. Also if there be any tradition which adds nothing to the holy Scripture, but be an acknowledgement of the perfection of the same, and bar all addition to it; as that such and such books are sacred and Canonical, which is a tradition arising from the nature itself of Scripture, we receive it willingly. Moreover, if one call traditions the doctrines which are not found in formal texts in the Scripture, but are found in it in equivalent terms, or are drawn out of it by necessary consequence, we reject not those traditions. We reject those only that cannot be received without admitting some defect in Scripture, as if it contained not the whole doctrine of salvation. As Jerome saith, Whatsoever we say, we ought to affirm it by the holy Scriptures. And Austin, Let us hear no more among us, This I say, and that thou sayest, but the Lord saith this. We have the books of the Lord, to whose authority both of us consent, and believe it, and serve it: There let us seek the Church, there let us decide our cause. Again, Let us remove all that we bring, the one against the other, from any other place but the Canonical Scriptures.

CHAP. 52. That the holy Scripture contains the whole doctrine necessary to salvation. Examination of the Cardinals answers.

1. IN this Question we lay for a foundation, that true Religion comes from God, and must be ruled by the word of God. Now we have no other book that may challenge that Title but the holy Scripture, and our Adversaries produce none. Whence it follows that the Traditions not contained in the holy Scripture, though backed with testimonies brought from other books, are drawn not from the Word of God, but from the word of men.

If the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures should want anything necessary for salvation, whence or by what means should that defect be supplied? Should it be from the Decrees and Decretals of the Popes? but the Roman Church receiveth them not for the Word of God. Should it be by the ancient Councils? but they speak not of the Traditions which the Roman Church hath added since, and they condemn the Roman Church in many things. Wherefore the Roman Church receives not the Councils for the Word of God; Neither doth she hold herself subject to Councils, but attributes to herself the power of altering that which was decreed by the Universal Councils. And before the Councils, the Scripture for many ages was held in the Church the only rule of faith.

2. The very title of the holy Scripture is a proof. For it bears on the front the title of Testament and Covenant of God. We ask then whether the Testament of our God be whole there, or whether there be but part of it? If it be whole, nothing must be added to i • ; but if there be but a part of it, we must correct the title, and write, Part of the Testament or Covenant of God. And indeed our Adversaries were not so bold yet as to affirm that the traditions which they hold forth make part of God's Covenant.

3. The same may be said of the title set before the New Testament, that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Which Gospel if it be whole, it follows that the unwritten Traditions are no part of the Gospel: If it be not whole, the title must be corrected, and our Adversaries must supply that defect, and give us a list of the unwritten traditions, that the people may have the whole body of Christian Religion.

4. Now if the Church of this time, and that which shall come after, hath the authority to add more unto Scripture, Christian Religion shall never be entire, and there will be still a power to make additions to it, which presupposeth imperfection.

5. Moreover, how shall the people be able to learn these Traditions, and know the goodness of them? Shall they learn it from the mouth of the Church? but before that they must be assured, that it is an orthodox Church and sound in the faith; A thing impossible for the people to know, since the reading of holy Scripture is forbidden to the people, from which Scripture only the doctrine of salvation is drawn. And there being many contrary Churches, as the Roman, the Grecian, the Armenian, the Ethiopian, &c. how shall the poor people know, which of all their divers traditions they must stand to?

If one say that the good traditions are learned by the consent of the Fathers, the Fathers are things hidden from the people, who never read them, because they are Greek and Latin, and of an endless length. And if one should read them all, he should find a great number of traditions in the Roman Church, of which the Fathers say nothing, and some which the Fathers contradict. Can any man find in the Fathers of the four first ages any mention of the power of the Pope to send souls out of Purgatory? or to give and take away Kingdoms? Do they speak of Roman Indulgences? or of the Jubilee every twenty fifth year? or of the adoration of Images? or of denying the Cup in the Lord's Supper unto the people? or of private Masses? or of forbidding the people to read Scripture? and many the like things.

6. If the Church of Israel hath lived many ages having no other doctrine of salvation but the five Books of Moses, of which God speaks thus, Deut. 4.2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it: Is it credible that now that we have these books of Moses, the books of the Prophets, of the Apostles, and of the Evangelists, that these sacred books are not sufficient, and that we need yet besides them great number of doctrines? In vain M. du Perron answers, that in that place adding and diminishing signify transgressing the Commandments of God, or omitting to fulfill them, for he that kills or steals, addeth nothing to the Law of God.

The Cardinal saith also, that in the alleged place, by the word which I command you, the unwritten word is understood also; and he brings many commandments practiced by the Israelites, of which no mention is made in the books of Moses; A reason which shall be examined in the following Chapter. That Moses gave no unwritten Traditions to the people, but set down in writing the whole Law of God, himself testifieth it, Deut. 31.24. And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the Ark.

7. I add that the whole Service of God consisteth in two points, well-doing and well-believing: Of the first we have a summary in the Law, of the second in the Symbol. Many persons are come to salvation with less knowledge then that: Jonas did not propound all these things to the Ninevites, to whose conversion nevertheless Christ beareth witness, Matth. 12.

8. Luk. 16.29. The rich Glutton being in hell, desireth Abraham that some of the dead be sent to his brothers to warn them of their duty, lest they should fall into the like torment; To whom Abraham answereth, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Abraham will have them to be content with the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, which was read every Sabbath in the Synagogues, without expecting other revelation. For Christ speaks of that rich glutton as of a man that had lived under the Old Testament, under which the Church had no other doctrine but that of the Law and the Prophets: Chrysostom understood it so upon Gal. 1. Abraham (saith he) being required to send down Lazarus, answereth, They have Moses and the Prophets, if they will not hear them, no more they shall hear dead men raised again. Now Jesus Christ brings in Abraham speaking thus, showing that he will have us to give more faith to Scripture then to dead men risen again.

9. S. John ch. 20. ult. speaking of his Gospel, saith, that these things are written that we may believe in Jesus Christ, and that believing on him we may have life through his Name. We grant to the Cardinal, that these words contain not a demonstrative proof of the perfection of Scripture, but it is a very probable argument, since God hath inspired many of his servants to write the doctrine of salvation propounded by Jesus Christ, that he hath indicted and inspired unto them, all that he knew to be necessary to save us. For that which is committed to the simple word of men, and to unwritten tradition, is subject to be altered and corrupted: Which appears in that Churches have contrary Traditions, though they have the same holy Scripture. The Ancients made use of that Text to prove the perfection of Scripture; So did Austin, All that the Lord would have us to read about his words and deeds, he commanded them to write, they being as his own hands. And in another place, These things were chosen to be written which seemed to be sufficient for the salvation of believers. And Cyrillus, All that the Lord hath done was not written, but that which the writers thought to be sufficient, that shining by the right faith, and by works, we may attain to the Kingdom of Heaven.

10. The Apostle saith to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3.15. From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. It matters to whether the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be translated to make wise, or to instruct, as the Cardinal will have it. For the Apostle speaks not of an imperfect instruction. It is hard to say certainly, whether by the holy Letters or Scriptures he understands only the books of the Old Testament, or whether part of the New was already written. Only I say, that if Saint Paul speaks only of the Old Testament, the argument is so much the stronger; For if the Old Testament alone can make us wise unto salvation, how much more the Old and the New?

But (saith M. du Perron ) where is the Ordinance for Baptism, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, found in the Old Testament; and the Ordinance for distributing the body and blood of the Lord? I answer, that the knowledge of these things was not necessary under the Old Testament; And that even in the beginnings of the Christian Church, that which is revealed in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ, might be sufficient to salvation, to him that had wanted means to receive a more ample instruction. Besides, the Old Testament doth instruct us in these things, inasmuch as it sends us to Christ, and commands us to hearken to him, and by consequent to receive his Ordinances. And this is it that the Apostle addeth, saying, the holy Letters are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the Faith which is in Christ Jesus; that is, These holy Letters address thee to go unto Christ, and will have thee to believe in his Word.

To confound the Reader, he will have that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be translated in the Praeterit, to have instructed, being ignorant that the infinitive Aorist is taken almost always in the present tense. See Act. 13.44. & 14.1. & 15.10. Hardly is there a chapter in the New Testament without an example of this.

11. The same Apostle, Acts 20.17. saith, that he hath announced to the Ephesians the whole counsel of God. Then the traditions added since by the Popes, are not of the counsel of God. And Acts 16.22. He witnesseth both to small and great, that he said none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. Then he restrained his preaching to the Scriptures.

12. Mat. 15.3. The Lord Jesus said to the Pharisees, Why do you transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? The word transgressing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is overpassing. He saith not, Why do you contradict? but why do you overpass the commandment of God? as in effect the Pharisaical traditions were, for the most part, simple additions unto the Law of God, having an apparence of devotion; Not otherwise forbidden, but as much as God forbiddeth to add unto his Word: as to fast twice in the week, to make broad their phylacteries or fringes of their garments, to wash themselves returning from the Town-hall or Market, to make pots clean in a superstitious way, to number their steps on the Sabbath day.

13. The Apostle Eph. 2.20. foundeth our faith upon the Prophets and the Apostles. Being (saith he) built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. If our Adversaries say, that our faith is founded upon the Word both written and unwritten of the Apostles, they must say, also, that it is founded upon the word both written and unwritten of the Prophets. Now we have no unwritten Word of the Prophets, and our Adversaries produce none.

14. Saint Paul 1 Cor. 4.6. speaks thus; These things I have transferred in a figure to myself, and to Apollo for your sakes, that ye might learn not to think to be wise above that which is written. The whole context takes away all doubt of the sense of these words: For the Apostle in the precedent chapter, v. 5. & 6. and in this chapter, called himself an Architect, and a Minister of Christ, and Steward of the Mysteries of God; and had said, that Paul had planted, Apollo had watered, but that God giveth the increase; and he had sent us to Christ, who is the only foundation, of the building. Now in this Text, he saith, that he hath transferred those things to his person, and to that of Apollo, that by that example, the Pastors of the Church might learn not to assume to themselves more then the Scripture attributes unto them; for their charge and their authority must be limited by the Word of God. Whence we infer, that since Scripture sets a rule to the charge of Pastors, and puts limits unto them, which they cannot overpass without offending God, then we must make no doubt, but that the same Scripture prescribes unto Pastors that which they must teach, and limits their preaching. Whereby the Peoples duty is also limited; For the faithful must not presume to be wise beyond that which is written. This Text seems to have been purposely made against the Roman Church; in which, the Pope and the Priests assume titles beyond that which is written, as the titles of Vicar of God, and head of the Universal Church, and sacrificers of Christ's body.

15. The same Apostle Gal. 1.8. speaks thus to the Galatians, Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that ye have received, let him be accursed. The dispute is vain, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek signifieth besides or against; for who so teacheth besides the Gospel, teacheth also against it: And adding to the Gospel is gain saying the Gospel. Hence it is, that the word transgressing signifies not only overpassing, but violating and breaking the Law. Chrysostom upon Gal. 1. expoundeth that Text in this manner. Paul saith not, if they announce things contrary to the Gospel, or if they overthrow all, but if they preach never so little besides the Gospel which you have received, if they shake anything never so little, let them be anathema. And Theophylactus after him, The Apostle hath not said, If they preach only things contrary, but if they preach besides that which we have preached ourselves, that is, if they add never so little more.

Tertullian in the Book of Prescriptions, Chap. 8. speaking of Scripture, First, we believe this, that there is nothing that we should believe besides. And Chap. 14. To know nothing besides that, is to know all. And truly reason in this is evident: For if S. Paul hath taught both by word and writing all that is necessary to salvation, it follows that he forbids to add to that which he hath taught, and not only to contradict it.

The Roman vulgar version is express to this purpose, translating thus, Licet nos aut Angelus de coelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit: For although the adverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, and praeter in Latin, signify sometimes against, yet praeter quam quod cannot be so taken, and cannot signify but besides that, or otherwise then.

It is vain to reply, that S. Paul since that Epistle was written, hath added many Epistles, and that S. John after him hath written his Gospel, and the Revelation; For it will not be found that S. Paul in his last Epistles, or S. John in his Books have added anything to the doctrine of salvation, which S. Paul had written and preached before, and which was already contained in the other Gospels.

It will not serve to answer, that Paul forbids to add to that he had taught, but that he did not write all that he had taught. For we have heard the Jesuits saying before, that there are many things essential unto Christian faith, which the Apostles neither writ nor taught, so that they find a defect not only in the writings, but also in the preaching of the Apostles. Besides, those that speak this language, oblige themselves to specify unto us which are those points necessary to salvation, which the Apostles would not set down in writing, and to prove to us by good proofs, that S. Paul having preached the invocation of Saints, and the service of Images and Relicks, and the Popes Succession in S. Peters primacy, God forbad him to write these things.

16. In the last Chapter of the Revelation, S. John saith, I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book; If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. The Council of Friuli approved by the Roman Church, saith, that this Text is to be understood of the whole Scripture, not of the only Book of the Revelation.

17. Generally human traditions are forbidden in the holy Scripture, Mat. 15. where Christ speaks thus to the Pharisees: In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men. And the Apostle, Col. 2.8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men. And it is very considerable that in that Text the Apostle specifieth and condemneth especially certain traditions, which the Roman Church of our time observeth, namely, the service of Angels, the observation of holy days, and the distinction of meats: Not because they that taught these things (saying, Eat not, touch not, handle not ) thought the Angels to be evil, or the meats to be of their nature unclean, but (saith the Apostle) in will worship and humility, and not sparing of the body, not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.

M. du Perron answereth, that Christ Matth. 15. speaks not of the Mosaical and Prophetical traditions, but of the Rabbinical institutions of Rabbi Sammay, and Rabbi Hillel, heads of the order of the Scribes and Pharisees. Here he would make a show of his great reading; yet they that have taught him this, have cosened him; for the order of the Scribes comes not from these Rabbies, seeing that Ezra was a Scribe, who was none of their disciples, and was more ancient then they. He is abused also by them that made him think that the Scribes and Pharisees were one and the same order: For the Scribes had charge in the Church: but the Pharisees as Pharisees, had none. Pharisaism was a voluntary devotion, and a fraternity of professors of works of supererogation, and of an austere life. The difference between a Scribe and a Pharisee, is such as is in the Roman Church between a teaching Priest and a Lay Frier, whom to conceive to be all one order would be a great ignorance: It is another mistake of the Cardinal, to put Sammay before Hillel, seeing that Hillel is far more ancient. See Drusius in his second Book of the three Sects, of the Jews. Cha. 10.

But to answer the main Question, The words of our Lotd cannot be restrained to the Pharisaical Traditions, since to condemn those traditions he makes use of a Text of Isaiah more ancient then the Pharisees, a Text that condemneth Traditions in general. It matters not upon what occasion Jesus Christ condemneth traditions which add unto the Word of God, since he condemneth them all without exception.

The same I say of the Text of Col. 2. where by the Traditions of men, one ought not to understand the Ceremonies of the Law, since God was the author of them: And by consequent, even after their term was expired, they must not be called traditions of men, but God's laws, which God himself had abolished. Besides the Apostle addeth, that those that observed these traditions, did it out of a voluntary submission, and with a show of humility: whereas they that observed the Ceremonies of the Law in S. Paul's time, pretended to do it out of necessity, holding themselves obliged to it by God's commandment.

In this Question our Adversaries use to say, that their Traditions are not contraventions unto the holy Scripture, but simple additions. But by speaking so, they contradict themselves. For we have seen before the Cardinal and a number of Doctors affirming, that the Pope and the Roman Church can alter, and have really altered God's Ordinances contained in the Scripture. And we shall see in this whole Book, that their Traditions are mere contraventions under color of addition: Consider also that going about to add unto Scripture some doctrine necessary for salvation, is going against Scripture, since God forbids us to add unto it.

CHAP. 53. Testimonies of Fathers of the sufficiency of Scripture against unwritten Traditions.

THE Ancients abound in testimonies for the perfection of Scripture. Thus Tertullian against Hermogenes, I adore the perfection of the Scriptures. And in the same book, Let the shop of Hermogenes show that it is written, otherwise let him fear the woe denounced to them that add or diminish. It would be impertinent to object here that Tertullian writ this book being a Montanist; for the Orthodox never accused the Montanists of too much adhering to Scripture, or rejecting the unwritten Traditions.

The whole Antiquity commends the words of Constantine in the Council of Nice. That the books of the Gospels, and Oracles of the Apostles and of the ancient Prophets, do clearly instruct us of the opinion we ought to have of divine things. Wherefore all perverse contention being laid aside, let us fetch the solution of doubts from the words divinely inspired. To which Bellarmine answers, that Constantine was a great Emperor, but not a great Doctor.

Athanasius in the beginning of the book against the Grecians, speaks thus, The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient to make the truth to be understood. And in the Treatise of the Lord's incarnation, If you will bring other things besides, that which is written, why do you fight against us who are persuaded neither to hear nor to say anything besides that which is written? And in the same place, You are so exceedingly idle as to say things that are not written, and to have tenets remote from piety.

Gregorius Nazianzenus in his oration upon Athanasius praiseth him because he presented to the Emperor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , written piety against unwritten novelty.

Cyrillus of Alexandria in the two books of his Treatises upon Genesis, How could we receive that which holy Scripture hath not said, or put it in the rank of true things? And in the seventh book against Julian, The holy Scriptures are sufficient to make wise and most approved and sufficiently understanding, those that are bred and instructed in it.

Theodoret in the first Dialogue, entitled The immutable; Bring me not human reasons, for I believe none but holy Writ. And in the second Dialogue, I am not so rash as to affirm a thing of which the holy Scripture is silent.

Chrysostom upon the second chapter of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, All things that are in the divine Scriptures are clear and straight. All that is necessary is clear. And upon Psal. 95. When one saith something that is not written, the hearers mind is halting.

Basil towards the end of his Ethics, which are among his Asceticks, If (saith he) all that is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle saith, and faith is of hearing, and hearing of the word of God; all that is without the divinely inspired Scripture, being not of the faith, is sin. Note that he saith without, not against Scripture. One cannot doubt but that these Asceticks are of Basil; for Gennadius Archbishop of Constantinople hath compiled common places, or short Homilies drawn out of Basil: where there is a great number of passages out of the Asceticks. And the style of Basil is evident in them where the florid fluidity is inimitable. And Photios in his Library puts that book among Basils works.

Jerome upon the first chapter of Haggai. All things that men invent of themselves, pretending Apostolical tradition, without authority and testimony of Scripture, are smitten by God's sword. And upon the Prophet Micah, book 1. chap. 1. The Church of Christ is not come out of her limits, that is, the holy Scriptures. And writing against Helvidius, We reject that which is not written.

The life of St. Antony attributed to Athanasius, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the Scriptures are sufficient for instruction.

Cyrillus of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechesis Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith, the least thing must not be taught without the holy Scriptures. Believe me not saying these things to thee, unless I show thee what I say by Scripture. Salvation and the preservation of our faith consisteth not in invention of words, but in demonstration by the divine Scriptures.

Austin Epist. 14. chap. 9. By the Scriptures only thou canst fully know the will of God. And in the book De bono viduitatis, chap. 1. Let my teaching be nothing else but propounding the words of the Doctor. And in the third chapter of the book de unitate Ecclesiae, Auferantur illa de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris, sed aliunde recitamus. Let us take away all that we bring the one against the other, out of other places then the divine Canonical books. This Father receiveth no proof but out of Scripture. Himself in the second book de doctrina Christiana, chap. 9. In the things which are clearly set down in the Scriptures, all things are found that concern faith and manners. And against the letters of Petilianus, book 3. chap. 6. Read us this out of the Law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel itself, out of the writings of the Apostles, and we will believe it. And in the second book of the merits of sins, and of pardon, chap. 36. When the dispute is about a very obscure things, without help of clear and certain instructions out of the divine Scriptures, presumption must stay. Most pregnant of all are this Fathers words in the fifth chapter of his book of the unity of the Church Let us pick the clear and manifest texts, which if they were not found in the holy Scriptures, no way should be left to open the things that are shut up, and to clear those that are dark: That holy man finds no other way of clearing doubts and difficulties in religion, then by clear texts of the holy Scriptures. A thousand the like passages might be produced.

This so great a consent of the ancients, hath extorted from the most violent enemies of the perfection and authority of Scripture, notable confessions.

The Jesuit Salmeron told us befores that the Scripture was subject unto the Church, and that Scripture is a nose of wax, and a Judge uncapable to decide any difference, and that Tradition goeth beyond Scripture in excellency; Nevertheless in the first Prolegomen he speaks thus of Scripture, Scripture teacheth all truth, dissuadeth from all vices, encourageth to all good works, exhorteth to all virtue. And a little after Scripture is so formed and woven by the Spirit of God, that it is fitted for all places, times, persons difficulties, to expel all dangers, sicknesses, and sorrows; to bring in all good, to cut the throat of errors, to establish doctrines, to plant virtues, and drive vices away. And he alledgeth Basil, who compareth it unto a complete Apothecaries shop, affording remedies for healing all sicknesses.

Bellarmine, who in the first book of the unwritten word, chap. 3. & 4. denieth the Scripture to be sufficient without the traditions, and calls Scripture a a part or a piece of a rule, not a whole rule; yet maintains the contrary in the sixth book de amissione gratiae & statu peccati, chap. 3. We must not (saith he) affirm anything concerning the things which depend of the will of God, if God himself hath revealed no such thing in the holy Scriptures. So grew is the strength of truth.

CHHP. 54. The Cardinals reasons for Traditions against the perfection of Scripture. And first of the Traditions which he calls Mosaical and Patriarchal.

THE Cardinal in the second chapter of the third book brings many unwritten traditions not contained in the five books of Moses, which nevertheless the Church was obliged to believe under the Old Testament. The Reader is desired to remember, that by Traditions, are understood commandments which must be observed, and doctrines which must be believed, belonging unto salvation and to the ordinary service of God. Now the Traditions which he brings are Histories or commandments addressed to some particular person, not to the Church. Such is the commandment made to Joshua of carrying the Ark in procession, which the Cardinal brings for example; for that never was done but once, and was no Law in the Church. Also the transporting of the Ark from Shiloh into another place. And the commandment to Solomon of building the Temple, and making another brazen Altar, and the molten Sea with brazen Bulls, and Cherubims embossed on the walls and pillars. All that cannot be put among the Traditions which the Church was to practice. They were particular commands to Solomon, not rules of religion. And I wonder how the Cardinal would put these things among the unwritten Traditions; seeing that Josh. 3.8, 9. it is spoken of the bearing of the Ark, marching before the people, as of a thing commanded by God; As also the transportation of the Ark from Shiloh to another place is mentioned, Psal. 78.60. & 67. and Jer. 7.12. as a thing done by the express will of God. And as for the command to Solomon to build a Temple, it is formal in many places; especially 1 Kings 5.5. where Solomon speaks thus; Behold I purpose to build a house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David my Father, saying, thy Son whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build an house unto my name. Sure, the Cardinal had read Scripture very negligently, since he knew not these things, and would put them among the unwritten Traditions.

He doth also ask where it is read in the Pentateuch, that God had commanded the Ark to be adored, as David commands in these words, Worship his footstool: But that text is falsified. There is according to the Hebrew Worship towards his footstool; in the same manner as it as said a little after, Worship towards the mountain of his holiness. The Chaldaick Paraphrasts translate it so, and Pagninus, and Arias Montanus, and Lyra, famous Translators in the Roman Church. It was the custom of the Israelites to worship with their face towards the Temple; This is that which David commands in that text; for by God's footstool, his Sanctuary is understood, which for this cause is called the place of his rest, Psal. 132.8. The same words are found Psal. 132.7. where the Vulgar translates, we shall worship in the place where his feet staid. The Septuagint have translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

In the same chapter he brings forth divers points of doctrine, which he affirmeth not to be written in the books of the Law, as the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of the final judgment, of Paradise and of Hell. One may wonder how this Prelate is so diligent to mark the defects of Scripture; and it is more to be admired how he hath not seen clear proofs of the immortality of the soul, in the books of Moses.

We have Numb. 23. these words of Balaam, Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his. He that acknowledgeth the death of the righteous to be happy, acknowledgeth a happiness after this life. Besides, what we translate their end, in the Hebrews is their departing. He that calls death a parting, acknowledgeth a going to another place.

The Patriarch Jacob was saying, being near his death,