CHAP. 1. Of the Nature of the Question of the Church.

SUch is the ignorance and perversness of man, that he gets harm by the most salutary things, turning his helps into hin­drances, and directions to salvation into stumbling blocks. A truth justified by this Controversie of the Church: For this word Ecclesia (which with us is the Church) is a word importing Union, and calling together the wills, as well as the bodies: Yet it is that which now adays causeth the greatest division of minds; A Bond of Con­cord, is become an apple of discord.

This is the work of Pride and Ambition. For under the title of Church, a Temporal Monarchy is built in this world; whence it is come to pass, that the word hath lost its signification. For by the Church, which is said to be the So­veraign Judge of doubts concerning the Faith, from whose Authority the Au­thority of Scripture is made to depend, the Assembly of the Faithful is not un­derstood, but some few Prelates that do and undo, and rule according to their pleasure.

The worst is, that the word Church is used as a Scare-crow to fright simple souls, and to enslave their consciences, pinning them altogether upon the Au­thority of certain persons, to disswade them from enquiring of the Holy Scriptures, which alone can make us wise unto salvation. And whereas there be many contra­ry Churches, there is one among the rest whose Leaders boast that they cannot err, that the world may wholly relie upon them about the doctrine and way of salvation.

The ill order that is used in treating that point, contributes very much towards that evil. For that question is set in the van, which ought to be in the rear; this being laid for the Foundation and first Principle. That a man must believe the Church, before he be taught what the Church must believe. They will have the people to follow their Leaders, not enquiring whether they keep the right way, and teach the true Doctrine. But how shall a man joyn with the Assembly of the Faithful, before he know what it is to be faithful? And how shall one know what it is to be faithful, unless he know first what the Doctrine of Faith is? Among many contending Churches, how shall I know the true, and the pure Church, if the rules of Truth and Purity are hid from me, by a Prohibition of reading the holy Scripture, in which only those rules are to be found? Prudent men will know before they chuse. Only in the most important point of all, which is Salvation, the world will chuse the Church, before they know the things that make it to be the true Church.

For which this reason is given, that the work would be too long to examine all the questions by Scripture. Wherefore the Divines of the time will reduce all Controversies to the question of the Church; for (say they) he that is sure that he is in the true Church, is sure also that he hath the true Faith and Doctrine. But they fancy that to be a long work, which in effect is short: For the Faith of the Faithful is content with a few Articles, wherein the substance of Piety consisteth, which are set down in the Scripture in such clear terms, that they need no interpre­tation. And though the labour were long, yet in a thing so important, the diffi­culty must not breed neglect; much less, to avoid a long way, must we take an impassable and endless way. For since one cannot know which is the Assembly of the truly Faithful, but by the knowledge of the true Faith, whoso without know­ing which is the true faith, chuseth the Church which he will joyn to, throweth, as it were, at dice for his Salvation. And though he should light of the true Church, he should be never the better Christian for that; for he should owe his Religion to custom, or to his birth, or to some accident, without having any true piety or knowledge of God: He would have been of another Religion, if he had been born in another Country, or if he had met with other Leaders of his blindness.

In vain also the Controversies of Religion are begun by that of the Church, to make short work; for it is a thousand times the longer way. For the only questi­on of the Church, as it is handled in our time, is a sea without either bottom or shore, and the whole body of Divinity is short in comparison of that. For among the marks of the true Church, they put the succession of Chairs in the same Do­ctrine from Christ until now: Whereby one is obliged to know all the Histories of the Church over all the world, for sixteen hundred years, and to search what every Bishop, who hath been sitting in that Chair in sixteen hundred years hath believed, upon every point of Divinity. There contrary Chairs are found, and ve­ry often Histories are wanting: For the Exposition of a passage of a Father, there is many times as much (if not more) contention, as for the sense of a Text of Scripture. And after all, that Father is no God, and is fallible, and our adversa­ries condemn every Father in many things. Neither can the people get any skill in the Fathers, the Books being Greek and Latine, of infinite length.

Indeed he that is sure that he is in the true Church, is sure that he hath the true Faith and Doctrine, at least, as for the foundation, and the essential points of Religi­on. But I deny, that therefore he knows the true Doctrine, because he knows that he is in the true Church; yea, therefore he knows that he is in the true Church, because he knows that the Church in which he is hath the true Doctrine, and is in the com­munion of those that believe and observe it.

How much that method hath spoiled Divinity, it is evident and lamentable: For instead of treating by Gods Word, of the nature of God, of the corrupti­on of man, of the relation of the Law with the Gospel, of Redemption by Jesus Christ, of Justification by Faith, of the exercise of good Works, of the adora­tion of one God only, and of the saving calling of the Faithful, in which points true Divinity consisteth; we are drawn by our adversaries to dispute of the suc­cession of Chairs, and of the prerogatives of the Roman See; Whether the Church be above Scripture? that is, Whether men be above God? Whether the Pope can err? Of the contestations of other Patriarchs with the Bishop of Rome. Of the appeals of the Church of Africa. Of the Suburbicary Towns. Whether the Council of Sardica was universal? and a thousand things of that kinde, of no use for salvation. We need not then wonder that Atheism multiplieth, since in our days Christian Religion consisteth in disputes, from which the people get no instruction, and the consciences reap no comfort; and in an infinite heap of alle­gations of humane passages, God hardly finds any place, and his Word is very seldom made use of. Yea, the use that is made of it, is to subject the authority of it unto that of the Church: For (say they) it is the Church that makes the Scripture to have the force of a Law, and that which giveth authority to Scripture, the Roman Church being the infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture, even of the sense of those very Texts which speak of the duty of the Church, and are employed to establish the authority of the Roman Church. By this means the Roman Church is become judge in her own cause, and is an infallible Judge of the sense of the Laws to which she is subject.

So did not the Apostles; for (as you may see in the Book of the Acts) they in­structed the people in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and alledged the Writings of the Prophets; but sent not the people to the Church, or to the authority of any soveraign and infallible Chair.

We will then enter (with the favour and assistance of our God) into this mat­ter, which the malice of men hath so intangled and beset with thorns; and as oc­casion will require, we will examine the Reasons and Objections of Monsieur du Perron: Not always following the order of his Chapters, but of the matter, to avoid confusion; and that we may not be constrained to say (after him) fifty times over the same thing. For to make his Book swell, he beats over and incul­cates many times the same things, which are never the more true for being often repeated.

CHAP. 2. Of the word Church, and of the several significations thereof.

BEfore we speak of the nature of the Church, it will be necessary to remove the ambiguity of the word, and to shew how many ways that word is taken in Scripture: For our adversaries hide themselves within these thorns, and play with the ambiguity of that word as they list, intangling and confounding that which Scripture distinguisheth.

I leave the more remote significations; as when in Scripture a knot of wicked men is called Ecclesia, a Church, that is, an Assembly: As Acts 19.32. where a crowd of Pagans crying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, is called Ecclesia, a Church: And Psal. 26.5. where there is according to the vulgar version, I hate the Church of the wicked: Also that improper ordinary term, whereby Temples are called Churches: Likewise that custom of calling the Church the Clergy onely, as if the people were no part of the Church. In that sense they speak of the liberties of the Church, that is, of the priviledges of the Clergy; and in that sense they say, the Church goes before the Nobility and the Commons. Also that extrava­gant manner of speaking, when by the Church the Pope alone is understood; as [Page 4] doth Pope Innocent the III.Cap. Novit. Extra. de Ju­diciis. who attributes to himself the determining of a difference between Philip August King of France, and King John of England; because it is written, Tell the Church. And Cardinal Bellarmine in his second Book of the Councils,Salmeron. Tom. 13. tertia parte in Epi. Pauli disp 2. p. 172. Congregatio canum vel avium Eccle­sia aliquo mo­do dici potest. chap. 19. The Pope must tell it unto the Church, that is, unto himself. Al­so that prophane saying of the Jesuit Salmeron, that a kennel of Dogs may be called a Church.

I will then confine my self to those significations of the word Church, which serve to our Controversies.

1. In the holy Scripture the word Church is taken sometimes for the Universal visible Assembly of all that profess to be Christians, and to believe in Jesus Christ. It is that Church which S. Paul calleth The pillar and ground (or rather stay) of truth, 1 Tim. 3.15, because her duty is to defend and stay the truth against errour, as being made and appointed for that. Of that same Church the same Apostle speaks, 2 Tim. 2.20. saying, that in a great house there are not only vessels of gold, and of silver, but also of wood, and of earth. It is that floor in which the good grain is mingled with straw, Matth. 3.12. for that Church is made up of good and bad, and the pieces and particular societies of which that Universal Church is composed, are not equal in purity.

2. Sometimes also that word Church is attributed to particular Assemblies, which are parts of the Universal visible Church, and of which the Universal Church is composed. Such were in the Apostles time the Churches of Corinth, of Rome, of Philippi, and the seven Churches to whom the Spirit of God speaks in the se­cond and third Chapters of the Revelation. Each of these particular Churches is also for her part, a pillar and stay of truth; for every particular Church is bound to defend the truth.

3. Sometimes also by the word Church, the Pastors only and Leaders of the Church are understood; as when the Lord Jesus biddeth, that in a quarrel be­tween two brothers, the offended party tell it unto the Church; for Jesus Christ in the following verse gives unto that Church the power of binding and loosing,Matth. 18. which cannot be proper to any but the Pastors of the Church.

4. Sometimes also by the Church, the people only is understood; as when the Apostle commands the Pastors to feed the Church, Acts 20.8. and the same Apo­stle, 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. commands the Bishop to be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity: For (saith he) if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?

5. But besides these four significations of the word Church, the holy Scripture takes that word in a higher and holier signification, meaning by the Church very often, the whole Assembly of the true Faithful and Elect whom God hath pre­destinated unto salvation: This is that Church which S. Paul, Ephes. 1.23. calleth the body of Jesus Christ; it is that which is called the Spouse of Christ, and, the Jerusalem of God; it is that which the Apostle Peter, 1 Pet. 2.9. calleth the chosen Generation; and because Scripture saith, that the Elect are written in the Book of Life, and that their names are written in heaven,Luke 10. the Apostle to the Hebrews, chap. 12. ver. 23. calls it the Assembly, and the Church of the first-born which are written in heaven.

Of these Elect some are already glorified, some are in this world mingled among the wicked, some are not yet called and converted unto the faith: Many of them also are not born yet, and are only inrolled in Gods counsel to fight when their time comes, and to get the victory. So there is a difference between the Church of the Elect, and the Church Triumphant; for the Triumphant Church is but part of the Church of the Elect.

Out of that Church there is no salvation: It is that Church which we say to be invisible; not only because the glorified Saints are out of our sight, and be­cause those that belong to Gods Election, and are not yet born, cannot be seen; but also, because those Elect that live on earth, though they be visible men, yet are not visible in their quality of Elect; for Election is not discerned with the eye, only it is charitably presumed by the profession of faith, and by good works; ne­vertheless, the Church of the Elect shall be visible in the day of Judgement.

Of that Church principally the Symbole speaks in this Article, I believe the ho­ly Catholick Church; for those things are believed which are not seen, as the Apostle saith, Heb. 11. Faith is the evidence of things not seen; and, 2 Cor. 5.7. We walk by faith, not by sight: Wherefore immediately after these words, I believe the holy Catholick Church, in that Church the communion of Saints is placed, to exclude the prophane and hypocrites: And again, to that same Church the Re­mission of sins is attributed, and life everlasting, which are graces belonging on­ly to the Elect and truly faithful.

Besides these four significations of the word Church, the ancient Doctors use to understand by the Church (which very often they call Catholick) the whole So­ciety of the Christian Churches which are Orthodox, sound in the faith, and united together in Communion, opposing that Church to the Heretical and Schis­matical Societies. In that sense our adversaries take the word Church, and call it the true Church, and the Catholick Roman Church. Cardinal du Perron defines it thus in Chap. 8. pag. 30. That it is the Society of those whom God hath called to salva­tion by the profession of the true faith, sincere administration of the Sacraments, and adherence unto the lawful Pastors. The Jesuit Salmeron in Tom. 13. page 172. giveth this definition of the Church, The Church is the Assembly of those that are called by faith, and by the participation of the Sacraments, and thereby unto grace and felicity: Which acception of the Church we will not reject, but use it often in this Book, to accommodate our selves unto the language of our adversaries, for we delight not to dispute about words: Yet it hath that incommodity, that it re­cedeth from the soil of the holy Scripture, and takes the word Church otherwise then it is taken in the word of God.

From all that was said it is evident, that there being many sorts of Churches differing in nature, it is impossible to define them all with the same definition, and that Cardinal du Perron doth unjustly charge us in Chap. 8. and 69. page 34, 35. of his first Book, that sometimes we restrain the Church to the predestinate on­ly, sometimes we extend it to the whole multitude of those that profess Christi­anity, making it sometimes visible, sometimes invisible, like the ring of Gyges: Indeed that man should shew himself short of wit and learning, that would give to the same Church divers and disagreeing definitions; but since there are divers sorts of Churches, and of different nature, it is impossible to define them with one definition. We do not say, that the same Church is sometimes visible, and sometimes invisible; only we say, that the Church of the Elect is not discerned with the eye, neither is, or ever shall be visible before the day of Judgement, but that the true and orthodox Church is always visible to them that belong to it: To them that are without, as Turks, Jews and Pagans, we grant that it is invisible, as we shall see hereafter: For although they see a Society of men, they do not see that such a Society of men is the true Church.

So much of the word Church, and the divers significations of the same. Of which word Monsieur du Perron saith in his first Chapter, page 2. that Jesus Christ is the first that hath effected and consecrated the word Church to signifie a Society of Religion; affirming, that before Jesus Christ the word Church signified onely a civil Assembly, that is, a Parliament, or the meeting of the States of a Nation; but that Jesus Christ hath first taken it in a Religious sense: A great oversight to begin his Book withal, to think that Jesus Christ ever made use of the word Ecclesia, [which the English call Church,] for Ecclesia is a Greek word: Now Jesus Christ spake among the Jews in the Jewish Tongue only. The Hebrew word [...] Kahal, which signifies Assembly, is often taken in a Religious sense, as 2 Chron. 1.3. Levit. 8.3, 4, 5. 1 Kings 8.14. and in many other places.

CHAP. 3. That there is a Church of Elect or Predestinate persons.

THe word of God is so express upon this, that one can hardly doubt of it, at­tributing such things unto the Church as are unsuitable to the Reprobate and Hypocrites that are in the visible Church: As when it is called the body of Christ; for in the body of Christ, who is the life, there is no dead members, and none can belong to the body of Christ, if he be a limb of the Devil. And if sometimes the visible Church be called the body of Christ, it is in consideration of the Elect and truly faithful which make part of that Church, whom only the Spirit of God regardeth, when he calls the Church the body of Christ.

1 Pet. 2.9. S. Peter calls the faithful, a chosen generation: And the Apostle to the Hebrews chap. 12. v. 23. calls them the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in heaven, which cannot be applied to the Reprobate. And whereas that Church is called in the Scripture the Spouse of Christ, the pro­phane and wicked Christians are not the Spouse of Christ, nor part of it: For if by reason of the soundest part, the Church of Christ is called a chaste immacu­late Spouse; by the same reason, in respect of the infected and disloyal part, which commonly is the greatest, she might he called an Adulteress, and an Harlot.

Luke 12.32. the Lord Jesus calls his Church the small flock to which the Father is pleased to give the Kingdom, which can be attributed to none but the Elect and truly faithful.

Heb. 3.6. The Apostle calls the Church the house of God; but he saith together, that we are his house, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoycing of the hope firm unto the end, declaring, that they alone are the house of God, that persevere un­to the end.

John 10. The Church of Christ is compared unto a sheepfold, and the faith­ful are called sheep. If in that Church a multitude of Wolves and Goats is put, exceeding the sheep in number, it is no more a sheepfold.

1 John 2.19. S. John speaking of Hypocrites revolting from the Church, saith, They went out from us, but they were not of us; as if he said, They went out from the visible Church, by forsaking the outward profession, but they were not of the Church of the Elect. And he saith in the same place, if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.

The same was acknowledged by the Ancients. Origen on Matth. 16. saith, that all souls that are not holy are not the Church, nor part of the Church which Christ buildeth upon the rock.

Basil in the Chapter of the judgement of God, which is among his Ascetica, speaks thus, [...]. To call them members of Christ, among whom dissentions, and quarrels, and envy is found, it were a very rash part. Jerome saith the same upon Ephes. 5.

Austin in the third Book of the Christian Doctrine, chap. 32.Non enim revera Domi­ni corpus est quod cum il­lo non erit in aeternum. That is not truly the body of Christ, which shall not be with him for ever. And in the Book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 4.Quicun­que de ipso capite à Scri­pturis sanctis dissentium, etiamsi in om­nibus locis in­veniantur in quibus Eccle­sia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia. All those that dissent from the Church about the head, though they be found in all places wheresoever the Church is shewed, are not in the Church. And in the twentieth Book of the City of God,Nunquam à Diabolo Ecclesia seducitur praedestinata & electa ante mundi constitutionem. The Church predestinated and elected before the creation of the world, shall never be seduced by the Devil: nothing can be more express. And in the ninth Chapter of the Unity of the Church, he maintains, that those persons are not of the Church that shall not pos­sess the Kingdom of Heaven. And in the second Book against Cresconius, in Chap. 21.Malos non pertinere ad Ecclesiam Dei quamvis intus videantur, ex hoc manifestissimè apparet [...]am in corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia, quoniam non potest Christus habere mem­bra damnata. They are not of the body of Christ, which is the Church, because Christ cannot [Page 7] have damned members. Wherefore in Chap. 9. of his Manuale ad Laurentium, Ecclesia tota hic acci­pienda est non solum ex parte qua per­egrinatur in terris, verum etiam ex illa quae in coelis. he composeth the Church mentioned in the Symbole, of two parts, the one a Pilgrim on earth, the other being in heaven.

It cannot be said, that Austin retracted himself in the second Book of his Re­tractations. chap. 18. as Cardinal du Perron saith in chap. 9. For there he doth but expound his meaning, saying, That when in his Books of Baptism, he spake of a Church without either spot or wrinckle, that must not be so taken, as if the Church at this present were such a one, but as being prepared to be such when she shall appear once glorious: Which is most true, and hinders not that Church without spot or wrinckle to be the Church of the Elect; but Austin referreth that per­fection to the time of her glorification. But in how many places doth he compose the Church with the faithful that are on earth, and those that are already received in Heaven? About that is the whole work of the City of God imployed; for within that City of God, which is the Church, he comprehends also the Saints in Paradise. And upon Psalm 59.De toto mundo electa est Ecclesia, & mortifica­ta à terrena vita. The Church is elected from all the world, and mortified from the earthly life: He maketh then a Church of the Elect.

Ecclesiam dupliciter posse dici, & eam quae non habet macu­lam & ru­gam, & eam quae in Christi nomine absque plenis per­fectisque vir­tutibus con­gregatur. Jerome upon Gal. 1. saith, that the Church is of two sorts; the one without spot and wrinckle, which is the Church of the glorified Saints; the other, which hath not yet attained the perfection.

Hence our Adversaries are plunged, and know not how to come out: For when the Apostle Ephes. 5. speaks of the Church without either spot or wrinckle, which is the Spouse of Christ, they will have that Church to be the Roman Church. But the Jesuit Salmeron makes no difficulty to contradict it; for by that Church without either spot or wrinckle, he understands the Church of the glori­fied SaintsSalmeron. Tom. 13. Disp. 1. ex Epist. Pauli, p. 173.; thereby acknowledging another Spouse of Christ then the Ro­man Church, and a Church more pure, and more perfect.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in the Exposition of the Article of the Symbole, I believe the Church, &c. saith, thatEcclesiae duae potissimum sunt partes, quarum altera triumphans, altera militans vocatur, &c. Jam in Ec­clesia militante duo sunt hominum genera, bonorum & improborum. the Church hath principally two parts, the one Triumphant, the other Militant, composed of good and bad: Making the wicked to be the same Church with the Saints of Paradise, and ra­ther chusing to joyn such contrary things in a body, then to make them two se­veral Churches, lest it should be acknowledged that Scripture speaks of another Church then the Roman.

CHAP. 4. Reasons of the Adversaries against the Church of the Elect.

AGainst this Doctrine our adversaries bestir themselves: For to exalt the dig­nity of the Roman Church, they adorn her with those titles which Scripture gives to the Church of the Elect, calling her the Spouse, and the Body of Christ, that out of which there is no salvation, and the Virgin without either spot or wrinckle. But as for the Church of the Elect, they disgrace her as an invisible Chimera of our making, and acknowledge no other Church but that Hierarchi­cal body of the Roman Church; despising S. Bernards authority in his 78. Sermon upon the Canticles, where he saith many times that the Elect are the Church, and the Spouse mentioned in the Canticles. The title of the Sermon is this,Quod sponsa, id est Ecclesia ele­ctorum, prae­destinata est à Deo ante sa­cula. That the Spouse, that is, the Church of the Elect, is predestinated by God before the ages: And which is more, they oppose Gregory the first, whom they sirname the Great, where he speaks often of the Church of the Elect, especially upon the seventh penitential Psalm, where he saith,Electo­rum Ecclesia de gentibus congregata. That the Church of the Elect is gathered from the Nations. And so upon the fifth penitential Psalm, chap. 6. he saith, [Page 8] Sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum per­mansuris con­structam, nul­lis hujus vitae persecutioni­bus superan­dam, ipse su­per quem aedi­ficata est evi­denter osten­dit, cum ait, Portae infero­rum non prae­valebunt ad­versus eam. that the Church composed of the Saints, which remain for ever, shall never be overcome by persecutions; which he proveth by the words of the Lord, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. That Pope so famous did not believe, that in that text Christ spake of the Roman Church; for it is not composed with Saints that remain for ever, since our very adversaries confess that some Popes are damned. Bernard in his sixth Sermon upon the Psalm, Qui habitat, after he hath complained of the corruptions of the Church of Rome, so far as to say, that it remains no more but that the Son of perditton should be revealed, addeth,Hic plane gravissimus erit incursus; sed ab hoc quoque Ecclesiam electorum veritas liberabit. This will be a very grievous assault, but he that is the Truth, shall also deliver the Church of the Elect from it. Hincmarus in his Book of fifty five Chapters, chap. 35. speaks ofSan­ctam omnium electorum Ecclesiam conscriptam in coelis. the Church of all the Elect which is written in Heaven.

What more? the last Council of Lateran, in the tenth Session, by the mouth of the Archbishop of Patras, acknowledgeth a Church of the Elect:Ʋt in illo constitueret unam sanctam Ecclesiam electorum omnium matrem. That he might (saith he) establish in him one holy Church, Mother of all the Elect.

But our adversaries being of late grown more crafty, reject all that, and re­jecting the Church of the Elect, acknowledge no other Church but the Roman; perceiving well enough, that if there be a Church of the Elect, the Pope cannot be the head thereof, since themselves say, that many Popes were damned. Nei­ther could they promise so much to themselves, as to be able to perswade the world that the Pope is the head of the glorified Saints, and that Noah, Moses, and Abraham, were members of the Roman Church, although the last Council of Lateran, in the ninth and tenth Session say, that the Pope hath all power in heaven and earth.

To prove then that there is no Church of the Elect, they bring many texts of Scripture, which shew, that in the Church there are some good, and some bad, comparing the Church unto a floor where the good grain is mingled with the straw; and to a great house, where there be some vessels to honour, and some to dishonour; and to a net gathering good and bad fish. They bring also texts that speak of a visible Church, intending thereby to prove that there is no invisible Church; with as much reason, as if I would prove that there is no reasonable creature, because there are some unreasonable. To the same end they bring many passages of the Fathers: It is the subject of the ninth Chapter of Cardinal du Perrons Book.

But in vain doth he labour to prove that which we grant: For we acknow­ledge a visible Church, where the good are mingled among the bad. And it is of that Church that the Scripture speaks in the texts which they alledge; which hinders not, but that God hath a multitude of Elect, and that the name Church is given them in Scripture.

CHAP. 5. Reasons of Cardinal du Perron against the Church of the Elect in the ninth Chapter of his Book.

THe ninth Chapter of the Cardinal is employed to fight against the Church of the Elect, and to shew that there is no such thing: Upon that he bends all his sinews, and his great wit makes an extraordinary effort: wherefore we also must seriously examine it. His first Reason is this:

I. The word Ecclesia is derived from a Verb which signifieth a calling, and not predestining. So he will prove that there is no Church of the Elect, because the Etymologie of that word Church doth not signifie predestining.

A Reason founded upon a false maxime; viz. that whatsoever is proper to any thing, must be exprest by the Etymologie of the word: As if I said, That the Pope can err in the faith, because the Etymologie of the word Pope signifies not certainty or infallibility in the Doctrine; there is none but would charge my rea­soning with inconsequence.

II. His second Reason is so confused, that we cannot answer it before we set it in order. The Argumentation is such:

The Argument is true: But upon that Conclusion he builds another Argument, which hath not the like truth:

Of that Argument the minor Proposition is manifestly false: The Elect, or pre­destinate have many things common among them; they have all one Father, who hath adopted them; one elder Brother, the Lord Jesus Christ; one Spirit, that conducts and sanctifies them; one and the same right in the Kingdom of Heaven.August. En­chirid. c. 11. Haec ergo quae in sanctis Angelis & virtutibus Dei est Ec­clesia. S. Austin is far from that opinion; for he saith, that even the Angels are part of the Church.

Against that the Cardinal saith, that Predestination, quatenus Predestination, puts nothing in the persons of the predestinate.

Indeed that word Predestining doth not clearly import that communion; but hence it follows not, that there is no such communion, although the word does not express so much: So I might say, That the faithful are not happy, because the word Faithful expresseth no happiness. And yet when that word Predesti­nate is once well understood, it will be found that it imports that communion, and puts many common things in the predestinate: For when we say, that there are Elect or predestinated men, we understand that they are predestinated unto salvation, and to the means to attain it. These means are the Spirit of Rege­neration, Faith and Adoption in Jesus Christ: Since then they are all predesti­nated to that, all have that common among them by Predestination.

To defend that Proposition so notoriously false, he brings another worse, which depriveth the faithful of their chief comfort. He affirmeth, that when Paul, 2 Tim. 2. saith, That God knows them that are his, and hath marked them with his seal; it must be understood, that God hath marked the predestinate in himself, not in them; as if I said, that a shepherd hath marked his sheep, not in them, but in himself; so that it is the shepherd that is marked, not the sheep. That Divi­nity is somewhat extravagant.

And it is contrary to Scripture, which teacheth us, that God marketh those that belong to him, in themselves: For S. Paul tells us, Ephes. 1.13. that this mark or seal is the Spirit of promise, which in many other places he calls the Spirit of Adoption: Having believed, you have been sealed with the Spirit of pro­mise: and Ephes. 4.30. Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, See 2 Cor. 1.22. & Rom. 8.15. whereby you are sealed unto the day of Redemption. The Holy Ghost then being the seal, and the mark wherewith God sealeth his children, can we say that God marketh himself by his Spirit? Nay, he puts that Spirit in the hearts of his children; as the same Apostle saith, Gal. 4.6. Because you are sons, he hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts: Thus Ezek. 9.4. and Rev. 7. God sealeth his Elect in the fore­head: Is not that marking them in themselves? The same Apostle speaking of that Spirit of Adoption wherewith God sealeth his children, Rom. 8.15. saith that this Spirit cryeth in their hearts, and beareth witness unto their spirits, that they are Gods children: That witness then is in themselves, and is not a mental designa­tion in God, as the Cardinal speaketh. Yet herein his ingenuity is commendable, [Page 10] for this is a confession that he feeleth not that mark within himself, and hath not that inward seal of his Election. But he should not have judged of others by himself; he ought not to have measured by the ill state of his conscience, the conscience of the Apostle, who speaketh by experience.

III. The third Reason of the Cardinal, is much intangled and darkned with perplexed words. It comes to this:

Out of these three Propositions he draws no Conclusion, as it is impossible to draw any; for they have neither order nor dependance. I suppose that he in­tended to frame such an Argumentation:

The first Proposition is not universally true; for there are many bodies with­out organs, as the Heavens, the Moon, the Earth, and the Sea. That maxime may be good for a natural animated body, or for a civil body, as a Commonwealth; but when it is in question of a Spiritual Society, that Maxime is not neces­sary.

The second Proposition is also false, by the judgement of the Roman Church, which puts different offices among the Saints, bestowing upon the Virgin Mary the Office of Queen of Heaven, setting one Saint over a Countrey, another over the Cattel, another over women in childbed, and calling them Advocates and Mediators of Intercession.

And as for the Elect that are on earth, the Apostles were elected when they were in the world, and yet were organs to bring men to salvation, to which themselves were predestinated. True it is, that the charge of Apostle or Pastor comes not from their Predestination unto salvation, but from the outward cal­ling. But is it any whit unreasonable, that God should use the outward calling, for the execution of his counsel concerning the Eternal Election? It matters not whence it comes that the Apostles are organs serving for the spiritual body of the Elect, so that it be certain that they are so.

IV. He addeth a fourth Reason:

A monster of Syllogism, which hath neither head nor tail, and hath no cohe­rence, and where one may number as many terms as words.

Here is the like again, built upon the model of the other:

In that there is not one crum of reason, nor the shadow of any, neither doth the Conclusion do any thing against us, so it be understood of the visible Church, which also is alone capable of schism.

[Page 11]V. The fifth Reason is no better:

These are indeed woful Syllogisms, where there is neither form nor common sense. Though the last of them were in good form, the Conclusion makes no­thing against us; for we know, it is necessary that a visible Orthodox Church, in which the Gospel is purely announced, beget us unto God, and be our Mother. And we grant, that the Apostle in that text of Gal. 4. speaks not of the Elect, but of a Church visibly erected by the preaching of the Gospel, and freed from the Ceremonies of the Law.

VI. He addes another Reason of the like weight:

Never any man did Syllogize in such an extravagant way. By such Arguments one might as well prove, that twice two make seven: And with all that arguing, he fights against his own shadow, making us say, that in the Predestination, the definition of the Church consisteth, which we do not. For as for the visible Church, we know that Predestination enters not into her definition; and as for the invisible Church, which is composed only of the true, faithful, and children of God, this is her definition, It is the Assembly of the faithful, whom God hath adopted in Jesus Christ, to save them. Of that Church, Predestination is neither the matter nor the form, but the efficient cause, why these, rather then those, belong unto this Church.

VII. His seventh Reason is, that neither Christ, who hath been the Godfather of that Society, nor his Apostles, have ever imployed that name of Church, but to design a visible Society.

That we deny, and have proved the contrary in Chap. 3. when our adversaries by the Church, understand the Pope alone (as we have shewed) they do not take the word Church for a visible Society.

The first text that the Cardinal alledgeth, is against himself: For when Christ saith, Ʋpon this stone I will build my Church, it is certain, that he speaks of the Church of the Elect, as Pope Gregory the I. told us before: The following words shew it evidently, And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; which should be false, if he spake of a Church, a great part of which goeth into Hell. And truly, from the Apostles times unto this, the gates of Hell, that is, the power of the Devil, hath often prevailed, and still prevaileth over the visible Church; having often abolisht many Churches, by the violence of persecutions, and cor­rupted many parts of the Church by Heresies, Idolatry, and Vices. For although Satan never utterly abolisht the visible Church, yet it is prevailing against a State, when one robs it of great part of its Countrey; it is prevailing against a man to put him out of his house, to maim part of his body, and infect many of his members with the plague: It was given unto the Beast to make war with the Saints, and to overcome them, Rev. 13.7. To overcome one, is prevailing against him: But as for the Church of the Elect, not one of that Church can perish; none shall pluck them out of the hands of the Son of God.

In vain the Cardinal makes a flourish with the word Building. I will build (saith he) shews that he speaks of a constituted Church, not by Predestination, which is establisht of all Eternity, but by outward, earthly, and temporal calling.

I answer, that although the Predestination of the Elect be Eternal, yet God calls them in time, and successively one after another; yea, some predestinate [Page 12] persons are not yet born. So that it is with good reason, that Christ useth the future, I will build. Predestination is establisht of all Eternity, but not the pedestinate.

He addeth, that this word Keys, signifieth the Authority of the Ministry, which is true; but God useth that Ministry, to assemble his Elect: That Reason then is to no purpose.

Next, he alledgeth many texts that speak of the visible Church, which no body denies: If I say, that Scripture speaks of beasts, doth it follow that there is no men? If Scripture speak of a visible Church, doth it follow that there is no invisible Church? In vain then doth he fill well nigh two pages with such texts.

The last of them is Heb. 12.23. where the Apostle speaks thus, You are come to the General Assembly, and Church of the first-born, which are written in Heaven. What can that Church be, but that of the Elect and predestinate, of whom Scri­pture saith so often, that their names are written in Heaven, and that they are written in the Book of Life? as, Luke 10.20. Rejoyce, because your names are writ­ten in Heaven; and, Rev. 20.15. Whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the Lake of fire.

The Cardinal answers, that the Apostle speaks of the Triumphant Church: Of which I desire the Reader to take notice; for he hath told us before, that the word Church signifieth a visible body, called by an outward calling; and now he acknowledgeth, that the Apostle is speaking of a Triumphant Church, which is in­visible. Also he hath told us, that the Church is an organical body: But now forgetting what he said, he acknowledgeth a glorious Church, where those organs are not. So he undoeth all that he hath done.

Nevertheless, let us see whether the Apostle speaks here of the Triumphant Church. That I affirm to be impossible: For the Apostle saith to the Hebrews, that they were come to the Church of the first-born, which are written in Heaven: Now they were not yet come to the Triumphant Church, since they were yet up­on earth.

And if by those that are written in Heaven, we must only understand the glorified Saints, it will follow, that Christ spake against the truth, when he said to his Apostles, Luke 10. That their names were written in Heaven; for they were not yet glorified.

This is not contradicted by the Apostle, when he saith in the same place, You are come to the Heavenly Jerusalem: For the Heavenly Jerusalem comprehends the whole Society of the Elect, to which whosoever is joyned, is no less joyned to those that are in Heaven, then to those that are on Earth.

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

THe Question is, Whether the Societies of Idolatrous, or Heretick, or Schis­matical Christians, ought to be called Churches? and, Whether when by He­resies or Schisms the Church is torn in pieces, every piece can, or ought to keep the name of Church? About that, the 57. Chapter of the Cardinals first Book is spent. For my part, I hold that Question to be useless, because it is but a dispute abou [...] a word: We have true Controversies enough, without forging imaginary Con­troversies. To take the word in the sense that our adversaries take it, for the whole Society of the truly faithful, it is certain, that the Societies of Hereticks, separated from that body, are not the Church. But if by the Church, we under­stand [Page 13] the whole body of those that profess Christianity, there is no doubt but that the Societies of Hereticks are Churches, and parts of that Universal Church. It appeareth to me, that our adversaries admitting the Baptism of those whom they call Hereticks, acknowledge them to be Christian Churches; for the Sa­craments of the Christian Church, are not to be found out of the Christian Church. So the ten Tribes of Israel are often called by the Prophets,Hos. 4.6. the people of God, because they kept the Circumcision, and were of Jacobs posterity. M. du Perron, chap. 61. speaks of Christian Hereticks: Now there are no Christians out of the Christian Church. The Apostle writing to the Galatians, calls them the Church, in the beginning of his Epistle, although they erred in an important point of the faith, retaining the Circumcision, and putting a necessity upon the observation of the Ceremonies of the Law: For that it was a vice of the body of the Church, not of some particular persons, it appears, in that the Apostle speaks to the body of the Church without distinction, chap. 1. 6. & 3. 1. & 5. 7. & 9. Cardinal du Perron, although he denies that it was the opinion of the whole Church, yet acknowledgeth that S. Paul confuteth that doctrine, as if all the Galatians had embraced it. Thus the Spirit of God writes to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. 3. which nevertheless he cals poor, blind and naked. A man sick of the plague, is nevertheless a true man: As health is not the form or the essence of a man, so purity in the faith is not the essence of the universal visible Church. Her essence or essential form consisteth in the collection in one body under the profession of Christianity.

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

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

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

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

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

It may also happen that a Pagan or a Jew being prisoner, or living in a coun­trey where there is no Christians, will come by reading, or conference, or inspi­ration from God, to acknowledge the truth of Christian Religion, and make a resolution to profess it at the next opportunity, and as soon as he shall have his freedom: if Death prevent such a man before he can openly joyn with the Com­munion of the Church, I make no doubt but that he may be saved, believing in [Page 14] Jesus Christ, though he never did aggregate himself to the Communion of the Church. For our Saviours words can never be false, Whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ, hath eternal life, Joh. 6. The thief crucified with Jesus, and converted when he was neer death, was a Pagan before, or of no religion; we cannot tell that ever he was a Member of the visible Church, yet he was saved.

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

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

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

In this question it is better to say too little then too much: For a godly, wise man will abstain from making a rash judgement of the salvation of others, re­membring the sentence of Jesus Christ,Mat. 7.1. Judge not that you be not judged. He will ponder the causes of the separation, and distinguish the persons. For there be some errours in light things, not fundamental in Religion, upon which a separation may happen, by the pride and pertinacy of some Pastors, even of them that are Orthodox: As the error of the Quartadecimani, who celebrated the feast of Easter precisely upon the fourteenth day of the Moon of March; for which cause Victor Bishop of Rome separated himself from their Communion; Wherein although the error was on their side, yet the schism was on Victors side, and he was more guilty then they. To pronounce that the people which is no cause of the schism, is damned eternally for such an error, is a rash part, and a bold judge­ment of the salvation of others. For no doubt but that such separations com­monly happen by the ambition of the Pastors that lead the people, who groan un­der that yoke, and desire concord, grieving for the separation. Yea it may hap­pen that both the Churches that forsake their mutual communion are both in the wrong. It may happen also, that the party that hath the truth on his side, is cause of the schism, by the harshness, or ambition, or want of charity of them that govern. As when two Brothers are quarrelling, they are Brothers nevertheless: So it is possible that two dissenting Churches will be nevertheless Members of the same body, in Gods account, whose wisdom is not obnoxious to our violence. But men prone to think well of their own righteousness, and having little charity for their Brethren, will pronounce all that keep not communion with them, ex­communicate Hereticks and Schismaticks, and assign their quarter in hell; where­as they should have a tender care to take heed to make up the least breach, by [Page 15] bearing with the weak. I would then put a great difference between the Au­thors of Schism, who are Satans Incendiaries, and the makers of the breach; and the simple people that cannot resist the authority of the Pastors of that Church in which they are born and bred, and have a real inclination to concord.

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

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

But above all, M. du Perrons judgement seems to me rash and bold,Pag. 669. in the fourth Chapter of the third Observation; where he saith, that there are some points, of which if the Church should bate one syllable, she should cease to be the true Church of Christ, and would remain the Synagogue of Satan. Among which points he ranketh the doctrine of the Baptism of Hereticks. Whereby he con­demneth the whole African Church in Agrippines and Cyprians Age, and calls it the Synagogue of Satan, and inwraps good Cyprian in the same condemnation. For they did not receive the Baptism of Hereticks, no more then the Dona­tists that came since, and have followed them in that point: For which cause Steven Bishop of Rome called Cyprian (who was far better then he)Psuedo Christum & Pseudo Apo­stolum & do­losum operari­um. Epistola Fir­miliani quae est 75. inter Epistolas Cy­priani, §. 21. & 22. a false Christ, a false Prophet, and a deceitful workman. As on the other side, Cy­prian Epist. 74. calls Steven proud, ignorant, lover of Hereticks, Enemy to Christians.

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

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

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

We are also agreed upon this, That they that belong to that true Church, see and know that it is the true Church. Also that such as are not of that Church, as Pagans, Jews, and Hereticks; see indeed that Society of men which is called the Church, but see not that it is the true Church. These are the words of Bellar­mine, chap. 15. of the third Book of the Church, One may see a Society which is the Church, but one seeth not that it is the true Church. Cardinal du Perron saith the same, Chap. 19. To Hereticks and Schismaticks, the Church, Pag. 63. though [Page 16] never so eminent, hath alwayes been obscure and hidden; not for want of light and eminency of her own, but by reason of their darkness and blindness.

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

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

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

CHAP. 9. That the Church to which we must join, that we may be saved, is not al­wayes eminent and exposed to every ones sight. Answer to the Cardinal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THe Antients are full of passages to that purpose. Austin, who sometimes to fa­vour his cause against the Donatists, will have the true Church alwayes emi­nent in multitude and splendor, in some other places is speaking otherwise. In the 80. Epistle to Hosychius speaking of the last times,Ecclesia non apparebit, impiis perse­cutoribus ul­tra modum. saevientibus. The Church (saith he) shall not then appear, the impious persecutors exercising their violence beyond measure. And in the 45. Epistle to Vincentius, Ipsa est quae aliquan­do obscuratur & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum. The Church sometimes is obscured, and is as it were covered with clouds by the multitude of scandals. He adds indeed, That at that time Ecclesia in firmissimis suis eminet; the Church is eminent in those that are most firm in the faith. But the faith of particular persons sheweth in­deed the Religion, but shews not the Church, when no Congregations are seen. In the same place speaking of the time of Constantius, he saith, that at that time the Catholicks were of small number, compared to the Hereticks. And in the 119. Epistle, Chap. 6.Ecclesia adhuc in illa mortalitate carnis consti­tuta, propter ipsam muta­bi [...]itatem, Lu­nae nomine in Scripturis significatur. The Church being yet in that mortal condition of the flesh, is by reason of that mutability signified by the Moon in the Scriptures. And soon after,Obscura videtur Ecclesia in tempo [...] peregrinationis suae. The Church looks obscure in the time of her Peregri­nation.

Ambrose in the 4. of the Hexameron, Chap. 2.Videtur sicut Luna deficere, sed non defici [...]; Obumbrari po­test, deficere non potest. The Church seemeth to fail like the Moon, but she faileth not; She can be obscured, but she cannot fail.

Tertullian in his Exhortation to Chastity, Chap. 7.Sed & ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laici; unusquisque enim de sua fide vivit. Where three are, though they be Laymen, there the Church is; for every one liveth by his faith.

Hilary in his Book against Auxentius, Vos pa­rietum amor cepit; malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedi­ficiisque ve­neramini. Male sub hoc nomen pacis ingeritis. Montes mihi & lacus & & carceres & voragines sunt tutiores. You are taken with the love of walls; You reverence the Church of God amiss, in the roofs and buildings: you propound the name of peace amiss under that colour; Mountains, and Lakes, and Prisons, and Boggs are unto me more safe. And that none say, that he speaks there of the only Church of Milan, he saith in the same place, that in the East it is a rare thing to find a Catholick Bishop or people.

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

AGainst this our Adversaries bestir all their strength. M. du Perron in Chap. 2. opposeth it with many texts, Isai. 2.2. And it shall come to pass in the last dayes, that the Mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the [Page 19] top of the mountains; And all the hils shall flow unto her. [For so he alledgeth that Text.] But that Text promiseth not a visibility, and perpetual eminency to the Church, and at all times. It is a prediction of a time, when at the preaching of the Gospel, many Nations shall be converted: which happened in the time of the Apostles and their Disciples. This is made plain by the following words; For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He speaks of a time, when the Word of God must be carried from Judea and Jeru­salem to the Gentiles, which came not to pass but in the Apostles time.

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

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

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

M. du Perron was not ashamed to alledge Psalm 19.4. He hath put her taber­nacle in the Sun, to prove that God hath made his Church visible and eminent. But that Text is falsified, which is thus, according to the Hebrew truth.See Sixtus Senensis editi­onis Venetae, pag. 220. where he speaks thus. Genuinus ac proprius hu­jus literae sensus & ex­positio sit De­um posuisse Soli taberna­culum in coe­lo. In them (that is in the heavens) he hath set a tabernacle for the Sun. A man that hath re­course to such proofs, shews himself conscious of a great weakness of his cause.

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

Out of the same Chrysostom, in the same place he alledgeth this, The Sun is not so manifest, nor his light, as the actions of the Church. Yea to them that are of the Church, and have eyes to see. But as for them that are out of the Church, and [Page 20] are blind in their understanding, M. du Perron hath confest before, that the Church is to them invisible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our respect especially that question is both absurd and unjust; for it presup­poseth that the Orthodox Church must be visible to us in all ages. Now we have [Page 21] proved that the Church sometimes seems to be extinct, and hath not alwayes a vi­sible eminency.

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

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

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

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

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

At this time also the Church of Ethiopia, containing seventeen great Pro­vinces, agreeth with us in the Fundamental points of the Faith, although she ob­serve many small superstitions: For she is not subject unto the Pope, knoweth neither his Indulgences, for his Laws; believeth neither Purgatory nor Tran­substantiation, maketh no Adoration of the Host in the Holy Communion, nor [Page 22] any elevation for worship: Celebrates the divine Service in the native language; Communicates under both kinds; worshippeth no Images: Hath no private Communion; hath but one Table or Altar in every Church; hath married Priests; Baptizeth men-children forty dayes after they are born, and women-children threescore dayes after, thereby shewing, that they believe not Baptism to be absolutely necessary unto salvation: as may be seen in the History of Francis Alvarez a Portughese Monk, who hath lived there six years. For M. du Per­rons imputation to those Churches, that they are Eutychian, is a calumny. It is true, that they are subject unto the Patriarch of Alexandria who is an Euty­chian, but that subjection is not in the Doctrine, but only in that the said Patriarch hath the right of the nomination of the Abuna, or first Prelate of the Ethiopians, when the See is vacant.

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

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

CHAP. 13. Whether the Church can Err?

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

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

The Apostles had the gift of not erring; yet none of them durst ever say, I cannot err: That was the language of the Jews, when they conspired against the Prophets sent by God: And under that false confidence, hardening themselves in evil, they would say, The Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor the Word from the Prophet: Jer. 18.18. But God giveth them the lie upon that, and telleth them, Ezek. 7.26. The Law shall perish from the Priest, and the counsel from the Pro­phet, or the Antient.

Against that Doctrine of pride, Scripture doth furnish us with many exam­ples. The Church of the Old Testament was idolatrous in Egypt, as may be seen, Ezek. 20.7, 8. Aaron the High Priest set up an Altar to the Golden Calf, and dedicated an holy day to it, Exod. 32. Whereupon Moses chides him, and saith, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? Augustin. lib. questio­num in Exo­dum quaes. 46. Notan­dum est quemad­modum illud totum malum quod populus fecit ipsi Aaroni tribuatur. Austin saith that Aaron was the cause of all the evil. Ʋriah another High Priest set up a Pagan Altar within the Temple of God, 2 Kings 16.10, 11. Under King Ahaz the Temple of God was shut up, and the sacred service ceased for a time, 2 Chron. 29.7. King Manasseh built Altars to Baalim in the House of God, the only Temple in the world dedicated to Gods service, and made Sa­crifices unto false Gods in the two Courts of the Temple, 2 Chron. 33.4, 5. In which Temple how many abominations and idolatries were committed, is to seen, Ezek. 8.

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

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

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

The Priests and Scribes that held the ordinary Chairs in the Church,Chap. 9. were ene­mies of Jesus Christ, and decreed that whosoever should confess him to be the Christ, should be excommunicated, Joh. 9.12. And Caiaphas the High Priest pro­nounced that Jesus Christ was a blasphemer, Mat. 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Gregory the 1. expounding the 7. Penitential Psalm, expounds this text of the Church of the Elect, not of the Church of Rome. These are his words,Sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum per­mansuris con­structam, nul­lis hujus vitae persecutioni­bus superan­dam, ipse su­per quem aedi­ficata est, evi­denter osten­dit, cum ait, Portae infero­rum non prae­valebunt ad­versus eam. He upon whom the Church is built, evidently shewed, that the holy Church which is composed of Saints that shall abide for ever, shall never be overcome by any persecutions, when he said that the gates Hell of shall not prevail against her.

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

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

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

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

The texts of the Fathers, which the Cardinal brings to the same end, serve only to raise the bulk of his Book. They say only that the Catholick Church, by which they mean the Orthodox, is separate from that of the Hereticks: a thing that no man denyeth. But the question is, Whether to the Church, [Page 25] which at this present is pure, it may not happen hereafter to fall into some er­rour?

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

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

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

I answer, that there hath been no universal Council since the Apostles time, in the sense that the word universal is taken, namely, for a Council convocated out of the Church of all the world. The Councils which are called Ʋniversal, are so called, because they were convocated out of the universal Roman Empire by the authority of the Emperors: Out of which Empire there hath been always a a great number of Christian Churches. Not that I would say that the Councils of Nicea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon have [Page 26] errred: But it is one thing to say that they have not erred, and another thing to say that they could not err. The universal Councils which the Pope assembleth in these last ages, are Councils of the universal Papal Monarchy. The other Churches have no part in it, but to be condemned, unheard.

The Doctors of the Roman Church believe not that the universal Councils can­not err, since they oppose with so much violence the first Council of Constanti­nople, and that of Chalcedon, for rising (as they speak) against the Bishop of Rome, and despising his authority. We shall see hereafter the invectives of Car­dinal du Perron against that so famous and authentical Council of Chalcedon, where there were six hundred and thirty Bishops. Bellarmin in his Preface upon his Books de Pontifice, saith thatPrimi qui seriò pri­matum Ro­mani Pontifi­cis oppugna­runt, videntur fuisse Graeci, anno, 39. &c. those two Councils have earnestly assaulted the Primacy of the Pope of Rome. The Jesuite Cotton makes the same complaint against these two Councils in the Preface of his Institution.

The Pope Paschal in the Decretal Significasti de Electione, Tit. 6.Quasi Romanae Ec­clesiae Conci­lia ulla Le­gem praefixe­rint, &c. de­clares that the Roman Church is not subject to the Councils, and maintains that Councils depend upon the authority of the Roman Church. And Pope Gelasius in the Tome of the bond of Anathema, quarreling with the Council of Car­thage, saith,Sedes Apostolica so­la rescindit quod praeter ordinem congregatio Synodica putaverit usurpandum. The Apostolical See alone makes void that which a Synodal As­sembly would usurp against the order. Finally, Doctor Andradius, who was pre­sent at the Council of Trent, declareth thatAndrad. lib. 2. Defens. fidei Tri­dentinae. Liquet minimè eos errasse, qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnúnquam in Legibus dispensare à Paulo & primis quatuor Conciliis. Those err not, that say that the Popes can sometimes dispence frem the Laws of Saint Paul, and from the four first Councils, which are the Councils of greatest authority.

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

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

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

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

2. In the fourth Action of the same Synod these words are found: Images are [Page 27] of equal worth with the Gospels and the venerable Cross. And in the same place, Major est imago quam oratio, The image is greater then the word, or the prayer.

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

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

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

5. In the year 869. a Council was held at Constantinople, which our Adversa­ries call the eight Universal Council: Baronius in the year 869. of his Annals, §. 19. saith, that the Popes were wont in their reception to swear the approbation of that Council. The third Canon of that Council is in these word:Sacram imaginem Domini nostri Jesu Christi aequo honore cum libro sanctorum Evangeliorum adorari de­cernimus. We decree, that the sacred image of Jesus Christ, be adored with the same honour as the Book of the holy Gospels. And a little after: It is In Latin dignum est. convenient by reason of the honour which is referred unto principal things, that derivative images be ho­noured and adored as the Book of the holy Gospels, and the figure of the precious Cross.

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

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

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

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

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

7. In the year of our Lord, 1059. Pope Nicolas the II.Dist. 2. de Consec. Can. Ego Berenga­rius. assembled a Council against Berengarius, where it was declared and pronounced, that the bread and wine which is put upon the altar after the consecration, is not only the Sacrament, but [Page 28] also the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that not only the Sacrament, but the body of the Lord is It seems they meant sensibly. sensually and in truth, handled by the hands of the Priests; broken and bruised by the teeth of the faithful.

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

Baron. Ann. 1076.8. In the year of our Lord, 1076. Pope Gregory the VII. called a Council to Rome, where among many articles, these three points have been resolved and determined.

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

That no Book is canonical without the Popes authority.

And that all Kings must kiss the Popes feet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fourth error is, that in the same chapter, the Pope and the Council preach murther and massacre, and set on the people to extermine those whom they call hereticks: which not only is against the Law of God, but against that of Nati­ons: [Page 29] For even Pagan Princes never permitted their subjects to fall upon their Fellow-Citizens, and massacre them. These are not the wayes to plant the Go­spel; which prepareth us to sufferings, and to be persecuted, not to persecute. If that exhortation to slaughter is ill beseeming any man, much more a Pastour of the Church, who ought to teach to render good for evil, and to love them that hate us.

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

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

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

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

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

The Satisfaction of Jesus Christ being sufficient for the sins of the whole world, it is an outrage offered to him, when to his sufferings other satisfactions are ad­ded; as those of Saints and Monks, to satisfie the justice of God for the pain due [Page 30] to our sins. By this means they will have God to take two payments for one debt. What need of a second payment when the first is sufficient? But their second pay­ment is unsufficient, seeing that no man can satisfie for the sins of another; and we learn of the Apostle, Gal. 6.5. that every man shall bear his own burthen. Be­sides, those Saints and Monks whose satisfactions the Pope will apply unto others, were sinners, and had need that Christ should satisfie for them, so far they were from satisfying for others, and for those for whom Jesus Christ hath fully sa­tisfied. Then those Saints were above measure rewarded for their labours, when God raised them up unto his Eternal Glory, yea though it were granted that their works were meritorious: For if God hath rewarded them above their me­rits, can one and the same work be meritorious for him that hath done it, and satisfactory for another? As if one and the same sum of money served to buy a house, which is a thousand times better then the money, and together to pay the ransom of another.

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

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

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

14. In the year of Lord 1414. a Council was held at Constance to reform [Page 31] the Church in capite & membris, as it was agreed in the precedent Council of Pisa. In that Council, convocated by the authority of Pope John XXIII. three contending Popes were deposed, this John XXIII. for one,Concil. Con­stant. Sess. XI. for threescore and eleven crimes; among others for publickly and notoriously denying the immortality of the soul, and maintaining that there was neither Paradise nor Hell.

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

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

16. The same Council in the XV. Session makes an enumeration of the Er­rors of John Hus: The 19. Error for which he is condemned, is for saying, that the Popes and the Bishops pardons avail nothing, unless God pardon. Dixerunt se audivisse quod Joan­nes Hus dix­isset quod in­dulgentiae Pa­pae & Epis­copi non va­lent nisi Deus indulgeat. That Council declareth that the Popes pardons serve a sinner, although God hath not pardoned him, which is putting the Pope above God, since he pardoneth those that have offended God, without Gods pardon, and since the Popes pardons are in force, though God approve them not.

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

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

19. In the year 1423. Martin the V. held a Council at Siena, where the same [Page 32] Indulgence was granted to them that would fall upon the Hereticks, as to them that go to defend the Holy Land. Thus remission of sins and salvation, is pro­posed as a reward of cruelty and popular fury. As if the Pope said, Because thou art a murtherer, and a wicked man, thou shalt have eternal life.

20. To the Acts of that Council are inserted the instructions which the same Martin V. gives to his Embassadours sent to the Emperour of Constantinople, Sanctissimus & Beatissi­mus, qui ha­bet coeleste ar­bitrium, qui est Dominus in terris, Suc­cessor Petri, Christus Do­mini, Domi­nus Univer­si, Regum Pa­ter, Orbis lu­men, Summus Pontifex. wherein he gives these titles to himself, The most holy and the most heare [or happy,] who hath the heavenly government, who is Lord in Earth, Successour of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the Master of the Ʋniverse, the Father of Kings, the Light of the World, the Soveraign Pontife Martin, commands his Embassadour, &c. It wanted no more, but to call himself Creatour of Heaven and Earth. Soon after he commends the fidelity of that Embassadour, the Cardinal of St. Angelo, Veniret non ut faceret voluntatem suam sed voluntatem Domini Papae qui misit eum. who (saith he) is come not to do his own will, but the will of the Lord Pope that sent him. Which are the words of the Son of God speaking of the obedience which he yielded unto his Father, Joh. 6.38.

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

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

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

Officiales ad pedes San­ctissimi Domi­ni nostri, ta­ctis sacrosan­ctis Scriptu­ris, praestite­runt corpora­le juramen­tum.In the first Session, the Popes Officers take the Oath of allegiance and fide­lity to him, having toucht the holy Scriptures, which were laid at his feet, as it were to signifie that the holy Scripture is subject unto him. In the same Ses­sion the Pope is called Prince of all the world, not inferiour in authority to Saint Peter. In the same place Boniface the VIII. is commended, and set forth as an ex­ample, for depriving Philip le Bel of the Kingdom of France.

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

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

In the IX. Session, the Council by the mouth of Puccius, Clark of the Cham­ber, speaks thus unto the Pope, The aspect of thy divine Majesty, the bright splendour whereof dazzleth our infirm eyes. And a little after, The Royal race of the Roman Pontife. And in the same place, In thee alone, the true and lawful Vi­car of Christ, and of God, this sentence of the Prophet ought to be fulfilled again: All the Kings of the Earth shall worship him, Psal. 72. and all Nations shall serve him. Which is a prophesie that concerns Jesus Christ, which that Council applyeth unto the Pope. Here is more of the same vein. We are not ignorant, that to thee alone the Lord hath given all power in Heaven and Earth. Then the Uni­versal Church is personated, thus speaking unto the Pope; Am I not, O my sweetest Bridegroom, thine only and well-beloved, which now may exclaim, Look not upon me, because I am black! Cant. 1.6.

If these impieties were in some Decrees or Epistles of the Popes, one might bring the ordinary excuse, that Popes may err as men, but not as Popes: But [Page 33] being pronounced in a Council, which our Adversaries call Universal, the Acts whereof have been carefully reveiwed by persons appointed thereunto, and ap­proved by the Pope himself, as it appeareth in the very beginning of the Council; they may serve as an evident proof that the Roman Church can err, since it is the voice of an Assembly representing the whole Roman Church.

23. In the same Council, in the III. Session held in the year 1512.Of the In­terdict, See Cardinal To­let of the In­stitution of Priests, Book 1. chap. 15. And Ema­nuel Sa in A­phorismis in Verbo Inter­dictum. Westmonast. & Matth. Paris in vita Johannis. the King­dom of France is put under interdict: which is a custom received in the Roman Church for many ages, and often put in practice by the Popes; where the impie­ty is horrible, and tyranny is raised to the highest degree. For when the Pope puts a Countrey under interdict, he makes divine service to cease in it, but only in some priviledged places, in favour of those that adhere not to the Soveraign Prince, for whose sake the interdict is put upon the Land; He silenceth all the bels of the Kingdom: He shuts up the burying places, and hinders burials in holy ground: He exposeth the Country to the invasion of the first Conquerour; whence wars and desolations arise, and great blood-shed. All that die under the interdict, die out of the Communion of the Church of Rome, and by conse­quent are deemed to be eternally damned. England under King John, hath been six years and a half in that case, in which time, above six hundred thousand per­sons died. Of late date, Paul the V. having put the Commonwealth of Venice under interdict, was advised to put up his sword into its scabbard.

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

I ask then whether the Roman Church did not err, when in full Council, the Pope put the Kingdom of France in interdict? Is it not a great error to believe that the Pope can send all the French into perdition, make divine service to cease in such a great countrey, and prohibit burials? All that for civil causes. Where­fore the Clergy of France opposed the judgement of the Pope and the Universal Council. And the good King, Lewis the XII.See Nicole Gyles in the life of Lewis the XII. fol. 134. & 135. assembled a Council at Pisa against the Pope, and beat him in a battle neer Ravenna; which beating wrought this effect, that the King was sued to and received with as many spiritual graces as he was pleased to have, and that the Kingdom of France was reconciled unto his Holiness.

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

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

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

26. In the fourth Session, it is decreed and declared, that unwritten Traditi­ons must be received pari pietatis affectu & reverentiâ, with the same affection of piety and reverence, as the holy Scripture: That is, That the invocation of Saints, the distinction of meats, the adoration of relicks, the Popes power to give, and to take away Kingdoms, to fetch souls out of Purgatory, and to canonize Saints, the honour yielded unto images, the divine service in an unknown tongue, the consecration of Agnus Dei's, and of blessed beads, and such unwritten traditions, [Page 34] must be received with the like piety, faith, and reverence, as the Law of God, and the doctrine of our redemption in Jesus Christ, contained in the holy Scri­ptures.

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

28. The same Council cannot be excused of error, when it decreed, that the Latin vulgar version of the Bible should be the only authentical, thereby autho­rizing a thousand depravations of the true original Text, which are Hebrew and Greeek. This is freely confest by the most learned of our adversaries: as Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae lib. 7. who speaks thus; Our vulgar Edition, which is said to be of Saint Hi­erom, is in many things remote from the truth of the Greek Text. And truly two the most learned Hebricians that the Roman Church ever had, Santes Pagninus a Monk of Luca, and Arias Montanus a Spaniard of Sevil, have translated the Bible, and made excellent versions, conformable to the French [and English] versions of our Churches, and have altogether forsaken the Vulgar version of the Church of Rome. Yea, since the time of the Council of Trent, several Popes have caused that Vulgar version to be revised, and have altered many things in it. Whence comes the diversity which is seen in the Bibles of our Adversa­ries.

Verum etsi ea quam dixi­mus modera­tione usi fu­erimus, loca tamen ad octo millia annota­ta atque emendata à nobis sunt. Isidorus Clarius, a Monk of Montcassin hath revised that Vulgar version ap­proved by the Council of Trent: To which he hath prefixed a Preface, where he saith, that although he hath winkt at many faults of that version for fear of­fending the Church, yet he hath corrected about eight thousand places.

Andradius in the fourth book of the defence of the Tridentine saith, I will shew (saith he) that some very inconsiderately have thought that more faith must be given to the Latin edition then to the Hebrew Books. He addethDeus voluit nonnulla in ejus lucubra­tionibus hu­manae imbecil­litatis extare vestigia. Voluit sancta Synodus ad hanc Latinam editionem amplectendam nos arctare, non quidem simpliciter, sed dummodo esset à vitils quae in eam ir­repserunt, & ab omnibus mendis & erroribus emaculata atque repurgata. that in the watchings [that is, in the labours] of the Latin Interpreter some traces of humane infirmity are found.

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

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

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

To prove the perpetual visibility of the Church, they commonly alledge the nineteen Psalm, v. 5. where there is according to the Vulgar version, he hath [Page 35] put his tabernacle in the Sun; But there is in the Hebrew, He hath set in them (that is, in the heavens) a tabernacle for the Sun, which true allegation,Editionis Ve­netae, p. 240. Sixtus Senensis sincerely acknowledgeth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. The same Council of Trent hath devised a crafty by way to prohibit the reading of Scripture unto the people:Index libro­rum prohibito­rum. That Index hath been often print­ed; Once at Collen, by Goswin Co­lin, an. 1618. For of that prohibition there is no menti­on in the Council: But in that Council, some Prelates and Doctors in good num­ber were named and appointed to make an Index or list of books, the reading whereof must be prohibited. Now the very first of those prohibited Books, is the holy Scripture; of which they say, in the fourth of those rules they have set before that Index; That the reading of the Bible in the language of the Countrey, being indifferently permitted, brings more harm then benefit.

32. The traffick of holy things so expresly forbidden in the word of God, might be taken for a corruption in manners, not for an error, but that it is established by Laws and publick order.Printed at Paris, by Toussain De­nis, in Saint James-street neer Saint Yues Chap­pel, an. 1521. There is a Book made purposely for that by the Popes authority, with this title, The tax of the Apostolical Chancery, and Roman Penitentiary; Where the absolutions of all sorts of crimes, and the dispensa­tions are taxed at a certain rate. In the thirty sixt leaf this is found; The absolution for him that hath carnally known his Mother, or his Sister, or his Gossip, costs five groats. And in the thirty eight leaf, The absolution for him that hath killed his Father or his Mother, costs five groats or seven: But if he that was killed was a Cler­gy-man, the murtherer is obliged to visit in person the Apostolick See. But the absolutions of offences committed against the Pope, cost three times more. For in the thirty seventh leaf, The absolution for him that hath falsified the Aposto­lical letters, costs seventeen or eighteen groats. And these absolutions extend even to the dead. In the thirty seventh leaf, For a dead man excommunicated, for whom his kindred supplicate, the letter of absolution is sold for one ducat nine pence: These are the ancient taxes, but now they are grown a hundred times dearer.

In the twenty third leaf these words are found, The dispensation of contracting [Page 36] [marriage] in the spiritual kindred, costs 60. Groats. Nevertheless (saith the Datary) I have expedited one for 30 Groats, but by favour. The same judgement is in the second Degree, for which one must compound with the Datary for a very great sum, sometimes of three hundred, and sometimes of six hundred groats, ac­cording to the quality of the persons. Et nota di­ligenter quod ejusmodi gra­tiae & dis­pensationes non conce­duntur pau­peribus quia non sunt, ideo non possunt consolari. And note diligently that such graces are not given to the poor; because they have not wherewith to pay, therefore they cannot be comforted.

And that none may be ignorant of this abuse, hear the verdict of Pope Pius II. otherwise Aeneas Sylvius, Epist. 66. to John Peregal. Curia Romana sine pecunia nihil dat; ipsae ma [...]uium impositiones & Spiritus S. dona venduntur, nec remis­sio peccatorum nisi nummatis impenditur. The Roman Court gives nothing without money; yea the imposition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the Remission of sins, are bestowed upon none but such as have money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

42.Cardinal Tolet. lib. 2. Institut. Sa­cerdotal. re­lates that Bull. The Bull de Coena Domini, which is an Excommunication which the Pope thunders out every year upon Thursday before Easter in the place of St. Peter, is one of the most palpable abuses of the Roman Church. By that Bull the Pope Ex­communicates [Page 37] all those that have committed any of the cases reserved to the Pope, of which the Pope only can give the absolution, excepting only upon the point of death. Of which cases an enumeration is made in that Bull. These crimes are not sodomy, nor incest, nor perjury, nor blasphemy against God, nor parri­cide. But to appeal from the Pope to the future Council: To plunder the lands of the Church; to raise tenths or taxes upon the Clergy; to carry arms to He­reticks; to molest those that go to Rome to get pardons, to stop the victuallers that carry provision to the Papal Court: Of these so enormous crimes, none but the Pope can give absolution; except only in the point of death: But as for the crimes committed directly against the Law of God, Bishops and Priests will commonly give the absolution: For to violate the Law of God is not held such an enormous crime, as to imbezel the profits of his Holiness.

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

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

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

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

CHAP. 15. OF THE ANTIQUITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. A Treatise wherein it is shewed that the Ceremonies of the Roman Church are descended from the antient Hereticks, and that the Pagans and the Jews have contributed towards them.

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

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

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

OVer all the book of Cardinal du Perron, against his Majesty of great Bri­taine, he makes very little use of Gods Word, as of a tool which doth not fit his hand. But heIn the 4. chap. of the 4. obser­vation of the 2. book, p. 726 and in many other places. takes the Fathers of the time of the four first Councils for his Judges; The first whereof, which is the Council of Nice, was held in the year of our Lord, 325. and the last, which is that of Chalcedon, was held 126. after. Within these limits he confines himself, making little account of the time before. He brings for his reasons, the rarity of the writers of that time, and that they had no occasion to write of such matters, or that the books were lost. Yet have we many Authors more antient then the Council of Nice; Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian, Ar­nobius, Lactantius; To which I adde Eusebius and Athanasius, who were pre­sent at the first Council. From whose writings we may learn, what was the be­lief of the Church of their time, as much as from any else that lived since. But the true cause is, that in the antienter Authors no mention is found of those chief points, about which we dispute against the Roman Church, as the Primacy of the Pope over all the world, the invocation of Saints, the service of images, and many the like things, the seeds whereof were sown, and the occasions did rise ma­ny years after.

The Cardinal alledgeth another reason why he restrains himself to the time of the four first Councils; That his Majesty of Great Britaine, hath taken the Fa­thers of that age for his Judges: Which is an untruth, for the King never chose other Judges then the Word of God; And in his search of Antiquity, he never meant to exclude or undervalue the Fathers, that writ before the sitting of these four Councils.So the Kings words are re­lated by the Cardinal, in the 4. ob­servation of the second book. For these are his words, The King with the Anglican Church ad­mitting the first four Oecumenical Councils, sheweth enough that he includes not the State of the true and lawful Church within one age or two, but goes much beyond that. By these words, his Majesty shews evidently, that he confines not himself within the space of 126. years, which is the time of the four first Councils, reckon­ing from the first to the last.

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

The Reader may here observe, that M. du Perron not only acknowledgeth that some doctrines are held by the Roman Church, which have no precedent in the three first ages; but also that he sets Laws which he breaks all over his book, fixing bounds to himself, within which he doth not keep. For he maintains many do­ctrines, of which not only no mention is made in the Doctors of the first ages, but which also are condemned by those Doctors; Such is the exclusion of the peo­ple from the cup, the service of images, the invocation of Saints, the fire of Pur­gatory immediately after death, the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, and [Page 55] over their crowns, praying to God when one understands not himself, and many other things.

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

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

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

Indeed the Roman Church acknowledgeth that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, and that they are the Word of God. But in that she saith thatBellar. lib. 5. de verbo Dei, c. 9. initio capitis. Judex difficultatum non potest esse Scriptura. Scripture cannot be Judge of the doubts about faith, that the Church giveth authority to Scripture, and that Scripture hath neither strength nor au­thority, but so far as the Church declareth it: In that (I say) she overthrows the authority of Scripture, whilst she feigneth to establish it. For the way to shake a certain truth, is to ground it upon uncertain proofs. The way to bring in Atheism without noise, is to ground the divine Oracles upon humane testimo­nies, and to command that credit be given to the Word of God; because the Pope and the Roman Church have commanded it. He that proveth clear things by obscure proofs, doth like him that sheweth the full Moon with his finger, or that believeth that the Sun is bright, because his neighbour told him so. By this means men are esteemed more credible then God, and if God will have servants and some persons that believe his Word, he must be obliged for it to the Pope.

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

They call the Church a speaking Judge, but the Scripture aThe Je­suit Arnova, that writ against this Author about the French Con­fession of Faith, saith §. 19. That the Prote­stants will abuse a dumb rule, shak­ing off the yoak of In­terpreters. dumb rule; and yet not a whole rule, but a piece and a part of one. They accuse Scripture of ob­scurity, and wish that it were more obscure yet, that it might have less strength to condemn them. Whereupon they bear themselves as infallible Interpre­ters of Scripture, thereby making themselves Law-givers under the title of Interpreters.

The Cardinal in the seventh Chapter of the second observation of the second Book, maintains, that one must not have recourse to the age of the Apostles, [Page 56] that is, to the example and doctrine of the Apostles to repurge the Church. Bellar­min Bellar. lib. 4. de Ver­bo Dei Scripto. c. 12. §. Dico secundo, Scripturam etsi non est facta praeci­pue ut sit re­gula fidei, esse tamen re­gulam non totalem, sed partialem. saith that Scripture is a piece of a rule, and that it was not written to rule our faith, but only for a wholesome counsel, equalizing the authority of Scri­pture, bearing witness to her self, to the authority of the Alcoran of Mahomet.

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

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

For our part, we reverence the authority of the Church which teacheth us ac­cording to the Word of God, and receive with respect those that speak in Gods name; Of whom the Lord Jesus saith,Matth. 10.40. He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. We know also that though they have no power to add or change any thing in the doctrine, yet the Pastors of the Church being assembled, can make Laws concerning Ecclesiastical policy, use reprehensions, censures, and excommunications against vices, and declare the do­ctrines, which Scripture hath condemned, erroneous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That none may think that we impose upon our Adversaries that which they be­lieve not, or that others among them speake with more respect of Scripture then [Page 57] Cardinal du Perron doth, it is expedient to hear what their other Doctors say of it.

Bellarmin in the 3. Book of the unwritten word, Chap. 9.§. Pro­batur. Debuit D [...]us judicem ali­quem Eccle­siae providere, at iste judex non potest esse Scriptura. saith, God ought to have provided a Judge for the Church; Now that Judge cannot be Scripture. And soon after, It appeareth that Scripture is not a Judge.

Lindanus in his Panoplia, In the Index of the Chapters of the 5. Book.Ecclesiam non esse ex Christi volun­tate Scriptu­ris alligatam, sed vivo ac perpetuo Spi­ritus Sancti testimonio. The Church hath not been limited to the Scriptures by the will of God, but to the living and perpetual testimony of the Holy Ghost.

The Jesuit Costerus, in the first Chapter of his ManualChristus Ecclesiam su­am à charta­ceis scriptis pendere no­luit. Christ would not have his Church to depend upon writings in paper.

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

Salmeron in the first Prolegomen,§. Nunc de Etsi Ecclesiae ac Scripturae authoritas à Deo sit, illa tamen Ecclesiae antiquior est atque adeo dignior, siquidem Scriptura propter Ecclesiam contexta est. Although the authority of the Church and of Scripture be from God, yet the authority of the Church is more antient and of more worth, seeing that Scripture was made for the Church. If that reason hold, the au­thority of the people shall be above the laws and edicts of Kings, for those laws were made for the people.

And in the second Prolegomen,§. Septimo. Non mirum si Scriptura Ecclesiae Dei quae Spiritum habet subjiciatur. It is no wonder if Scripture be subject to the Church of God, which hath the Spirit. By that means the Law of God is sub­ject unto men.

The Jesuit Serarius in the tenth Prolegomen. qu. 2.Huius Scripturae praestantia, multis parti­bus superat scripturas quas nobis in membranis Apostoli reli­querunt. Scriptura ad causarum auditionem surda, ad examen stupida, ad proprie dictae sententiae dictionem vicaria Dei judicis perinepta est. Scripture is deaf to hear causes, and stupid to examine them, and is a most unfit Vicar of God (the Judge) to pronounce a sentence properly so called.

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

Stapleton in the 2. book of the authority of Scripture, Chap. 11.Dixi & dico, non tam ipsius fidei re­gulam in se esse Scripturam, quam ipsarum Scripturarum regulam esse fidem Ecclesiae. I have said and say, that Scripture in it self is not so much the rule of faith, as the faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture. Scripturam arcano Dei judicio esse velut lapidem offensionis & in tentationem pedibus insi­pientium; ut qui velint ea solae niti, facillime impingant & errent.

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

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

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

CHAP. 18. Proofs that the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, is above the Church, and ought to be of greater authority with us then the Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IX. Every Judge between two parties, must be acknowledged by both the par­ties. Now Scripture is acknowledged both by us and by our Adversaries to be the true word of God; But we acknowledge not the Roman Church to be the true Church. Wherefore the Roman Church cannot be Judge of our controversies: [Page 59] Otherwise she should be both Judge and Party, and should be Judge in her own cause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Austin is very express upon that question. In the XI. Book against Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5.Tanquam in sublimi se­de constituta est, cui servi­at omnis in­tellectus. The Holy Scripture is set up in a certain high seat, to which every faithful and pious understanding must serve. And in the Book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 2.Puto quod in Chri­sti verbis po­tius Ecclesi­am quaerere debemus qui veritas est & optimè no­vit corpus suum. We must seek the Church in the words of Christ, who is the Truth, who knows very well his own body: And a little after, I will have the Church shewed to me, not by humane Precepts, but by divine Ora­cles. And chap. 3. Ergo in Scripturis Canonicis quaeramus Ecclesiam, Let us then seek the Church in the Canonical Scriptures. Let M. du Perron expound Austin as he will, saying, that Austin will have us to learn of Scripture, that the Church [Page 60] must be alwayes eminent and in greater number; For alwayes this remains, that St. Austin will have those marks of eminency and multitude to be learned out of Scripture, and by consequent that we must address our selves to Scripture before we know the Church, and that Scripture in that point is Judge of the Church. And if in one point, why not also in other points. Basil in the 80. Epistle to Eustathius, [...]. Let the divinely inspired Scripture judge us. Clemens Alexan­drinus in the third of the Stromates, [...]. In the search of things we make use of Scripture to judge. And Austin 18. chapter of Grace and Free-will, Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Johannes, Let the Apostle John sit Judge between us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say more, That the testimony which a Church pure in the faith delivereth to an ignorant person, that such Books are Divine and Canonical, is in regard of that ignorant person a doubtful and weak testimony, because he knows not whether that Church be Orthodox and worthy to be credited. He shall never have a certain belief that these Books are Divine, until by the hearing or read­ing of the Doctrine contained in them, God illuminate his understanding, and touch his heart. For the trust which we ought to have in the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, is an effect of Gods Spirit, and cannot be [Page 61] grounded upon the only testimony of men. It is by Faith that we believe Scri­pture: Now the Church doth not give that Faith, but it is an effect of God Spirit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Objection they press very much. That which speaks not, cannot be a Judge: Now Scripture speaks not; It is a dumb Rule saith the JesuiteIn his Book against the Confes­sion of Faith of the French Churches upon the 5. Article. Ar­noux. Then there is need of a speaking Judge, and that Judge is the Church, that is, the Pope and his Prelates. The JesuiteSalme­ron 2. Prole­gom. §. Alte­ra. Adde my­sticorum & spiritualium sensuum va­rietates quod est nutibus & signis obscu­rius loqui, pe­rinde atque muti faciunt & histrio­nes. Salmeron goes so far, as to say that Scripture is like dumb men, or like Jack-Puddings and Players who make themselves to be understood with signs; so horrible a hatred have these men con­ceived against the holy Scripture.

Indeed Paper and Ink speak not; but it is enough that God hath spoken, and pronounced the things contained in that Book, and inspired those that have writ­ten it. It is enough, that it is a rule according to which they that are called Judges must speak: Thus Isai. 8.20. sends the Church to the Law, and to the Testi­mony, and if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. It would be a Capital crime, if the authority of the Kings Edicts should be despised, because the Paper upon which the Edicts are written doth not speak. By speaking thus, they perceive not that by the same reason they reject the Councils, the Fathers, and the Decrees of the Popes, who are dead long since, and declare that they will not have them for Judges: For the Tomes of the Councils, and the Fathers, and the Roman Decree speak no more then the Paper and Ink of Scripture. And if the Word Judge displeaseth our Adversaries, at least they should not take from Scripture the title of a perfect Rule to rule our Faith, which is the title that Chrysostom giveth to Scripture in the 13. Homily upon the 2. Epistle to the Corinthians, where he calls it, [...]. an exact ballance, a square and a rule of all things. But that doth not suit with our Adversaries humor; forBellar. lib. 4. de Verbo Dei. cap. 12. Scri­pturae finem proprium & praecipuum non fuisse ut esset regula fidei. Bellarmine saith, that the proper and principal end of Scripture was not to be the Rule of Faith. And Stapleton; Stapl. lib. 2. de Authoritate Scripturae Dixi & dico non tam ipsi­us sidei regu­lam in se esse Scripturam quàm ipsa­rum Scriptu­rarum regu­lam esse fi­dem Ecclesiae. Scripture is not so much the Rule of Faith, as the Faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture. And Charron in the 3. verity, The Scripture is not, and cannot be the last Rule and the Soveraign Judge of the Doctrine.

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

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

One of the ordinariest reasons which our Adversaries use, to depress the dig­nity of holy Scripture, and bring it under unwritten Tradition, is to say, that God hath commanded the Prophets and Apostles to speak and preach, not to write. If the Priests had as carefully perused Scripture as they do their Missal, they would not speak so; for they should have found Exod. 17.14. that God said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in a Book. And Deut. 17.18. God will have the King of Israel to keep a copy of the Book of the Law. God himself writ his ten Commandments with his finger in the stone. And Isai. 30.8. God saith to his Prophet, Now go, write it before them in a Table, and note it in a Book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever. And Jer. 36.2. Take thee a Roll of a Book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee. The same Commandment is given to Hab. 2.2. Write the Vision. And to St. John, Rev. 1.11. What thou seest write in a Book. The Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16. saith, that All Scri­pture is given by inspiration of God. Now the Inspiration of God is stronger then a [Page 63] Commandment; for Commandments strike the cars, but Inspiration changeth the heart: Many disobey the Commandment of God; but one cannot have a will to resist his Inspiration when it is once come. When God inspires one to speak and to write, not only he commands him to speak or to write, but also he speaks and writes by him: His Inspirations are not only imperative, but ope­rative. Wherefore Austin in the first Book of the consent of Evangelists in the 7. chap. saith, thatQuic­quid ille de suis sactis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scriben­dum illis tan­quam suis manibus im­peravit. Whatsoever God would have us to read of his deeds and sayings, he commanded them to write it, as if they had been his own hands.

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, we must consider that Tertullian lived about an hundred and twenty years after the Apostles, when it was easie enough to prove, that all the Churches founded by the Apostles, had alwayes kept the same Doctrine; but now after so many ages and revolutions, that argument hath no more place. Already in Austins time the Orthodox Churches dissented about the number of the Canonical Books, as he testifieth in the 8. chapter of the 2. Book of the Christian Doctrine, where he adviseth the faithful ReaderIn Cano­nicis Scriptu­ris Ecclesi­arum Catho­licarum quam plurium au­thoritatem se­quatur. In eis quae non reci­piuntur ab omn [...]bus prae­ponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt. to receive those Books for Canonical, which most Churches receive; and where the Churches do not agree, to follow those which have the greater authority.

They object also this place of Austin against Cresconius in the 1. Book, ch. 33. The truth of Scripture is kept by us when we do that which the Ʋniversal Church liketh; which the very authority of Scripture doth recommend. But it is clear, that this text sets Scripture above the Church, since it groundeth the authority of the Church upon Scripture. Besides, in that place Austin doth not speak of matters necessary to salvation, but of some customs of an indifferent nature, wherein we willingly yield to the authority of a Church which is Orthodox and sound in the Faith. But that soundness in the faith is not known but by Scripture. And it is very considerable, that by the Universal Church Austin meant the Churches of Asia, Africa, and Europe, which at that time agreed, but now they are di­vided, [Page 64] and excommunicate one another. So that if Austin lived now, he could speak so no more.

But the place which they most brag of, is, that of the same Austin in the 5. chapter of the Book against the Epistle of the Foundation, where speaking of himself before he was a Christian, he saith, As for me, I had not believed the Gospel, had not the authority of the Church moved me. But I see not how they can thence infer that the Church hath more authority over us then the Gospel. A son may say, I should not fear God, nor believe his Gospel, had not my Fathers au­thority brought me to it. Doth it follow therefore that such a son acknowledgeth his Fathers authority greater then that of God, or his Word? Only he saith, that God made use of that means to draw him to his fear. In the beginnings God many times makes use of weak means, and probable reasons to draw us to him­self: But after, he gives us stronger reasons, and by his Spirit giveth us a Faith which is not grounded upon the testimony of men, but upon his Word.

Observe by the way St. Austins style, crederem for credidissem, and commoveret for commovisset. It is the custom of this Author, and of the Africans: as in the 2. Book of the City of God, chap. 22. Collis Capitolinus ipse caperetur, nisi saltem anseres Diis dormientibus vigilarent. And in the 2. Book of Perseverance, ch. 9. Tyr & Sydon crederent si viderent haec signa: And in a thousand other places he saith, crederent for credidissent, as among others in this place, which is thus alledged byGerson Tom. 1. pag. 523. Gerson, Evangelio non crederem nisi me authoritas Ecclesiae com­movisset. And which is more, Pope Leo the X. in the Bull Exurge, which is in the end of the last Council of Lateran, alledgeth the same place in this manner, Ʋt dixerit Augustinus se Evangelio non fuisse crediturum nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae intervenisset authoritas. Andradius in the 2. book of the defence of the Tridentine Faith, picks a quarrel with Durandus, because in that text of St. Austin, by the Church, he understands only the Church of the time of the Apostles. Wherein Durandus speaks not without reason.

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

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

And indeed the Roman Church with the same pride attributes unto her self the right and authority of judging of the sense of Scripture, and giving an infal­lible interpretation of the same, of the like force and authority as the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: For (say their Doctors) the Spouse only knows the intention of her Bridegroom. And St. Peter saith in his second Epistle, that the There is in the Text no prophesie, &c. 2. Pet. 1.20. Prophets are not of private interpretation.

And here they bestow calumnies upon us with a liberal hand, saying, that every private man among us expounds Scripture after his own fancy, as being inspired of God. But we take no such thing upon us: Rather we maintain that in things necessary to salvation, Scripture is so clear, that it needs no Interpreter; and the Interpretations that we use in our Sermons, and Books, are not ours, but are drawn from Scripture, which expoundeth her self. And what interpretation [Page 65] soever we bring, the sense of private men is never given among us as a law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pride and Ambition have hatcht that Monster, and intangled the spirits of men with violent interpretations, fitted to the profit of those jolly men, who triumph over the ignorance of the people. But things necessary to salvation are so clearly set down in Scripture, that they need no Interpreter: as St. Austin saith in his fiftieth Treatise upon St. John, Quaedam in Scripturis tam manifesta sunt, ut potius auditorem quam exposi­torem deside­rent. There are things so clear in Scri­pture, that they require rather a Hearer then an Interpreter. And in the Book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 16. These words, In thy seed shall all Na­tions be blessed, need no Interpreter. And a little after, These words, Christ must have suffered and risen the third day, need no Interpreter, &c. As these words, This Gospel of the Kindom shall be preacht over all the world, &c. need no In­terpreter, &c.Sicut non eget interprete Sinite utra­que crescere usque ad messem, quia cum egeret interprete, ip­se Dominus interpretatus est. As these words, Let both grow until the harvest, need no Inter­preter, because when they needed interpretation, Christ himself did interpret them. And if some hard Text be found in Scripture, it is better to be ignorant of the [Page 66] sense of it, then to presume to be infallible Judge of the Word of God. Take me that Text, the sense whereof is most controverted, even these words, This is my Body. The way is easie to end the difference, by keeping close to the form of the Institution, that is, by speaking and doing as Jesus Christ spake and did with his Disciples, without any more dispute; believing that Jesus Christ brake and gave bread to his Disciples, and that the bread which he gave is his body, and that it is the remembrance of him; that he drunk the fruit of the Vine, and that we eat bread: For all these are words of Scripture, in which no command is found to worship that which we eat, or to sacrifice the body of Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Mark 4.10. and him only shalt thou serve. The interpretation of our Adversaries, is, that the Lord will have the cult of latria deferred unto God alone; for (say they) the cult of dulia is for the Saints: But that distinction is not found in Scripture, which will have the cult of dulia deferred unto God; as Rom. 12.11. [...], yielding dulia un­to God: And Mat. 6.24. You cannot [...], yield dulia unto God and to Mammon.

Jesus Christ said to Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Luke 22.31. They interpret it as a promise made to Peter and to the Popes his successors, that they cannot err in the faith: But of Popes and of a succession in the Apostleship of Saint Peter, there is not one single word in the whole Scripture.

Austin in his book of the unity of the Church, chap. 5. acknowledgeth no other way to interpret Scripture but by Scripture it self.Quae si in Scripturis non inveni­rentur, nullo modo esset un­de aperiren­tur clausa, & illustra­rentur obscu­ra. If (saith he) those things were not found in the Scriptures, there would be no way to lay open those things that are hid, and to clear those that are dark. And in the second book of Christian Doctrine, chap. 6. None almost of those obscurities are brought forth, but are found very clearly delivered in other places. And in the ninth chapter,Ad ob­scuriores lo­cutiones il­lustrandas de manifestiori­bus sumantur exempla. To clear the darker expressions, let examples be taken from the clearer places. And Basil in his Asceticks, in the Answer to the two hundred sixty seventh interrogati­on: The things which seem obscurely said in some places of Scripture, are expound­ed in other places, and clearly set down.

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

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

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

V. We do not wrest Scripture by violent interpretations, and put it not upon [Page 68] the wrack to make it serve ambition or covetousness. Pope Nicolas the I. in the Epistle to the Greek Emperor Michael, proveth the Papal power,Porro specialiter ost [...]nsum est ut ea macta­ret & man­ducaret. Illi soli jussum est ut rete plenum piscibus-ad littus trahe­ret. 1 Cor. 2. because it was said to Saint Peter, Kill and eat; and because that priviledge was granted to Peter alone to draw a net full of fishes to Land. And Pope Boniface the VIII. Extravagante Ʋnam sanctam, proveth his soveraignty and primacy, because it is written, In principio creavit Deus coelum & terram. In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And because Saint Paul saith, Spiritualis homo judicat omnia; The Spiritual man discerneth all things: Whence he inferreth in the same place, that the Pope must judge of all things. And because Saint Peter having said, Here is two Swords, Jesus Christ answered, It is enough, he gathereth that the two swords, the spiritual and the temporal, belong unto the Pope: With such interpre­tations brought by the Popes and their Councils, one might fill many pages. The last Council of Lateran, in the IX Session, alledgeth these words of Psalm 72. All the Kings of the earth shall worship him; and will have that understood of the Pope. Bellarmin in the fifth book de Pontifice, chap. 8. and in his book against Barchlay, chap. 25. proveth, that the Pope may dispose of the life and crown of Kings;§. Prae­tere [...] & §. Item. because the Lord said unto Peter, Feed my Lambs: And in the first book de Clericis, chap. 19. he proveth that Priests must abstain from women, be­cause the Priests were commanded to have their loins girt about, and to wear drawers. The same thing is proved by Pope Innocent the I.Dist. 82. Can. Propo­suisti. because it is writ­ten, They that are in the flesh, cannot please God.

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

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

I will add one Text more, which alone for all, may shew the horrible profana­tion, and intolerable licence of the Adversaries, to corrupt Scripture under colour of interpretation. Christ, Mat. 16. said to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. 1. First, our Adversaries will have these words to be spoken not only to Saint Peter, but also to the Popes which bear themselves as Successors of the Primacy and Apostleship of Saint Peter; although Scripture give no suc­cessor to Saint Peter in his Apostleship, nor in the conduct of the Universal Church, no more then to the other Apostles. 2. Secondly, by vertue of these words, Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, the Pope looseth also under the earth, and draws souls out of Purgatory. 3. Thirdly, The power of loosing the pains [Page 69] of sins, being given to the Apostles, the Pope extends that power so far as to dis­solve contracts, and separate lawful marriages, contracted and blessed in the Church: Also by vertue of these words, Whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c. the Pope looseth oaths and vows, and looseth Subjects from the bonds of subjection and fealty to their soveraign Prince, and gives licence to Christians to break their faith; and violate their Oath. 4. Fourthly, the Pope hath reserved some cases unto himself, and certain sins in great number, which are called reserved cases, of whom, none but he can give the absolution but at the point of death: And yet Christ, Mat. 18. said to all the Apostles, and by consequence to all their successors, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and what­soever you shall loose, &c. And Joh. 20.23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted; without reserving any case to Saint Peter. 5. Fifthly, by that Text, the power of binding, and that of loosing, are equally given to Peter; and one of those two powers reacheth no further then the other: Yet by vertue of that Text, the Pope pretends to loose in Purgatory; but there he never binds, and never made use of that power towards the souls in Purgatory. 6. Finally, the judicial power of binding and loosing, given unto Peter and the Apostles, reaching but to Eccle­siastical pains, the Pope extends that power even to the judicial seat of God, as if those that are absolved by men, were no more accountable before God. Thus upon one only Text, they commit six notable depravations mingled with impiety, under colour of interpretation.

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

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

He adds that it is necessary to be first certain of the interpretation of Scripture,Pag. 21. and that by an infallible way: But it is an error to think, that in matters necessary to salvation, Scripture stands in need of interpretation. Chrysostom upon 2 Thes. 2. speaks thus, [...]. All things that are in the divine Scriptures, are clear and right; All that is necessary, is clear in them. Austin in the second book of Christian Doctrine, chap. 9.In his quae apertè in Scriptura posi­ta sunt, inve­niuntur illa omnia quae continent fi­dem moresque vivendi. In the things that are openly set down in the Scripture, all things are found that concern faith and manners to live well: And in the sixteenth chapter of the book of the unity of the Church, he brings many Texts of Scri­pture which he saith have need of no interpretation.

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

It will not be found in express terms in Scripture, that God governeth the [Page 70] world by his providence: Yet that we believe, not by humane reasoning, nor by revelation, nor by the authority of any Interpreters, but by Scripture, which saith the same thing in equivalent terms,Eph. 1. Matth. 10. when it teacheth us, that God doth all things according to the pleasure of his will: That a Sparrow falls not without his will, and that the hairs of our head are numbred. Then the Cardinals argument halteth, because his enumeration is imperfect; For besides these three means there is a fourth, sufficient to establish a doctrine, when a proposition which is not foud in expresse terms, and in so many syllables in Scripture, is found there in equivalent terms, which comes all to one.

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

AMong the impious doctrines, whereby the enemies of the heavenly truth spit against Heaven, this is one of the prime and boldest, to say, that it is in the power of the Church, to alter that which God commandeth in Scripture, that is, to make commandments contrary to Gods Commandments. This M. du Per­ron teacheth,Pag. 674. in the 3. observation of the second book, in the 3. chap. the title whereof is, Of the authority of the Church, in the alteration as well of the things contained in Scripture, as of those that are delivered to the Church by Apostolical tradition. This is exalting men above God, and subjecting the Word of God unto the will of man. And in the 675. page he saith, There are some things written which the Church hath altered and changed in the practice, as the ordinance of abstain­ing from blood and things strangled, which is set down in express terms in Scripture, Acts 15.

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

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

The Cardinal makes bold to add to these, the removing of the cup from the Eu­charist; for he confesseth thatLast ch. of the Com­munion un­der the two kinds. p. 1109, & 1115. it is Christs institution that we should take the Sacrament under the two kinds, but he saith, that the Church hath dispensed from that Commandment. For (saith he) to the Church it belongs to judge what my­steries of Christ are dispensable, and acknowledgeth that the Church had the power to use both dispensation and alteration in this: Words able to make any mans hair to [Page 71] stand, if he loveth God; For thereby the Cardinal declareth that the Roman Church is not subject to Gods Commandment, since she can dispence from it; yea that the Roman Church is above God, since she can change his laws and cor­rect his command.

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

Vasquez Tom. 3. Disput. 260. num. 60. Licet conce­deremus hoc suisse Apo­stolicum prae­ceptum, ni­bilominus Ecclesia & summus Pontifex po­tuerunt illud justis de cau­sis abrogare. Neque enim major fuit potestas Apo­stolorum quam Eccle­siae & Pon­tificis in fe­rendis prae­ceptis.The Jesuit Vasquez, speaking of the Lords Commandment, Drink ye all of this, saith, Though we should grant that it was a Commandment of the Apostles, yet the Church and the soveraign Prelate had the power to abolish it for just causes; For the power of the Apostles in making ordinances, was no greater then that of the Church and the Pope.

Andradius in the 2. Book of the Tridentine faith,Minime vero majores nostri religione, & pietate praestantes haec Apostolorum; & quam plurima alia decreta refigere in animum induxissent, nisi intellexissent, &c. Our ancestors, men ex­cellent in religion and piety, would never have disanulled those decrees of the Apo­stles and many more, but that, &c. Whence he inferreth, thatLiquet minime illos errasse qui dixerunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare à Paulo, & quatuor Conciliis. those have not er­red, who said that the Popes of Rome may sometimes dispence from obeying the Apostle Paul, and the four first Councils.

The Council of Trent in the V. Session, was so bold, as to pronounce that the concupiscence forbidden by the law is no sin; And that although the Apostle Paul calls it sin, yet to speak truly and properly, it is no sin. The words of the Coun­cil are,Hanc concupiscentiam quam aliquando Aposto­lus peccatum appellat, sancta Synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod ve­rè & propriè in renatis peccatum sit. The holy Council declareth, that the Catholick Church never understood that concupiscence, which in some places the Apostle calls sin, be truly & properly sin in the regenerate, that is, in the baptized. That venerable Council declareth, that if a baptized man covet his neighbours wife, he sinneth not, although God forbid it in his Law, and St. Paul call that concupiscence sin: And that the Apo­stle hath neither truly nor properly spoken.

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

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

Thomas Aquinas goeth so far, as to say, thatThomas 2a 2 [...] qu. 1. Art. 13. Ad solam au­thoritatem summi Ponti­ficis pertinet nova edito Symboli. the Pope can make a new edition of the Symbole, that is, to make a new Christian Religion. Wherefore in the last Session of the Council of Florence, the power is attributed unto the Pope, to add to the Symbole.

Cardinal Tolet, in the 1. book of the Sacerdotal institution, chap. 68. excuseth the Pope for not receiving the bigames [that is, those that have been twice maried] unto the Priesthood, against the commandment of the Apostle: His reason is, thatCum cer­tum sit non omniae: quae Apostoli in­stituerunt, jure divino esse instituta. all that the Apostles have instituted, is not of divine right. It belongs then to the Pope to judge and discern what is of divine right among the writings of the Apostles, from that which is not. By which means, all that displeaseth him, will be of humane right.

Bellarmin in the 2. chap. of the book against Barcklay, Pontifex potest dispen­sare in vocis & juramen­tis quae Deus ipse jussit reddi, & quorum so­lutio est de jure divino. The Pope can give dispensations from vows and oaths which God hath commanded to be fulfilled, and the keeping whereof is of divine right. And in the 4. book de Pontifice, chap. 5.Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia, & pro­hibendo vir­tutes, tene­retur Eccle­sia credere vi­tia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare. If the Pope did erre, commanding vices and prohibiting vertues, the Church should be obliged to believe, that vices are good, and vertues evil, unless she would sin against conscience.

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

To which I will adde this corollary out of the Roman Decree, in the first que­stion of the 31. Cause. It is a Canon ascribed to Chrysostom, against second mar­riages. It speaks thusCan. Hac ratione. Secundam quidem accipere secundum praeceptum Apostli licitum est; secundum autem veritatis rationem vera fornicatio est; sed cum permittente Deo publicè & licenter committitur, fit honesta fornicatio. To marry a second wife according to the Apostles com­mand, is a lawful thing; but according to the reason of truth, it is true fornication; Which being done publickly and with licence, God permitting it, an honest fornication is committed. In the Roman Decree that Canon is suffered, in which the Apostle St. Paul is accused to have commanded fornication, and authorized it by his per­mission, and God himself is accused to have permitted it.

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

WE look not for the marks of the Church of the elect; She hath no marks. God alone knows them that are his, and marks them with the Spirit of ado­ption:2 Tim. 2.19. Nor for the marks of the Universal Church, which comprehendeth all them that make profession to be Christians; That profession is her mark, about which there is no dispute. The question is, touching the whole body of the Or­thodox Church joyned in communion. It is demanded, by what external marks she may be discerned from idolatrous, heretical, and schismatical Churches.

Those marks must be proper to that true Church, and perpetual. Also they must be sensible, and more known then the Church, since by them the Church is discerned. Wherefore if any marks of the Church be set forth, which be as much or more proper to Pagans or Jews, or societies of impure Christians, as to the true Church, or which be not alwaies proper to the Church, or that be less known then the Church, it is not a good mark; and we must look for other marks. So much the Jesuit Salmeron teacheth, in the XIII. Tome, in the 2. dispute upon St. Pauls Epistles, saying, thatPag. 191. Ad idoneum signum tria necessaria esse viden­tur. Ʋt sit verum, ut sit manifestum, ut alteri non quadret. to be a mark three things are requisite. 1. That it be true. 2. That it be evident. 3. That it be proper to none else. In 2^am 2^a Disp. 1. Quaest. 5. Punct. 7. Gregorius de Valentia saith the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One only demonstrative reason decides that difference. It is a rule without ex­ception, that definitions must be more known then the thing defined. As if I said, [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 74] that expositions must be clearer then the things expounded, and that the candle must be lighter then the book that is read by it. If then true faith and doctrine enters into the definition of the Church, and makes part of the definition, it fol­lows of necessity, that true doctrine ought to be more known then the Church. Now this is the definition of the Church, according to Cardinal Bellarmine. Lib. 3. de Ecclesia mi­litante. c. 2. §. Nostra. The true Church is a society of men joyned together by the profession of the same Christian faith, &c. We must then know that Christian faith, before we know the true Church, since that faith is part of the definition of the Church. Mr. du Perron defineth the true Church in this manner, Book 1. chap. 8. The Church is the society of those whom God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true faith, &c. And Salmeron, XIII. Tome, in the first dispute upon St. Pauls Epistles, defines the Church coetum vocatorum à Deo per fidem, the assembly of those whom God hath called by faith, pag. 172. Since then the Church is defined by the profession of the true faith, the true faith must be known before we can know the true Church.

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

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

Our Adversaries themselves presuppose, that the Word of God ought to be more known then the Church, every time that they alledge any text of Scripture to defend the authority of their Church; For the proofs must be more known and more clear then the thing proved;Salmer. in Epist. Paul. Disput. 4. §. Inter. Hoc signum verbo Dei ac ratio­ne fulcien­dum. else one should prove a clear thing by a dark. Thus we see, that our Adversaries handling this question of the marks of the Church, labour to prove her marks by Scripture, presupposing that Scripture is more known then those marks.

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

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

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

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

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

AƲstin in the book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 16. speaks thus,Ecclesiam suam demon­strent, si pos­sunt, non in sermonibus & rumoribus Afrorum, &c. sed in prae­scripto Legis, in Propheta­rum paerdictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, &c. in ipsius Pa­storis voci­bus, &c. hoc est, in omni­bus canonicis sanctorum li­brorum au­thoritatibus. Let them shew us their Church if they can, not by the words and rumors of the Africans, nor by the Councils of their Bishops, nor by the writings of disputers whosoever they be, nor by false signs and miracles, for the Word of the Lord hath warned us, and made us circumspect against that: But by the Law, by the predictions of the Prophets, by the songs of the Psalms, by the sermons of the Gospels, that is, by the Canonical books. And in his Epistle to Bonifacius, In the holy books wherein the Lord is mani­fested, there also the Church is manifested. And a little after, The Church is not counterfeited by contentious opinions, but is proved by divine testimonies. And in the 166. Epistle, We have learned Christ in the Scriptures, there we have learned the Church. And chap. 2. of the Unity of the Church, Between us and the Do­natists, the question is, Where the Church is? What shall we do then? Shall we seek her in our words, or in the words of our head the Lord Jesus Christ? I think that we ought rather to seek her in his words. And a little after, I will not have any to shew me the Church by humane documents, but by divine oracles. And chap. 3. Let us then seek the Church in Canonical books. Again, There are books of the Lord, about whose authority we both consent; we believe them, we serve them. There let us seek the Church, there let us decide our cause. But above all, these words of the 16. chap. are express:Ʋtrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non­nisi divina­rum Scriptu­rarum ca­nonicis libris ostendant. Let them shew us whether they have the Church, Only by the Ca­nonical books of the divine Scriptures. He receiveth no other proof of the Church but by the Scriptures. Hierom upon the 133. Psalm saith all in two words, Ecclesia ibi est, ubi sides vera est. The Church is there where true faith is.

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

The same words of the Cardinal, overthrow that thredbare objection of our [Page 76] Adversaries, that one cannot know that such a book is Scripture but by the Church. For behold one of the most eminent Cardinals of the Roman Church, who confesseth with Austin, that one cannot know the Church but by the Scripture.

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

The same Fathers words are most express in his forty ninth Homily of the im­perfect work upon Saint Matthew, Antea multis modis ostendebant quae esset Ec­clesia Christi, & quae Gen­tilitas; nunc autem nullo modo cog­n [...]scitur nisi tantummodo per Scriptu­ram. Heretofore they shewed many ways what the Church of Christ was, and what the society of Pagans: But now this is known no other way, but by the Scriptures only. And soon after, He then that will know which is the true Church of Christ, how shall he know it but by the Scriptures?

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

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

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

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

By speaking thus, they overthrow all the marks which themselves attribute un­to the true Church, as antiquity, holiness of doctrine, multitude, the name of Catholick, &c. for there is none of those marks but is controverted and challen­ged by other Churches besides the Roman. Besides we maintain, that those marks for the most part are not proper to the Roman Church. If we give to the Church no other marks but such as are not controverted, she shall have none at all. Thus giving Laws, sending Embassadors, judging ultimately of all causes, coyning [Page 77] money, &c. are marks of Soveraignty, although an usurper assume them un­justly.

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

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

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

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

Upon the whole matter, to fright men away from examining the Doctrine of the Roman Church, the Cardinal makes the way so long, that a thousand years of study would not be enough: For he will have one to know all the Objections and Answers that ever were made upon every point of Divinity; And yet in the end, if one be deficient in one point, he holds that all is lost, All that, to the end [Page 78] that no body may busie his mind about Scripture, and that all be afraid of the Doctrine of Salvation, as of a laborious and perilous study, and so take the shorter way, which is to believe the Church; never enquiring what the Church ought to believe; and to be perswaded that the Roman Church is the true Church, without troubling themselves to get instruction in the Faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the word Catholick cannot be the mark of the true Church, it is evi­dent: For the natural and infallible marks of a thing are not words, but things. The marks of a good Horse are not words, but natural things: For men will of­ten give false titles, and contrary names, and the same title may be usurped by [Page 80] dissenting Churches. The names proper to a thing arise from the essential form thereof, but words and titles are given by the will of men.

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

Besides, the marks of the right and good Church must shew her goodness; but that word Catholick or Ʋniversal imports no goodness, and designs no vertue, but only signifies her extent.

The same appears, in that the most false and corrupt Churches will put on also the title of Catholick, and will be called so. Lactantius in the last chapter of the 4. Book, speaks thus;Singuli quique coe­tus haeretico­rum se potis­simum Chri­stianos & suam esse Ca­tholicam Ec­clesiam putat. Each Congregation of Hereticks holds her self above all to be Christian, and her Church Catholick. Salvianus in the 5. Book of Pro­vidence;In tan­tum se Ca­tholicos esse judicant ut nos ipsos titu­lo haereticae appellationis infament. So much they hold themselves Catholicks, that they defame us with the title of Hereticks. Cyprian to Jubaian; Cypr. Ep. 37. Nova­tianus sibi vult Ecclesiae Catholicae au­thoritatem & veritatem vindicare. Novatianus will attribute unto himself the authority and the truth of the Catholick Church. Austin in the Book of the utility of believing, chap. 7. saith, thatChristia­norum cum sint haereses plures atque omnes se Ca­tholicos vide­ri velint. all the Hereticks affect the name of Catholicks. Even the Donatists against whom the name of Catholicks hath been especially used, and the Rogatists which were but a branch of the Donatists, would be so called, as Austin saith in the 48. Epistle to Vincentius. And the Greek Church, which is an enemy to the Roman, retains that name still, and her Patriarch is still called Oecumenical Bishop, as if he governed the whole habitable earth. In one point chiefly it is evident how that mark of Ʋniversal or Catholick is wide of all likelyhood of reason; that the dispute between divers particular Churches is, which of them must be called Ʋniversal, as if Africk and Europe were contend­ing which of them two must be called the whole earth.

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

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

THe Church of the Elect is called Catholick or Universal in the Symbole, be­cause she comprehends all the Elect; both them that triumph in Heaven, and them that are or shall be militant here on earth. And if that Church mentioned in the Symbole, comprehends also the visible Church upon earth (which we would not [Page 81] deny) then that visible Church is called Catholick or Universal, to distinguish it from the Jewish Church, which was affected and restrained to one particular Nation, as his Majesty of Great Britain saith, and Bellarmine acknowledgeth it in his Book of the marks of the Church, chap. 7.§. Sunt omnes. Ut Ecclesia sit Catholica, in­primis requi­ritur ut non excludat ulla tempora, loca, vel hominum genera, in quo distingui­tur à Syna­goga. That the Church (saith he) may be Catholick, it is requisite in the first place, that she exclude no time, no place, and no sort of men, whereby she is distinguished from the Synagogue, which was a particular, not a Catholick Church. The Jesuite Salmeron saith the same.Salmer. Tom. XIII. Disp. 1. in Epist. Pauli. §. Tertio. Dicitur Ca­tholica, [...]oc est universalis, in quo primum differt à Sy­nagoga. The Church (saith he) is called Catholick, that is, Ʋniversal; wherein she is different from the Synagogue, in that she is not circumscribed with certain limits of people or place. But Cardinal du Perron being wiser then they all, in his first chapter against the King, is of another opinion; for he saith, that the word Ca­tholick is rather added in the Symbole to discern the true Church, which is pure, and neither heretical nor schismatical, from the heretical and schismatical Chur­ches. But the evident reason is on the Kings side; for since the word Catholick signifies Ʋniversal, it is fitter to distinguish the Universal Church from the parti­cular, then to distinguish the Orthodox Church from the Heretical; between Church Ʋniversal, and Church Heretical, there is no opposition.

The Fathers take that word Catholick two wayes: Sometimes by the Catho­lick Church they understand meerly the Universal, distinguishing her by that word from the particular Churches. Optatus Milevitanus in the 2. Book; The Church is called Catholick, because she is spread everywhere. Austin in the 152. Epistle, The Catholick Church is spread over all the Earth. And in the 170. Epistle,Ipsa est Ecclesia Ca­tholica, unde [...] Graece appel­latur, quod per totum ter­rarum orbem diffunditur. The Church is called Catholick, because she is spred over all the world. He saith the same in the 2. Book against Petilianus, chap. 38.

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