THE NOVELTY OF POPERY, Opposed to THE ANTIQUITY Of True CHRISTIANITY.

Against the Book of Cardinal Du Perron, Entituled, A Reply to the Answer of the most Serene JAMES King of Great Britain.

By PETER DU MOULIN D. D. once Minister of the Reformed Church of Paris, and since Professor in Divinity in the University of SEDAN.

Translated out of French by the Authors eldest Son PETER DU MOULIN D. D. Canon of Canterbury.

PSALM 109.28.

Let them curse, but bless thou.

LONDON, Printed by Robert White, and are to be sold by Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street, near unto the Inner Temple-Gate, Anno Dom. 1662.

MVNIFICENTIA REGIA. 1715

GEORGIVS D.G. MAG BR. FRET HIB. REX. F. D.

TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS The most Illustrious and Magnanimous Prince IAMES Duke of York and Albany, Lord High Admi­ral of England and Ireland, Constable of Do­ver-Castle, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Governour of Portsmouth, &c.

SIR,

THis work made for the defence and by the express command of your blessed and glorious Grandfather King JAMES, and after his de­cease presented by the Author to your incomparable Father, our great King and holy Martyr, is now humbly presented to your Royal Highness by the Translator, son and heir of the Authors Zeal to the vindication of Gods Truth, and the Rights of your sacred Family. The enemies we had to wrastle with in the late desolation of our beheaded Church and State, are the same that are impugned in this Book. For although the Kings enemies and yours were at open defiance with the Court of Rome, yet they were acted by that Court, and played the Popes game. Their common interest, which was most earnestly followed, was to force our King [Page] and our Princes into the Romish superstition. And as the one side had made of Davids com­plaint a Motto for them, They have driven us this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, say­ing, Go serve other Gods: So the other party left no way untryed to work upon the distresses of your sacred persons, and inrich their party with so great a prize. But God indowed your pious and magnanimous hearts with so much heroick strength, that the great Tempter offered in vain unto you, as unto Christ, the greatness and glory of the world to make you fall down to him and worship him: And your valour in the field, which hath got an immortal fame to your name, was yet inferiour to your valour in the tempta­tion. By thus fighting the good fight and keep­ing the faith, you are become Conquerers of three Kingdoms, besides that of Heaven, and have engaged God in the defence of your Cause by sticking to his; with so much glorious success that all ages shall adore the excellency of his love in the miracles of your restitution. Go on, Generous Prince, in the strength of God, and in conjunction with our gracious King, to be the Protector of true Religion, the maintainer of Justice, the comfort of good men, the terrour of the evil, and the pattern of all vertues, the true way to be the example of all blessings. That all the blessings which heaven can shower down, and make the earth bring forth, may ever flow upon your Princely head, is the daily prayer of

Your Royal Highnesses most dutiful and most humble Servant, P. Du Moulin.

THE PREFACE OF THE TRANSLATOR.

FOR the Glory of GOD, the reduction of strayed Sheep into Christs Fold, and the confirmation of good souls in Gods truth, against the attempts of the vigilant and un­wearied adversary, this long desired Translation now comes forth, and is recommended to all the Lovers of sound Doctrine in England, that understand not the Au­thors Language. And truly the English Protestants have an especial Interest in this Work, since it was made for the defence both of their Religion and their King; That Great and Learned De­fender of the Faith, King James of glorious memory, who had consecrated his Scepter and his Pen to maintain the true Catholick and Orthodox Doctrine, was extraordinarily maligned for it, and opposed by the Enemies of the same, who sought glory to themselves by the Greatness of their Adversary. Cardinal du Perron the chiefest of them, both in Wit and Learning, having written against the King, drew a solid confutation of his Book from his Majesty, who made use for it of the Learned Pen of the Great Isaac Casaubon. And when a volumi­nous reply of the Cardinal came forth, the strongest piece that ever came from any Romanist against the Reformed Religion, it pleased his Majesty to make choice of my Reverend Father of blessed memory to answer that book, ha­ving twice before made use of his Pen for the like service. Not for want of able men in his Kingdom to defend Gods cause and his, but partly because his adver­sary having written in French, there was need also of a French Pen to con­fute him. And partly to manifest unto the world that the Religion of England is not singular, as the Papists clamour, but the common cause of the Protestant Churches: And that our exceptions against Rome are the same that are made by the greatest searchers of holy Antiquity abroad. It is a great comfort to all lovers of Truth and Unity in the Church, to have their hands strengthened in this holy warfare by the concurrence of so many Auxiliaries and fellow-Soul­diers that live in another ayr, and under another Government.

Among those Auxiliaries this Writer may very well be set in the Front, as a known Friend, not only to the Doctrine, but also to the Discipline of the Church of England, which he hath commended in many places of his published works, and even in his private Annotations to his Bible, which I keep by me.

But we ought not to strike them out of the List of our Friends, who either out of the necessity of their condition, or by the fortune of their education differ from us in Discipline, though fully consenting with us in all the essentials of Doctrine: For I put not among the essential differences that about the points agitated in the Synod of Dort, upon which the most rational Divines cannot ful­ly satisfie themselves, much less others; and about which our Divines at home differ, without breach of concord. Let not, I say, that difference be added to the score of our exceptions, against the different Discipline of our neighbours, to make dislike grow to hatred, and set us at a further distance.

In Austins and Prospers time, there was the same difference between them and the Gallican Churches about the point of Predestination, as is now be­tween the Jansenians and the Molinists; yet Prosper calls those Churches the Servants of Christ in an Epistle inserted in the seventh Tome of St. Austin. And Hilarius Arelatensis, in another Epistle next to it alledgeth their Au­thority to St. Austin for the excepting of the Book of Wisdom out of the Ca­non of Scripture. Whereby it is evident, th [...]t the difference about that point did not break Christian communion among them.

In the late Insurrection, when I took upon me that honour to be a Champi­on both of the King and the Church of England in three Languages, I laboured to justifie the English Discipline to the French, and to excuse the French Disci­pline unto the English. But since by the iniquity of the times, and the differ­ence of the Languages that which I got Printed in French was not seen enough in England, to give that satisfaction to our Church which I intended: It will be neither improper for this place, nor unseasonable for this time to put something here tending to that blessed work of peace and mutual good opinion of Chur­ches living under different Disciplines.

Were I now speaking to the French, I would endeavour to let them see that we have more of the Primitive and Apostolick Church-Government in England then any other Church in the rest of the world. But speaking now to the Eng­lish, and presenting to them the work of a French Divine, my proper work is to represent unto them, First, that the nature of that difference in Discipline is such as ought to move their compassion, not anger. And next, that if the good opinion of the English may be won by the good opinion that the French ex­press of them, and by their desire to enjoy the same Government, if they might be so happy, certainly they have deserved it.

For the first, no equitable person will except against them, for not doing what they cannot do. If you look to the beginning of their Reformation, and to the persons that begun it, and the oppositions which they wrestled with in their work, it was not to be expected of Priests that rejected the errors of Popery, and preacht the truth of the Gospel, according to their oath and calling, that if they could not convert their Bishops, they should set up new Bishops. And if they had done so, we that finde fault with their Discipline, as it is now, would have liked it no better. For if we object to their Ministers their want of Epis­copal succession, because they were not ordained by Bishops, we might with more reason have laid that want upon their Bishops not created by Bishops but by Priests. In an interregnum, when the lawfull power is eclipsed in a Kingdom by disorder and violence, Officers may be sooner allowed to create other Offi­cers, then to create a King. The condition of the French Protestant Church li­ving under the Cross ever since the Reformation, is an interregnum, as for the Eccelesiastical power: Whereof if they have neither the right order, nor the full exercise, all that defect is the vice of the times, not of the persons, which ought no more to be blamed for it, then a workman that is manacled for doing a piece of necessary work as well as he can, not as well as it should be.

That it is not in their power to bring an Ecclesiastical subordination into their Church, it was justified not long since; for when some of their prime men that perceived and felt the inconveniences that follow the want of that subordination, moved Cardinal Richelieu to place it among them by his authority, pretending [Page] that it would bring them neerer to the Roman Church, he flatly denied to give way to it, and told them, If you had that order, you would look too like a Church.

Wherefore the more inconveniencies are found in the Order of the French Protestants by those that are too angry with them, the more reason there is to pity them, since these inconveniences are productions of the Cross, which they lye under. And among those productions of the sadness of their condition which deserveth pity, we must reckon the dislike that some of them have exprest of the Episcopal Order. For it is a weakness incident to all vulgar natures to turn long use into necessity, and necessity into doctrine, and to think nothing better then that custom which they were bred in. No wonder that the com­mon people that see no Bishops, but such as are foul Hereticks, and their Perse­cutors, can hardly conceive of a Bishop under another Notion. But the gene­rous and illuminate souls which in that brave Nation are in great numbers erected above the slavery of custom, and looking beyond the narrow limits of their ne­cessitous condition, make no difficulty to acknowledge openly the scantness of their Church-Government; and that their bed is shorter then that they can stretch themselves in it, and the covering narrower then that they can wrap themselves in it. But as short and narrow as it is, they must keep it by an invincible necessity. For though they could break the people from their wonted Discipline to the Epis­copal (which though never so ancient, is a new and uncouth thing to them that never tryed it) yet they could never obtain of the civil power a toleration of two Bishops of Paris or Orleans together, nor the adunation of many Re­formed Diocesans under one Metropolitan, nor the exercise of Ecclesiastical ju­risdiction. Such a strong knitting of the Protestant interest would give a great jealousie to the supream power, and the Council of State of contrary Religion. And their politick Statesmen will never give way to it.

Neither would the Episcopal Order fit the present posture of the French Protestant Churches; for it would be more easie for the Agents of the Court of Rome to corrupt some of their Bishops, and by them infect and disturb whole Diocesses, then it is now to win thousands of equal and scattered Ministers: for though those Court Divines have rare Organists among them, they have none that have fingers enough to serve so many stops.

Besides as long as the French Ministers profess no hatred against Episcopal Government (as indeed very few, if any of them, either profess it or harbor it in their breast) it is fitter for them to remain in an order fitted for obedience, and prepared for submission to their Diocesans, whensoever it shall please God to turn their hearts to assert the truth, and protect them. And how soon both Pastors and people may be brought to submit to Bishops, it hath been tryed by the Bishop of Troyes, and that of Meaux, who as soon as they began to for­sake the errors of Popery, were acknowledged by the Protestant Churches with­in the verge of their jurisdiction for their Diocesans. The Archbishop of Vienna and the Bishops of Orleance were once about to have done as much, and would have found the like obedience from the protestant party. But the great stream of the State proved too strong for them to swim against. Nothing hath been more eagerly opposed by the Pope and his creatures, then that the Protestants should have Bishops. Other Churches have found it in all places where Refor­mation hath been planted. And the English Church can say much of that by a late and smarting experience.

And whereas the Reformed Churches in France are so weak that they can hardly afford stipends to find a poor livelyhood to their Ministers; Can it be ex­pected of them that they maintain the dignity of the Episcopal degree with their private contributions? They can find Bishops enough, but where are the Bishopricks?

This then being evident that by the influence which the Pope hath upon their Soveraigns, they are kept low, and altogether disabled from enjoying the Epis­copal degree: I crave leave, with all mildness and humble respect, to make a [Page] question to some of my dear and reverend brethren, and fellow-sufferers in the Cause of the King and the Church who deny these poor Churches to be Churches, because they have no Bishops: Will they allow so much power to the Pope as to be able to hinder millions of true Believers from being members of Gods Church on earth, if he can but hinder them from Episcopal Ordinati­on and Episcopal preheminence by a prevalent power, and an invincible impos­sibility? With this question I have smoothed the edge of the eagerness of some prime men in our Church who were most positive in that assertion, No Bishop, no Church, their charity getting the upperhand of their most resolved sentence against these objects of compassion; and I doubt not but it will work the like effect with others. For I hardly believe that any childe of God, and son of peace, who claims a right to that goodly legacy of Christ, My peace I leave unto you, will so far put off the bowels of mercy as to eject out of the Church of Christ those thousands of good Christians that have forsaken the world and denied themselves to follow Christ, and doomed themselves to poverty, and the publick hatred for his sake, and to un-Church them all, because they live with­out Bishops. That would be a great injury offered, not only to our fellow-members in Christ, but more to God, whose mercy will not be limited, nor his wisdom strait-laced by our positions, as if there were no way for him, but one, to maintain his Church in the world.

The allegation of the Divine Right of Episcopacy. and of the Apostolical In­stitution of the same, will not justifie the severity of that Judgement. Let that stand as an undoubted truth that Episcopacy is of Apostolick institution, and therefore of Divine Right. It is acknowledged even by them that want it. But hence it follows not that where any of the Forms and Customs that are of Di­vine Right and Apostolick institution, is wanting, there is no Christian Church. Our great Bishop Andrews, one of the most rigid and rational Assertors of the Divine Right of Episcopacy, could say (writing to our Author of that holy Discipline, which many Reformed Churches have not) Coecus est qui non videat sine ea stantes Ecclesias. Ferreus est qui neget — Nos non sumus illi ferrei. He is blind that seeth not Churches standing without that Discipline. He hath an iron breast that denyeth it. I am none of those iron-breasted men.

To him I joyn the most Reverend and most learned Prelate Doctor Bramhall, now Lord Primate of Ireland, who in his golden Book, Intituled, The Serpent Salve, useth these judicious and charitable expressions about that matter. God is a mercifull God, Pag. 206. and looks upon his creatures with all prejudices of Education, Habitation, &c. And giveth this wise and pious Cav [...]at to our Divines; Breach of charity is more dangerous to the soul then any errour in Discipline. And having most worthily defended the order of the English Church, he addeth; I write not this to prejudge our neighbour Churches. Pag. 208. I dare not limit the extraordinary ope­ration of Gods Spirit, where ordinary means are wanting, without the default of the persons. He gave his people Manna for food whilest they were in the wilderness. Necessity is a strong plea. Many Protestant Churches lived under Kings and Bishops of another Communion. Others had particular reasons why they could not continue or introduce Bishops. But it is not so with us. It was as wisely as chari­tably said of St. Cyprian, If any of my Predecessors through ignorance or sim­plicity have not holden that which our Lord hath taught, the mercy of the Lord might pardon them, &c. So if any Churches through necessity, or ignorance, or new-fangledness, or covetousness, have swerved from the Apostolick Rule, or Pri­mitive Institution, the Lord may pardon them, and supply the defect of man; but we must not therefore presume. It is charity to think well of our neighbours, and good Divinity to look well to our selves. But the chief reason is, because I do not make this way simply necessary, but only shew what is safest where so many Chri­stians are of another minde. I know what some choice Divines do write of the case of necessity; and there is a great difference between a valid and a regular ordina­tion. And for my part I am apt to believe that God looks upon his people in mercy with all their prejudices; and that there is a great latitude left to particular [Page] Churches in the constitution of their Ecclesiastical regiment, according to the ex­igence of time and place, so as order and his own institution be observed. This is spoken like a right Father of the Church and a true Son of peace. And it is dubi­ous, whether this sentence be more judicious or more charitable. Truly who so will consider with an equitable eye what sore combats the Protestant Churches continually sustain about the main doctrines of Religion, which to keep, neither goods nor life are precious unto them, shall not wonder that they are less careful and skilful in the matters of Discipline, succession, Episcopacy, and the like; and shall not look upon their defects with pitty, not anger. Non jam de imperio, sed de vita sunt solliciti.

This will help to answer an ordinary question, Why the French Divines do not come over into England to receive Episcopal Ordination? The Reformed Divines of France, busy to keep the vital parts of Religion against a vigilant and prevalent power, are less employed and less skilled in the points of Disci­pline, and are not yet perswaded of the absolute necessity of an immediate Epis­copal Ordination: Which yet they will take when they may conveniently. Both the Prince of Turenne and the Duke de la Foize had their Chaplains ordained by a Bishop. Monsieur Primerose late Minister of Roven was ordained by a Bishop. And lately a Learned French Divine before he returned out of England into his Country, was presented by me to the Right Reverend and famous Bi­shop of Lincoln, who conferred the Holy Orders upon him.

To require all the French Reformed Divines to come over into England to receive Orders, is a fancy that cannot come into the brains of one that knows the world. Would their Soveraign allow it? Or would the Popish Clergy be­hold it with patience? The Protestant Students in Divinity are not so much as allowed by their King to take degrees in Divinity in our Universities, nor their Churches suffered to send Deputies to outlandish Synods, because his subjects shall not have forraign dependences; and to please the Court of Rome, which will not have the Protestant Churches to knit together, the chief work of our Adversaries being to disunite us, and break all our correspondences.

And although there were not such a bar in that design, the shortness of their means, and the remoteness of the places would be another unremovable bar. Sholars of Bearn and Languedock (where Protestants are most numerous) kept in their Academies with a poor allowance out of charitable contributions, that they may once serve their Churches for a stipend much like that of our meanest Curats, could not finde means to travel three or four hundred leagues by sea and land to fetch their Orders: That would cost their Patrons more then all their breeding: Or if they travelled at their own charges, all their stipends to come would not quit that cost.

Such difficulties or rather impossibilities lying in that way, any wise Christian that is a little acquainted with the wayes of God, will judge that (as things are now with them) our way, though the most antient holy and Apostolick, is not the only way allowed them to come to the Ministry. For God never yet made the salvation of men to hang upon impossibilities: But wheresoever he invites them to it, he giveth them also the means to attain to the same; supplying by his grace the want of the ordinary wayes, and the defect of the extraordinary. So it was in all conversions of the several Nations to the Gospel; for in none of them could all things be regulated in the beginning. And I count the Refor­mation of the Protestant Churches living under the Cross to be still in its begin­ning, as being kept in the bud by contrary weather and not suffered to shoot up to a grown order.

I must not forget here, that the indulgence of our charity to those poor Churches which could not set up the Episcopal Apostolick government with their reformation, cannot be claimed upon the same account by those that reject Episcopacy among us, and make bold to confer Orders without Bishops, since they have not the plea of necessity on thier side, as the others have. The French Protestant Divines never kickt out their Bishops that they might rule them­selves, [Page] nor cryed down Episcopacy as Antichristian. They ordain Ministers without Bishops, because they have no Bishops. But these having Bishops to whom they have sworn Canonical obedience, have given Ordination with­out and against their authority, invaded their power, and persecuted their persons.

But I see an objection at hand. That the French Discipline is grown out of the ejection of Bishops; and that Calvin and the Reformers of Geneva expelled their Bishop, whereupon the Discipline of parity began at Geneva for their own civil interest, and thence was propagated over all France.

This objection is false in all its parts. For the Reformation was in France ten or twelve years before it began at Geneva. And they had the same Discipline in substance as now, which was to shift as well as they could for an order with­out a Bishop, having their Bishops contrary. Neither had the expulsion of the Bishop of Geneva any reflection upon them.

As for the business of Geneva, I know it is a received tradition in England, that the Reformers of Geneva, Calvin especially, expelled their Bishop. And upon the faith of the first reporter, our Divines have taken it successively for a currant and undoubted truth, and built upon it divers fine and judicious infe­rences. But it is like the stories of the Phenix and the singing of Swans before their death, never the truer for the number of ancient writers that affirm them, or for the curious similes and ingenious moralities that have been spun out of that stuff. What credit can we give to histories of things happened three thou­sand years ago, if in things done so lately, and so near us, gross mistakes will generally pass for undoubted truths? I say it is utterly false, first that Calvin was one of the Planters of Reformed Religion at Geneva. It is false likewise, that the Reformers of Geneva turned their Bishop out of doors. And false also, that the Bishop went away upon the quarrel of Religion. Farel and Viret were they that wrought under God the conversion of the City by their Sermons, and by a publick conference with the Fryers and the Clergy of Geneva, there being then no Bishop in that Town. Two years before the names of Farel and Viret were known at Geneva (for Calvin came long after) and before there was any stir about Religion, the Bishop was either turned out, or fled away for his safety, upon an insurrection of the people against him for his tyranny, and many adulteries with Citizens wives. And they that made him flee, and after his flight altered the civil Government into an Aristodemocracy, were strong Papists, and most of them mainly opposed the Reformation which followed two years after. They excuse that alteration of the State, by alledging that the City had jura imperii as much as (if not more then) the Bishop. With their then Bishop they could not agree, nor choose another. And when their Bishop dyed, they were used to live without one. This business is set forth in the book entituled Le Citadin Genevois. But I must thankfully acknowledge, that I owe the best part of this information to that great assertor of the truth of God by his learned writings, and long sufferings, and undanted opposition of the adversaries, to the great danger of his life, my Lord Bishop of Durham my most noble and constant friend, who hath searcht into that business of Geneva with great diligence. But howsoever matters were carried at Geneva, either in the change of Government, or in that of Religion, the Protestants of France are not answerable for their actions.

By the way, since we are upon mistakes about Geneva, the ordinary declaiming against the Geneva Bible is another. The translation so called, was made by the English exiles sojourning at Geneva in Queen Maries dayes, and set forth with marginal notes; some of which have a rank savour of rebellion and fanatick spirit; as saying that Asa should not only have removed his idolatrous mother from the managing of publick affairs, but killed her; And that the locusts of the bottomless pit are Archbishops, Bishops, Batchelours, Masters of Arts, &c. But whosoever had a hand in that Translation and those notes, it ought no more to be fathered upon Geneva, then a conspiracy plotted at London by German [Page] exiles against their Prince or Country ought to be fathered upon the Londoners. The Genevians could have no hand in an English translation, and those notes are not to be found in the French Bibles printed at Geneva.

As for the objection, that by an express Article of their Confession parity of Ministers is asserted; If that Article be taken in the sense most contrary to the Discipline of England, yet it ought to move rather compassion then hatred. If after they had strugled many years against the tyranny of their Bishops, they have laid the fault of the persons upon the degree, that mistake was the product of a sore persecution.

But take it in the right sense and according to the letter of the Article, there is nothing in it contrary to the Episcopal preheminence. It is the thirtieth Arti­cle of their Confession, and it runs thus.

We believe that all true Pastours in what place so ever they be, have the same authority and equal power under one only head, the only Soveraign and only Ʋniver­sal Bishop Jesus Christ. And therefore that no Church ought to pretend any domina­tion or Lordship over another.

It is manifest that this Article was purposely framed and intended against the Pope who stileth himself the Universal Bishop, and against the Church of Rome which usurpeth domination and Lordship over the other Churches. Neither hath it any reflection upon England, where no Church exerciseth domination or Lordship over other Churches. It speaks of Churches not of Bishops; who yet ought not to exercise domination over the Clergy or the people. The power of the English Bishops is not a domination or Lordship, but a fatherly govern­ment and Superintendency.

What is understood in the Article by that equal power of all true Pastours, our Author tells us in his Buckler of the faith, a book written for the vindication of the Confession of the Protestant Churches of France. In the exposition of that Article he saith, that the equality of Pastors in the authority of announcing the Gospel, and administring the Sacraments, is held necessary in the French Churches; Sect. 1 [...]9. for (saith he) the announcing of the remission of sins is of equal dignity in the mouth of all Pastors, whether they be of great or small authority. But that in matter of Ecclesiastical policy the French Churches should believe a necessity of equality between Pastors, that he denieth, and professeth a brotherly concord with the neighbouring Churches (meaning the English) where Bishops have a Supe­riority.

In the second edition of that Book which is translated into English, he is far more positive for Episcopacy, and sets forth the inconveniencies of equality in degree: But all that I intend here is to shew what the French mean by the equa­lity of Pastors in that Article of their Confession. The Author having made that book at the request of the Churches of France, to clear their Confession of a heavy charge laid against it before King Lewis the XIII. had the Churches of France disliked this plea and this exposition of the thirtieth Article of their Confession, they would have publickly disavowed it since three and forty years that it was published; as the Anglican Church would have publickly disavowed any particular writer, though set on to write by authority, if he had expounded the thirty sixth Article of the Church of England to the derogation of Episco­pal preheminence. Wherefore our Authors exposition of that Article, not be­ing contradicted by so many Synods that were held since, may with good reason be taken for a full declaration of the National Church of France; he especially being of that credit, that what he writ or said in the publick defence was ap­proved with a general consent and applause. Besides no book of that nature is published by the French Protestant Divines, but with the approbation of the Synod of the Province.

But suppose that he gave to the Article another sense then they that made it; Is it not enough for him and us, that he exprest the sense of the French Churches of his time? and have we any reason to find fault with them for coming nearer us then their predecessors did?

And were they not come very neer us, when in a solemn act in the University this Thesis was set forth and defended by the Doctor,Petrus Moli­naeus Thesib. de Notis Ec­clesiae Part 2. Thes. 33. Episcopos An­gliae post con­versionem ad fidem & eju­ratum Papis­mum asseri­mus fuisse fi­deles servos Dei nec de­buisse deserere munus vel titulum Epis­copi. of the Chair, our Author, We affirm that the Bishops of England after their conversion and abjuration of Popery were Gods faithful servants, and that they ought not to forsake the Office or title of Bishop. This Thesis was since printed among his Disputations.

This is the second thing that I would shew that they have deserved our good opinion by the good opinion which they have exprest of us, and of late. For what they said before, and how lovingly they agreed with the English Re­formers both in embracing the same doctrine, and approving (though not pra­cticing) our Discipline, is a beaten subject, of which I have said much, and am loth to say the same over again. But the authority of the learned Nobleman Plessis Mornay was never yet (for any thing I know) used in England to this purpose. In a letter of his (now in the keeping of the famous Daille Minister of Paris) about Church government, he compareth the several formes thereof to the several governments of all the States of the earth; and findes that as the Presbyterian Discipline agreeth very well with the popular States (as at Geneva and in Switzerland, where a Bishop should stand too high above the Magistrate, which is chosen among Merchants only and plain Citizens) So in Kingdoms and Monarchies Episcopal government is necessary, because Presbytery should lie too far under the dignity of great Lords and crowned heads. So that as a Bishop should tread over the head of a popular Magistrate; on the other side Kings and great Lords should have the poor Presbyters too far under their feet. That therefore in Monarchical States Prelats were requisite for to sustain the dignity of the Church and shelter it from oppression. That there are some conjunctures in which the Presbyteries themselves ought to be very glad to have Bishops over them, as when it is question of making remonstrances, exhortations or censures to persons of quality. For whereas a poor Minister living in a low way, and conversing only with his petty Parishioners, might be put back with contempt if he took so much upon him, the admonitions of Bishops would be received with respect.

The above named Mr. Daille who was domestick of that Lord and much esteemed by him, relateth that he would often say, that the gifts of God were different. That according to that diversity some Ministers were fit to preach, some to write, who had not the gift of governing and moderating an Assembly. Whereas others were endowed by God with eminent qualities fit to conduct and march at the head of others, who yet had not the faculty to make books, or to teach. And that this distinction which Gods providence and the grace of his Spirit hath made among his servants, sheweth that some are called to preside and to conduct, and others are called to be conducted by those to whom God hath given meet talents for that work.

The sentence of that wise Statesman cannot but be acceptable and seasonable in the present posture of our Church and State, who are obliged for this intelli­gence to that deserving Gentleman Mr. le Conteur the Reverend Dean of Jarsey. And though this and other testimonies from Protestants, living in another air, square not exactly with the rigidest positions of our Schools, all moderate wise men will think that this is much from them, and much for our purpose.

But all that I can say of their concurrence with us, seems to be dasht by the complaint of our Divines, who in their late exile beyond the seas found the French Protestants full of prejudices against the just cause of the King and the Church of England. Wherefore I must desire the equitable Readers to distin­guish the times, and to make use of the Act of Oblivion towards them, as they are commanded to do with their Country-men. For which they have given us more reason then our Parliamenteers, having professed such a free self-condem­nation of their former misapprehensions about the right or wrong of that great quarrel, as would have become those that were so high offenders against their King and their Church, and which hath been hitherto vainly expected from most of them.

It is no wonder that they that owed nothing to us but Christian love, and whom we took no pains at all to satisfie or to inform of the wrong done to us, were won by our Adversaries, who made it their great business to court them, and to make of the concurrence of the Forraign Churches one of their chief pretences to make the insurrection at home general, and make of their quarrel a war of Religion. And it was not hard for them to prepossess the outlandish Churches with foul charges against us, they being but ill satisfied of us before, as having found of late years some abatement of that regard from England which they had in former times. It had been a wonder if the continual and earnest ap­plications of our busie enemies backed with success, the most perswasive Rheto­rick to common-spirited men, had not gotten some wel-willers in that Prote­stant party.

What disadvantage that was to our cause, it was acknowledged, but not soon enough; by our late gracious King and glorious Martyr, who made a Declaration to satisfie them, and invited all that could write to justifie his cause to the world abroad, to the Protestants especially. And this, as a Summon from God, was the reason that made me write once in French, and twice in Latin for the defence of the King and the Church.

Let us remember also, that our party did contribute to set them further from us, by forbearing to communicate with them, and to be present in their holy meetings; and by disgracing their Churches as no Churches, and their Mini­sters as no Ministers; not considering how unseasonable (that I say no worse) that contempt of their Brethren was, and how hurtfull to the Kings interest.

Well, notwithstanding all these endeavours of Satan to break the bond of love, and of faith too, between them and us; yet the palpable injustice of our enemies did so work upon their judgements and consciences, that even when the Kings businesses were at the lowest ebb, they did openly detest the long Parlia­ments Cause in their Sermons, and Books, and ordinary Discourses; and that with so much vigour and godly vehemency that more could not have come from the greatest Royalists of England. Salmatius and Bochartus the greatest Scho­lars of France, and of Vincent Herault, Pettiville, Breux, Porrey, men of note, and before them all the Epistle of the famous Diodati to the Parliament in the first year of the war, to exhort them to obey the King, and restore Episcopacy, shew sufficiently how the whole Protestant party was affected. And that their affection was not byassed by self interest, any reasonable man may answer for them; for what advantage could accrew unto them by declaring themselves for the King of England in those days?

But their affection was then chiefly seen when it pleased God by his miracu­lous mercy to make the stone which the builders had rejected, to become the head of the corner. The real joy which they manifested of his Majesties return, swelled to a height hard to be believed but by them that were eye-witnesses of their behaviour. More could not be expected from his Majesties natural and most loyal Subjects. That blessed conversion of businesses wrought so deep upon the renowned Amirault (howsoever he had been prejudiced before against us) that being sore troubled with the gout, suddenly he threw his Crutches away, and was cured meerly by his joy, that quickened his spirits, and diffused a fresh vigour into all his faculties.

At the same time a great cloud of French witnesses came over in favour of E­piscopacie. So I call many Letters from the prime Divines of France, most of them written to that Gentleman of great worth, Doctor Brevint, one of his Majesties Chaplains, who committed them unto me, and I leaving London trans­mitted them to that deserving Divine Master Durel, as one better able then I to make good use of them, among many other intelligences of the like nature. His excellent Book about this matter, the substance whereof he was pleased to impart unto me, will ease me of that labour, and shorten my task; For I must sincerely acknowledge, that all that we, or others, have written hitherto about the concurrence of other Churches with ours, comes short of the industry of [Page] this worthy Gentleman; so pregnant he is in his reasons, so diligent in his searches, and so ingenious in his Charity, that no more remains for me to attain to the end I aim at in this Discourse, but to recommend his to the carefull peru­sing of all lovers of truth and peace.

But because in point of charity, examples are more perswasive then reasons, I will back this reasoning about our condescension unto those Churches that are inferiour to us in point of Government, with the vertuous practice of that eminent Prelate in goodness and Learning, My Lord Bishop of Durham. In a Letter of his dated from Paris, April the sixth, 1658. (the place and time of his exile) he vindicates himself against Mr. Fuller, who in his Church History of Brittain referreth to his praise and commendation, that he joyned not with the French Protestants at Charenton since he got into France. But the worthy man (then stiled Dean of Peterborough) giveth him no thanks for that commenda­tion. I would (saith he) that he and all the world should know it, I never refu­sed to joyn with the Protestants either there, or any where else, in all things wherein they joyn with the Church of England. Many of them have been here at our Churches, and we have been at theirs. I have buried divers of our people at Charenton, and they permit us to make use of their peculiar and decent cemetery here in Paris for that purpose. Which if they did not, we should be forced to bury our dead in a ditch. I have baptized many of their children at the request of their own Ministers, with whom I have good acquaintance, and find them to be very deserving and learned men, great lovers and honourers of our Church, notwith­standing the loss which she hath lately received in external matters, wherein we are agreed that the essence of Religion doth not consist. Many of their people (and of the best sort and quality among them) have frequented our Common Prayers with great reverence, and I have delivered the Holy Communion to them according to our own Order, which they observed religiously. I have married divers persons of good condition among them: And I have presented some of their Scholars to be ordained Deacons and Priests here by our own Bishops (whereof Monsieur de Tu­renne's Chaplain is one, and the Duke de la Force's Chaplain another) and the Church of Charenton approved of it. And I preacht here publickly at their Or­dination. Besides I have been (as often as I had spare time, from attending our own Congregation) to pray and sing Psalms with them, and to hear both the weekly and the Sunday Sermons at Charenton; whither two of my children also (pensioned here in a Protestant family at Paris) have daily repaired for that purpose with the Gentlewoman that Governed them.

After all this, if any be curious to pick out of their Authors all that is not consonant to the constitution of our Church and State, and register all the pre­judicate opinions of particular men of those Churches, instilled into them by our Adversaries at home; I will spend no more labour to make evident unto them that their late and best Divines have amended what may be found amiss in the old, and that the late demonstrations of their concurrence with us have made amends, for their former misapprehensions. I will but ask those curious searchers of matters of discontent, and occasions of falling out with them, Cui bono? What benefit ariseth to this Church or State by searching out ini­quities among our neighbours, and accomplishing a diligent search of that which were far better buried in oblivion, or smoothed over with Charity, helped with a little winking at that which we cannot mend? Since they make a considerable part of Christendom, and are not subject unto, or to be disposed by our Civil or Ecclesiastical Government; is it not better for us to have them friends then ene­mies? Is it not a wiser course to confound our dissentors at home with the testi­monies of Calvin and Beza, as most averse from their principles and practice, th en to make weapons ready to their hand out of those Authors, and give it to them for granted, that they have the famousest men abroad for Patrons of Facti­on, disobedience, and unconformity? For these diligent searchers know how to pick out of the same Authors passages enough to make them unsay what they have said against us.

It could never yet enter into my apprehension what advantage it is to us to cast contempt upon all the Protestants of the world but our selves, and despise all the respects that we may have from them. They will all vail to us, and defer unto us (as they ought) the Primacy, if we will but open them the arms of our charity and brotherly communion. And it is not our insulting over their weak­ness and wants, or requiring of them impossibilities, that will win them.

Truly, because our disturbers at home lean much upon the authority of a few Outlandish Writers, it is wisely done to invalid their authority. But that work is ready done, and I shall think it overdone if it end in uncharitableness, and if the generality of the party be made guilty of the fault of some few men to whom they never swore obedience. Whereas the ready way to invalid the autho­rity of those Authors, is to shew that they are contradicted by their own party, and even by themselves.

Certainly when we have made them no Churches, our Church shall be never the more a Church for that. Rather by unchurching so many Churches, and despising Communion with them, we shall confine our Communion within a very narrow scantling. With the Roman Church we dare not joyn till the Court of Rome forsake and renounce her usurped right over our Church and State, and other errors of greater importance. With the Separatists of England we will not joyn till they yield to a holy Conformity with us. And if with so many Pro­testant Churches abroad we refuse to joyn till they do what they are not able to do, truly we scant our selves to a very slender communion in this West of the world. Whereas the holy Catholick Church, which with good reason we call our Mother, embraceth multitudes of dissenting children in her compassionate armes: And the Communion of Saints allyeth us with God and his Christ, and all his members in heaven and earth by charity,Eph. 6.24. which is the bond of perfect­ness. Grace be with all that love the Lord Jesus Christ with sincerity.

We that are strong (saith St. Paul) ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, Rom. 15.1. and not to please our selves. We ought not to please and exalt our selves with comparing our strength with the infirmities of our brethren. When we have made the worst of the defects of those poor Churches, they are infirmities, which should make us compassionate, not overweening. And we shall make ill use of our strength, if we imploy it to triumph over the weak, instead of re­membring them that suffer adversity as being our selves also in the hody. Heb. 13.3. Let us not turn our fellow members out of the body because they suffer adversity; for when all is said, the things that we finde amiss among them, are the sad effects of their adversity. The Anglican Church had Kings for her nursing Fathers, and Queens for her nursing mothers: Whereas the French Churches were crusht from the Cradle with all the strength and indignation of their Kings and Queens: And the Dutch Clergy are kept low by their Superiours who have converted the whole Patrimony of the Church to the defence of their State. The same hand that hath exalted us above them may bring us as low as them: And we have learned of late how soon God can pull down that which he hath built up, Let us not be high-minded, but fear.

Could it once sink into our minds what hand the Papists have in this distaste of ours against our Brethren: what advantage they get by the dis-union of the Reformed Churches: and what stain and hinderance, both before God and men, we bring upon us by giving the least suspition that we have got some fermentation of their leaven, we would be as carefull to avoid offence with the Protestant Churches abroad, as wary and stout against the opposers of our Disci­pline at home.

For it is an evident truth, and not to be winked at, that the great Agent here in the confusion of Religions, in the ruine of the Church, in the insurrection of the people, and in the murther of our King, was the Court of Rome. That is in­deed fundi nostri calamitas, that spring of all mischief and misery among us, that powerfull and working enemy, against whom all that have shaken off the yoke [Page] of Rome, ought to joyn unanimously, opening no gap of division for that Beast to creep in, and work our destruction by our separation. God forbid that any of us joyn with that grand enemy of our Church and State to unchurch so many Churches that are inrolled with us in the same good warfare against his tyrannie, and to deny them that communinn with us which they have with Christ, and which they crave at our hands, and have had a long time with the Anglican Church.

But if notwithstanding all the considerations here represented, some will be­lieve that it is Christianly and Charitably done to un-Church all the Protestant Churches that have no Bishops, let them enjoy their fancy. But I will main­tain to them (and so will all wise men with me) that it is most unpolitickly done. Let them consult the Politick heads, that understand the composure of the States of Christendom, and the posture of ours; and are acquainted with our Gracious Soveraings high concernments, and Royal inclinations. And they will confirm this; wherewith I confidently shut up this discourse, not fearing to be called in question for it; It is neither his Majesties Pleasure nor Inte­rest that the Protestant Churches abroad be disgraced among us as no Churches.

THE AUTHORS LIFE.

THere is no great need to register those mens lives who have made them memorable by their works; for they bear up their fame with their own strength;Prov. 31.31. Let their own works praise them in the gates. And yet no men deserve more to have their actions recorded then they that need it less. Very few persons deserve it more and need it less then this Author so known to the world by his great services to the Church of God. And truly he hath shewed sufficiently by the memoires of his life which he left to his family, how little ambitious he was that the History of his life should be set forth: For he passeth by those actions and passages which have got him most credit, recording only the great mercies of God to him, and the signal experiences of his assistance and providence; as also all his conversation hath manifested unto the world that he sought Gods glory, not his own. Never did I see a man more impatient of praise; none that sought more to glorifie God, less to magnifie himself. Then for Gods glory, not his, I intend in this plain relation to make his light to shine before men, and together to pay a filial duty to the precious memory of my dear and reverend Father.

The rumour which the Papists have confidently spread, both in Books and Pulpits, that he was an Apostat Fryers Son, obligeth me to say something of his Parents and descent. His Grandfather Joakim Du Moulin dying at Orleans in the Roman Profession about the year 1540. left two children Infants, a Son of his name, and a Daughter, and made his wife executrix of a plentiful estate. She took an especial care of the education of her Son, and sent him to Paris to a famous Schoolmaster of singular piety and learning: Who having a secret affection to the Reformed Religion, of which there was no free Profession in Paris, bred his Scholars in it; and so well grounded my Grandfather in Ortho­dox Principles, that when he returned home, neither the proffer of worldly ad­vancement, nor his Mothers severity threatning to forsake and disinherit him, could turn him from his holy purpose, in which he persevered all his dayes. His mother kept her word with him; for she used him most hardly all her life­time, and disinherited him at her death, leaving the whole estate to his sister; [Page] from whom he never attempted to recover it by Law; and it had been a vain attempt, the times being so contrary to persons of his Religion and Calling, for he was honoured with the Ministry of the Gospel. Yet did he by the gracious assistance of God lead an honourable life, bearing in his presence and conver­sation the character of a man well born and of gentile breeding. Besides his sin­gular ability in his holy calling, he had the vertues of conversation in an eminent degree. Sir Henry Wotton gave him this commendation, that he had not met with a wiser and better-spoken man in his Travels. Had my Grandfather been a Monk, and then converted and married, I should think it no stain to our blood. But it is known at Orleans (the place of his Origine) that he never led a monastical life.Book 7. Con­tro. 8. ch. 10. And to speak in my Fathers words in the seventh Book of this work, where he answereth that objection. His honourable conversation, his brave mind in his continual afflictions for the Gospel which he bore cheerfully, his fervent zeal, his vigilance in his calling, his pleasing and affable behaviour which he seasoned with a meek gravity; These, I say, were as far from the air of the Cloyster as the Heaven is from the Earth, and the Mass from the Gospel.

In the year 1564. he married Frances the Daughter of an eminent Gentle­man both in place and vertue, Innocent Gabet Royal Judge at Vienna in Daulfine, who dyed a Martyr for the Profession of the Gospel in the year 1572. (the fa­mous Massacre of St. Bartholomew having spread from Paris over all France) leaving to his Posterity the honour to be the seed of a Martyr, which is no small nobility. By her he had four children; 1. Esther married to a Noble and Re­ligious Gentleman Rene Bochart Minister of the Gospel at Roven, by whom she was Mother of the famous Samuel Bochart, now Minister at Caen, a miracle for learning, and a great Ornament of our age. 2. Joakim who dyed young. 3. Peter the Author of this Book. 4. Eleazar who inherited his Grandfa­thers Martyrdome; for being taken prisoner of war by the Leaguers, after a long and valorous resistance in a Fort which he commanded for his King, he was known to be a Ministers Son, whereupon the barbarous enemy cut off his fingers and toes and buried him alive.

By a second Wife a Gentlewoman of the house of Anserville, my Grandfather among other children had Mary the Wife of that great Champion of the truth, Doctor Andrew Rivet.

Our Author was born in the year 1568. the eighteenth day of October at Buhi in the Country of Vexin in Normandy, where his Father and Mother flying from a sharp persecution, were received by Monsieur de Buhi Mornay, elder Brother to the renowned Monsieur du Plessis Mornay. The said M. du Plessis and our Author were born in the same room.

At Buhi he was left at nurse till the peace of the year 1570. when his Father being called to be Minister at Coenures near Soissons gathered there his Family. The Protectour of that Church was Monsieur d' Estree, called since Marques de Coenures, who then profest the Protestant Religion. But when he heard of the great Massacre of Paris, August. 24 1572. and that the like was to be speedily executed over all France, he forsook presently the Protestant Profession, and to approve himself a true convert, expelled my Grandfather out of Coenures.

Then was the good man in great extremity. In all the Towns about there was a general slaughter of Protestants, and the Murtherers were seeking for him; and how to dispose of his Wife and his four little children he knew not. To take them along with him, or to leave them behinde, was alike dangerous. This he did; he left his children with a woman of contrary Religion halfe a mile from Coenures; himself with his Wife fled to Muret a Town belonging to the Prince of Conde, then a Protestant, and so to Sedan with the Duke of Bovillon of the house de la March, who past that way flying from the Court. The Mur­therers that were sent to kill my Grandfather and his Family (for they spared neitheir age nor sex) found the womans house where the children were left. Ruffina (it is the womans name worthy to be thankfully recorded) hid the chil­dren in the straw of a bed, the ordinary bottom of beds of the lower sort in [Page] France, and laid a featherbed and a blanket over them; scarce had she laid the blanket when the murtherers came into the room and searcht it, but lookt not in the bed; Peter the Author of this Book, then under four years of age, not liking to be thus laid up would cry; but his Sister Esther then seven years old who had been made apprehensive of their danger, stopt his mouth with her hand, whereby she made him struggle and make some noise: which to drown with another, Ruffina pretending to reach something upon a shelfe made the Pewter fall, and then took it up again with much rustling till the Murtherers were gone: as soon as they were out o [...] doors she ran to help the child, whom she found well nigh smothered with the stopping of his wind: but he soon recovered, and the children were kept safe in her house till their Parents sent for them. The gentle Reader will bear with this familiar relation, and adore in these small par­ticulars the great and never sufficiently admired care of the Almighty to pre­serve the infancy of his servants from the rage of Satan and the world.

Peter Du Moulin had his first rudiments of learning in the Colledge and Aca­demy of Sedan, founded in the year 1577. where he had for his Schoolfellow that great Scholar Jacobus Capellus. Both made in that Colledge a great Pro­ficiency, and came out together from the first Classis; Du Moulin being publickly honoured with the first prize (after the custom of the French Schools) and Ca­pellus with the second.

In the year 1588. Du Moulin being twenty years old was sent by his Father to the Universities of England. After some stay at London he went to Cam­bridge, and was received in Bennet Colledge, being a diligent hearer of the Lectures of Doctor Whitaker; but passing the long vacation at London, where he made his first tryals of Preaching before the Consistory of the French Church, A French Gentleman Monsieur de la Faye after he had heard him, being much tak [...]n with the excellency of his parts, (for his gifts and learning were beyond his years) asked him whether he would serve the Church of Paris; Du Moulin answered that he could not think of serving a Church that was not. The Gentleman told him, that there was hope of a speedy reestablishment of that Church, and that he was charged to look out a fit person to serve it, and there­fore according to his best judgement made choice of him as the fittest person he knew. Du Moulin thanked him, and the Gentleman made his word good; for the Church of Paris demanded him since, and had him; but it was many years after.

I will relate here a passage which shews the integrity and generosity of his soul, his contempt of the world, and his trust in Gods assistance. Being once at the end of his money in London, as he was pensively looking up to the feeling of his Chamber, he perceived in a dark corner between two rafters a little white rag: he made means to get up and reach to it, and found that it was the end of an handkerchief, which having pulled out of a hole, he found in it a considera­ble quantity of gold: he presently enquired in the house whether any would claim the handkerchief: and when the people of this house disowned it, he en­quired who lived in his Chamber before; they told him, that an Italian dyed in it a little before he came: he asked again whether he had any of his blood in London, and being told that he had a kinsman whom he had made his heir, he never left till he had found him and given him all that gold; though he was not sure that the money belonged to the deceased. But God in whom he trusted, did not forsake him. Soon after this, relief came to him out of his Country, and ever since he had money constantly sent to him, both to England and to Holland, till he writ that he would have no more.

Having lived four years in England, hearing that Franciscus Junius was new­ly come to Leyden to be Professor in Divinity, he would go thither; and im­barked himself with the Duke of Wittenberg to go to Zeland in September 1592. being recommended to that Duke by Monsieur de Beaunais la Nocle Embassa­dour of France in England. They were tossed with a most furious tempest which constrained the Seamen to throw the Canon and the burden of the Ship [Page] into the Sea, among other things Du Moulins books and cloaths. They were wracked by Ramekin in Zealand.

Being come to Leyden, he set forth a Latine Poeme, intituled Votiva Tabella, where he described the storm and the shipwrack, and offered his thanksgiving to God. A piece of Poetry of the highest strain, which got him great esteem, and many friends. It is certain, that for Latine Elegancy, height of conceit, and neatness of expression, whether in prose or in verse, few in his age went be­yond him.

At his first coming into Holland, he got the acquaintance of the French Em­bassadour Monsieur de Buzanual; for King Henry the Fourth in those dayes sent Protestant Embassadours to the Protestant Princes and States. That Em­bassadour was ever since his most real and intimate friend. By him he was pre­sented to the Princess of Orange, a Frenchwoman, daughter to the Admiral Gaspar de Coligny, and mother to Henry Prince of Orange, then seven years old. That Princess was since very favourable to him.

Two moneths after his coming to Leyden, he was desired to accept the place of Corrector of the Colledge of the States, where he taught Logick, and Greek, and Horace. These things he performed with so much Learning, and such a pleasing facility, that he got the special love of the Students, but together the bitter hatred of the Principal, who envied his praise, and never left vexing him as long as he was in the place. But his Ingenuity and Uprightness so pleaded for him, that alwayes the Moderators and Magistrates maintained him against the the injustice of the Principal, till once being brought to a Tertian Ague through vexation, he asked some dayes of respite from his ordinary exercise, to look to his health, and went to the Embassadors House at the Hague, where he was so well used, that in a seveninght he was well again. In his absence the Princi­pal went to the Magistrates and Moderators, and with many tears besought [...]em to remove from the Colledge that new Frenchman, who made his life bitter. They hearkened to him, and sending for Du Moulin, told him, that not for any misdemeanour of his, but for the peace of the Colledge they discharged him: And to shew that they were well pleased with him, they gave him the double of that was due to him for his Salary. He continued eight moneths in that place.

This cross fell to his greater advantage; for two moneths after the place of Professor of Philosophy being vacant, Du Moulin was admitted to be tryed among others that offered themselves for the place. In the Trial he was prefer­red before his Competitors, and established Professor of Philosophy. A young Doctor of the Chair, of four and twenty years of age. At the newes of his reception, the Principal of the Colledge, who had so persecuted him, was seized with such a deep grief, that he died immediately by a sudden suffo­cation.

Du Moulin read in publick the Organ of Aristotle in Greek, Libros Physico­rum, De Coelo, De generatione & corruptione, De Anima, De Meteoris; kept frequent disputations, and had alwayes a very full Auditory. Most of those that have been since Professors at Leyden, or famous men in the Low Countries, were his Scholars. Hugo Grotius was one of them. This exercise for five or six years was his Fencing-School, whereby he was enabled for the many Encoun­ters and Conferences which he had afterwards upon the greatest Stage of Eu­rope. As indeed of all his intellectual abilities, the most eminent was his skill in Dispute, having, besides the art of disputing, confirmed by long use, a rare vi­gour and readiness of wit, matched with a stayed, cool, and judicious temper, ne­ver confounded with passion, the ordinary dissolver of Conferences.

At Leyden he dieted at Scaligers table, who had him in great esteem, and being pleasant with him, called him often Domine Professor. When he saw his Logick which he publisht at Leyden in the year 1596. he commended especially the Preface Ad studiosam juventutem, and said of it, Haec Epistola non est hujus aevi. That Logick was printed thirteen times in few years in several Countries, [Page] and had the credit to be read in many Universities and Colledges, as one that en­richeth the stock of Philosophy, especially in the Topicks.

At Scaligers table many persons of quality, both Papists and Protestants, were boarded, whereby Du Moulin had occasion to get many acquaintances of the best rank; among others these French Noblemen, The one Monsieur de la Rochepose or Rupipozaeus, afterwards Bishop of Poitiers, a man known by his Writings; Monsieur de Gourges, since President at Bourdeaux, and another whose name I have forgot, who since became a great Abbot. These renewed their acquaintaince with him in France, and were instruments of the Court of Rome and the Popish Clergy, to tempt him from time to time with great prefer­ments to forsake the Protestant cause.

Besides his Philosophical Profession, he read Greek Lectures in the Divinity-Colledge, a Tongue in which he was extraordinarily learned. I have seen ele­gant Orations of his in Greek, made since he was fifty years old, and Greek Let­ters. This work against Du Perron, where he discovereth in so many pla­ces the Cardinals small skill in Greek, sheweth sufficiently his great skill in that Language.

That skill, and his facility in speaking Italian, made him to be invited to the Journey of Constantinople, with an Embassadour whom King Henry the Fourth prepared to send to the Grand Signiors Porta, as one fit to commune with the Grecians, and to be imployed in the businesses of the Levant. A condition which Mr. de Buzanual his great friend exhorted him by all means to embrace rather then the Ministry, representing to him the poverty annexed to that Profession, the continual toyl, the dangers, the hatred of the Roman Clergy, in Paris es­pecially, where he should have a sore labour and great oppositions. The truth is, that the comeliness of his Person, the dexterity of his Wit, and his pleasant and charming Conversation, seemed to invite him rather to the businesses of the world, then to those of the Church. But the King having altered his mind, and chosen another Embassadour, Du Moulin took it as a Divine declaration that God would not have him to think of another employment then that holy Office to which he had invited him before.

Every year in the long vacation Mr. de Buzanual, who loved him most dear­ly, would have him near him, and sometimes would bring him to the Army, where he beheld the conduct of a Siege, and learned to sleep without a bed. In his Diary he describeth the delight he took in the taking of Groninghen, where he saw the Fryars packing up their trinkets, and a bonfire made of wooden Ima­ges in the Market-place.

He lived with great credit and comfort in Holland, which he used to call his second Countrey: Yet being continually sollicited by the Church of Paris, and more by an especial invitation of God to take upon him the holy Calling of the Ministry, he took his leave of the Curators of the University, who put the Learn­ed Everardus Vorstius in his place. For a Farewel to the University he dedi­cated to the Curators a Poeme called Batavia, an Elegant piece, printed among his Philosophical works.

He left Leyden in August 1598. and went to the Hague to his great Friend the Embassador Monsieur de Buzanual, to whom he declared his desire to go in­to France through the Arch-Dukes Countrey, to see Antwerp and Bruxels: But a great obstacle to that desire, was, the sharp war between Holland and the Archduke, and the great cost, and the long time required to get a pass from him. The Embassador told him he could help him to go to Antwerp without a Pass, and innocently gave him a most pernicious counsel, though in this re­spect most useful, that it made him feel one of the rarest experiences of Gods Fatherly Love and watchful Providence that ever befell to any of Gods children.

The Counsel was this. The Embassador knew a Merchant of Rotterdam na­med Vanderweck, an intimate friend of the Governour of Antwerp, Alfonso Mexia: For that Governours Brother being taken prisoner in a Combat by [Page] Prince Maurice, this Vanderweck paid his Ransom, and sent him to his Brother, who ever since that great kindness admitted Vanderwecks Letters to him as a Pass for any that carried them, and his Letters the Embassadour undertook to pro­cure for Du Moulin. This being confirmed by many others that Vanderwecks Letters were a sure Pass, Du Moulin went to him with the Embassadours Let­ters, and got other Letters from him to recommend him to the Governour of Antwerp. Trusting on that pass, he imbarqued himself at Rotterdam in a Barque bound for Antwerp. The Barque cast Anchor before Ordham, a place garrison'd by the Spaniard, not daring to go further, because there the Passes of the pas­sengers were to be examined. They of the garrison seeing the Barque anchored, sent another Barque with souldiers to examine the Passes; and the Master of the Holland Barque called upon all the passengers to have their passes ready. Du Moulin answered that he had none but Vanderwecks Letters to the Governour Alphonso Mexia. You are undone (said the Master) for a little before we cast anchor, a ship coming from Antwerp passd by us, and the Sailers told us that the souldiers of the Cittadel of Antwerp had mutined against the Governour, and made him prisoner; and now these Spaniards that are coming to us will carry you prisoner to Ordham, and miserably torment you, especially when they know who you are. In the mean while the Spanish Barque drew nigh, when by the admirable providence of God, another ship coming from Zealand came near, in which Du Moulin knew a friend of his, brother to Mr. Aureli­us, Minister of the French Church of London, and told him his distress. He ha­ving related this to his fellow-passengers, called to Du Moulin, and told him, Sir, pass to our ship in all haste, for here we have a German Gentleman that hath a Pass for himself and his servant, who being fallen sick, his Master hath left him in Zealand: If you come to us, you may pass for his man. So then Du Moulin did, and put on that servants Livery-coat, which the Gentleman had with him in the ship, and thus scaped that horrible imminent danger, for which he praised God all the days of his life.

Being come safe into France, and to Paris, the place where he was expected, he would not make himself known unto the Church there, till he had made him­self fit for their service, but went to his Father at Jargean, near Orleans, and there stayed three moneths, disposing himself with prayers and study for that great work. Neither would he then go to Paris, saying that he would begin his Prenticeship somewhere else then in the Church of Paris. The Church of Blois happening at the same time to be without a Pastour, desired his help till they were otherwise provided, which he accepted, and preached there two moneths. In the mean while the Church of Paris was sending him many summons, which finally he obeyed, and came to Paris the last day of February, 1599.

A few dayes before, Henry the Fourths Sister, Katharine de Bourbon, who after her Brothers revolt, presevered in the Protestant Religion until death, was married to the Duke of Bar, Son to the Duke of Lorraine. She used to be at­tended in her house by the Ministers of Paris, who served her by turns every one a quarter of a year. Being then to go into Lorraine with her Husband, the Church appointed Monsieur de Montigni, an ancient Minister, to attend her in that Journey: But Du Moulin then coming to Paris, the old Gentleman de­sired to be excused, and that the new Minister, as fitter to travel by reason of his age, might be chosen for that service. To which motion the Princess pre­sently inclined, having an especial liking to Du Moulin. He took then thar jour­ney; and because the Princess was entertained in Bishops Palaces and Abbeys, he did officiate in the Palace of the Bishop of Meaux, in that of the Bishop of Challons, and in the Abbey of Joverre.

The Harbingers of the Princess being come to Vitris le Francois, a Town of Champagne, addressed themselves to the chief Magistrate of the Town to pre­pare quarters for the Princess and her Court. A fair Cousin of the Magistrates, a young Widow, hearing of the coming of that Court, and fearing lest some disorderly person should be quarered in her house, came to desire him that she [Page] might have the Minister for her guest; for she had heard from Paris that an old Minister was chosen to attend the Princess.Her name was Marie de Colignon, one of the two coheirs of the House of Chalette. Since then she would have the Mini­ster, she had him, and was won to be his wife. She brought to him a fair Estate, and the best portion of all, a rare piety and exemplary vertue; God having appoint­ed it so by a sweet providence, that the consort that was to make him happy, should demand him.

Since his establishment at Paris, till the death of the Kings Sister, which was five years after, he made a journey into Lorraine every Spring, either with her or to her, and having served his quarter at her Court, returned to Paris. There the Princess was most part of the year, and would have Du Moulin daily with her, though out of his quarter, and sent often for his son, a little child, to play with him. Du Moulin made use of that favour to confirm her Highness in the true Religion, of which there was great need: For the Pope prest the King to make his Sister turn Catholick; and the King to please the Pope, did what he could for it, employing the most learned and subtil of his Clergy to seduce her, es­pecially Du Perron, then Bishop of Eureux, and Father Cotton. These two had several bickerings with him, but yet had soon done; for being worsted, and not used to deal with such an Adversary, they did avoid to meet with him, leaving others of the Court-Clergy to try their fortune with him. By them he was baited and provoked continually, but alwayes with such ill success for them, that he became generally feared and esteemed together, and none but bold new comers, and such as knew him not, durst grapple with him. The Author in the 7th. Book of this work, in the 3d. Controversie, 2 Ch. giveth account of an occasi­onal encounter of his with M. Du Perron. But they had another which was a pitched field. It was at the Court before a few, but grave and select Assistants. After some Dispute, when Du Perron gave back to the force of an argument; and was at a loss, some body hid behind the hanging cryed up One. And when the like happened to him the second time, the same voice cryed up two, and so till five. Upon which Du Perron complaining of interruption, broke the Con­ference. But before they parted, the company obliged the two Disputants never to publish any thing about that meeting, which Du Moulin promis'd and kept; but I never promis'd it, and am not bound to keep all my Fathers promises. Since that meeting these two Adversaries bore a mutual respect the one to the other. The Baron of Mountataire told me, that being at Cardinal Du Perrons table, and some discourse of Religion and Ministers being moved, one President Che­valier said that Du Moulin was an Ass; Upon which the Cardinal answered the President, You do him wrong Sir; He is such an Ass, that no man ever rubbed against him, but returned with a kick. And I have often heard my Father com­mending Du Perron as the nimblest adversary that ever he met with. In his Pre­face to this work, he giveth him his due commendation.

One Beaulieu Bouju, a young Clergyman, having got some Manuscripts of Du Perron about the Eucharist, made use of them to write against Du Moulin, who thereby was provoked to answer him, and confute him. There are letters extant and printed among Du Perron's works, wherein he chides that Beaulieu Bouju, both for stealing, and more for ill using his Meditations, and tells him in substance, that though he could get his weapon, yet he could not wield it. But when Du Perron would wield his own weapon, he had no better success, as it is ju­stified by this work.

King Henry the 4th. to satisfie the Court of Rome and the French Clergy of the care he took of his Sisters Conversion, would often desire her to hear the Sermons of his Chaplains, which she would not yield unto, till once being made sensible how the Kings credit was interessed that she should once at the least hear one Court Sermon, she condiscended so far to the request of a King and a Brother, as to promise to hear Father Cotton; Who therefore was appointed to preach before the King and her, immediately after Du Moulins Sermon, and in the same room: For those two contrary services were performed in that room every Lords day morning, as long as the Princess lived, and was at the Court.

The Princess, to strengthen her self against that assault, gave notire of it to Du Moulin, and after his Sermon brought him into a private room, whence he might hear the Jesuites Oratory. It will not be unpleasant to the Reader to have a taste of it. His subject was of the dwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, and he made his entry into that matter after this manner. I went once to visit the Hospital of fools, where a grave old man received me kindly at the door, and went about with me to shew me the distracted persons, and inform me about their several kinds of folly. Here is one (said he) that thinks himself made of snow, and will not come neer the fire for fear of melting. This thinks himself me­tamorphosed into an earthen pitcher, and will not come neer a wall, nor suffer any to come neer him, for fear of being broken with a knock. These four have a more re­fined kind of folly; for they think themselves top-full with the spirit of Prophecie. One will be Elias, another Jeremiah, another Daniel, another S. Paul. But I that am the Holy Ghost, can assure you Sir, that they are all either fools or impostors, for I never sent them. Thus the reverend Senior, after he had given me the character of other fools, gave me his own; and I could not find any grain of folly in him, so wisely and rationally he spoke, till he took upon him to be the Holy Ghost. The like folly is to be seen among those of the pretended Reformed Religion: There you shall find wise and Religious Princesses [intimating the Kings Sister] wise and faithful Treasurers [intimating the Duke of Sully] wise and valiant Generals of Ar­mies [intimating the Duke of Bovillon] wise and learned Councellours of State [intimating Mr. du Plessis Mornay] all wise in all things, but that they think they have the Holy Ghost, and have it not. The Sermon was suitable to the Pre­face, and wrought a suitable effect in the hearers, making them all merry, but no Converts.

In the end of the year 1601. time and place being appointed for a Confe­rence between Du Moulin and Cayer, sometimes a Minister, and then a Doctor of Serbon, Cayer put off the meeting several times, till the Kings Sister going to Lorrain, took Du Moulin along with her. In his absenc Cayer put forth a Book with this Inscription, A Conference by Ministers granted, and by them­selves refused. In which Book he accused Du Moulin of deserting his cause, and running away. But Du Moulin being returned in May to Paris, the challenge was renewed on both sides: So they met May 28. 1602. in a house next to the Kings Sisters house. The Conference held a fortnight. They had Scribes on both sides; a world of hearers, and good order kept. The questions agitated, propounded by Cayer himself, were, Of the Sacrifice of the Mass; Of the Ado­ration of the Pope; and of the veneration of holy Images. Cayer was assisted with two Doctors, Carmelites. Du Moulin had no Assistant. Towards the midst of the Conference the Faculty of Sorbon grievously censured Cayer for ill defend­ing the Catholick Cause, and suffering the Adversary to wade too deep into questions: And the Bishop of Paris forbad him to sign that which he had indi­cted to the Scribes. Since that time the Popish party sought occasions to break. The Carmelites feigned to be afraid, because there were so many swords in the company. Gentlemen of their own party bade them to fear nothing, represent­ing to them that Gentlemen will seldom appear abroad without their swords: That they were more in number then the Protestants, and that Paris wanted neither Lawes nor Justices. The Protestants said for their part, that they were of old in possession of suffering, and that violence was as remote from their thoughts, as it would be disadvantagious for them, considering their small num­ber, and the place and condition they lived in. So the Conference continued; but Cayer remembring that he had been chid, would make frequent protesta­tions that he was not authorized to confer, and that he did it meerly out of his own zeal. But the Doctors of Sorbon perceiving that the more the Conference continued, the more their cause was discredited, came in a body to the Kings Advocate in the Court of Parliament, to complain of that Conference, saying, that it was a pernicious thing, tending to sedition; that they had contrived how to break it, and that the effects of it would shortly appear. This hindred [Page] not Du Moulin from coming to the ordinary place where he was befor Cayer. He found the door shut and a great croud of people at the door. The Master of the house came to him, and shewed him Letters without subscription from a person of quality, who advised him to lend his house no more for that Con­ference, shewing him the inconvenience that might follow, and threatning him of imprisonment: Wherefore the Gentleman desired Du Moulin to seek ano­ther house for the Conference. Du Moulin answered, that it was a trick to break off, which he had been warned of before, and desired him not to be moved with groundless fears, and that he would but let him come into his yard. This was denied. But Cayer coming soon after, the door was opened to him, and the people pressing in after him, Du Moulin got in with the croud. There they considered how to get another place for their meeting. But the Conference being, though not forbidden, yet discountenanced by authority, no body durst offer his house for it. So the parties agreed to continue the Conference in writing, and to publish nothing but by mutual consent. But Du Moulin asked two conditions, upon which Cayer brake. The one that the Conference should be limited, and that it should not be permitted to make replies in infinitum, but Cayer would have no limitation. The other, that Cayer should sign the Acts of that Conference till that day, which Cayer utterly refused, saying, It was enough that it was subscribed by the Scribes. When Du Moulin represented to him what disgrace he put upon himself and his cause, and challenged and dared him, saying, That he durst not stand to that he had spoken, and indited himself: Cayer answered, that he cared neither for the talk of people, nor for darings and challenges. And to get out of that mire he moved a question to Du Mou­lin, Whether he could tell after what manner of Creation the Angels were Created: Du Moulin, knowing that this was their last meeting, answered, that the question in hand was only of subscribing the Acts. But Cayer refused it again, turned his back, and said, You shall hear of me: And so went away to the great scandal of the Romanists there present, who could not conceal their indignation. A Protestant made the company laugh, saying, That Cayer was not yet of age to sign.

Cayer being gone forth, and Du Moulin yet in the Hall of the house, Cayers friends flockt about him in the street, and represented to him the great wrong he did to himself, and the cause, by denying to sign; not knowing that he had done more harm to himself and the Roman Church if he had signed. They prest him then to return, and to sign. But not being able to perswade him to it, they returned to Du Moulin, and desired him not to press Cayer to sign presently, and to limit only the time of every reply, not the number of the replies. Du Moulin answered, that he persevered in that he had said pub­lickly, That it was too late to contend after that Cayer was fled. And that he had to do with Cayer, not with them.

Thus was the Conference broken to the great satisfaction of many faithfull souls, and the instruction of many ignorant Papists, who since gave glory to God by an open profession of the Truth.

This was a famous Conference, done with great order and fair dealing, in a very full audience, and in the greatest light of France. The Acts of the Con­ference are extant published by Archibald Adaire a Reverend Bishop of Scot­land, What was the end of that Doctor Cayer, I choose rather to let the Reader know it by others then by me.

The Doctors of the faculty of Sorbon, stung with the ill success of this Con­ference, provoked him to another, in which the body of the University took interest. They were to oppose three days upon what points they thought best: And Du Moulin was to oppose three days also, and choose what points he pleased. He was then Respondent for three days, and found in the Dispute that blessing of God which never was wanting to him in the defense of his Truth. After the dispute of the third day, he being returned home, and retired to his Study, a man in a Priests habit came in the dark evening up the stairs, and [Page] knockt at his study door: when Du Moulin had half opened it, the man thrust the door with all his strength to have rusht in; and Du Moulin with all his strength, in which he was inferiour to few men of his size, kept him out, and called for help. They were a while thrusting one against the other, till the man hearing some stirring below at Du Moulins call, ran down the stairs in great haste, and so into the street. We suppose, upon probable ground, that the man was come to kill him before he presented himself to be Opponent, accord­ing to the Covenants of the Conferenre; which the Adversaries would by no means suffer him to be, as it appeared the next morrow; for when he went to the appointed place, he met with a prohibition from the King to continue that Conference any longer.

These passages raised his reputation very high, whereby God was glorified, his Truth confirmed, and his Church edified, and increased with many Con­verts.

About that time a passage of another nature contributed to advance his esteem in the world. His wife being grievously sick, he desired the Kings Physiti­ons, with whom, by reason of his ordinary waiting at the Court, he was well acquainted, to visit her, and make a consultation about her. He had then at once five or six of the most renowned Physitions of the time; among others, Duretus, Quercetanus, Laurentius, Gorrhaeus, men that have left a great fame behind them. And as the manner of Physitions is in France, in their consulta­tions, they made learned and elegant Latine discourses about the business which they were called for. Du Moulin craved leave, though no Physition, yet as husband to the patient, acquainted with the disposition of her body, to speak among them. Which he did, and with his Latine elegancy and facility, made them a deep discourse of Anatomy, and of the indications and cure of the dis­ease, which brought these Physitions to a great admiration, and they both praised, and followed his advice. Doctor James Primrose, the Learned Phy­sition of Hull, hath told me divers times, that when our two Fathers had made an exchange of their eldest Sons for a year or two, my Father made him private Lectures upon the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, with geeat judgement and learn­ing. These two passages I relate together, because of the likeness of the sub­ject, though the last was twelve years posteriour.

But to return to his proper sphere. The last sickness of the Kings sister gave a great exercise to his zeal and industry, whereby he did faithfully and constant­ly assist her in that extremity. And there was need of constancy and courage in that service; for the Court-Clergy, Du Perron especially, did their utmost to pervert her, and to fright him away. When she drew neer to her end, Du Moulin standing by her Bed-side, Du Perron came and said he was sent by the King, and would remove him by plain force. But Du Moulin held fast the Bed post; and when Du Perron told him, that he was to take place uf him in all companies, Du Moulin answered that his place was before Du Perrons at the Princesses Bed-side, and in that service. The threatnings made to him in the Kings name he valued not, and said, he believed not that the King would offer violence to his Sisters conscience, appealing to her self, and beseeching her Highness to declare her pleasure. She declared that she would die in the Reformed Religion, and that she would have Du Moulin to stay by her. Where­upon Du Perron withdrew, and the good Princess persevered in Gods holy Truth to her last breath. The King wisht she had died in the Roman profession, and did all he could, without violence, to pleasure the Court of Rome in that point. And Du Moulin had an opinion ever since that the King bore him ill will for thus crossing his intentions. The Princess left to Du Moulin a great Rose of Diamonds for a Legacy; but her Executors sent him one of false stones.

Besides verbal Conferences which he had very frequently, he had many con­ferences in writing, and answered many Books written against him, whence he had occasion to treat of all the controversies between us and the Church of Rome, and to publish divers Books, which were blessed instruments in Gods [Page] hand for the conversion of many. The pureness of his French, and the ingeni­ous simplicity of his stile generally esteemed, was a great introduction for his Books into all Companies. Many of the Romanists would read his Books and hear his Sermons, only for the Language, and many times were happily decei­ved, finding in his Language that which they sought not, and were converted by the evidence of Spirit and power that was in his words.

In one of his Books dedicated to his Father, a friend of his did write, and in­geniously apply to him these verses of Virgil.

Et nos tela, Pater, ferrumque haud debile dextra
Spargimus, & nostro sequitur de vulnere sanguis.

King James of blessed and glorious memory before his coming to the Crown of England, sent expressions of Royal favour to the Consistory of Paris, who chose Du Moulin to address their humble thanks by Letters to his Majesty. And when his Majesty publisht his Confession of Faith, against which Coeffeteau (since Bishop of Marseille) writ an eloquent Book, Du Moulin undertook the Defence of the Kings Confession, and writ a French Book with that Title, which was most welcom to the King, and to the English Clergy; and his Majesty, made Royal and bountifull expressions of his acceptance. Since that time the King honoured Du Moulin with his Letters, and required many Letters from him, having an especial liking for all that came from his Pen.

And because other Adversaries besides Coeffeteau had writ against the King, Du Moulin writ another Book in his defence in Latin, intituled, De Monarchia Pontificis Romani.

Although Henry the fourth was displeased with Du Moulin for crossing his intentions about his sister, yet he esteemed him. A little before he was stabbed in the midst of his preparations for an Expedition into Flanders, he called an old Protestant, his trusty Servant, called La Chesnaye, and spoke thus to him; La Chesnaye, I am preparing for a great journey, and have used my best care that all may be quiet in my Kingdom in my absence. Two sorts of stirring wits I consider as apt to cause disturbance, Jesuits and young Ministers. For Jesuits, I have imployed fit Agents to deal with them. For Ministers, you must be one of my Agents. When I am gone, go to Du Moulin, Tell him that I remember his good services to my sister, That I desire him to pray for the prosperity of my person and journey, and to be quiet in my absence, sending no challenges and receiving none; And give him this purse from me: After the Kings death, which was very few days after, La Chesnaye delivered the message from the King to Du Moulin, and presented him with the purse. Du Moulin never inquired what was in it, but refused it. Most men would have made no scruple to take it; and it is like that the Gentleman made no scruple to keep it for himself.

Upon the murther of that great King, Du Moulin put forth that famous Book called Anticoton, in which he proved, that the Jesuits were Authors of that horrible parricide. Though he put not his name to it, the Jesuits soon knew that it was his Work, and made an answer to it directed unto him; because there was in the Anticoton an Anagram of Father Cotton, which fathered the Kings death upon him thus,

  • PIERRE COTON
  • PERCE TON ROI

They also made this Anagram upon Du Moulins name,

  • PETRƲS DƲ MOƲLIN
  • ERIT MƲNDO LƲPƲS

With these Verses:

Petri hostis Petrus Christi insidiatur ovili,
Quo deglubere, quo dilaniare queat,
More lupi: & vere lupus est cui nomen & omen
Et mores insunt ingeniumque lupi.

Which Verses Du Moulin answered thus.

Quisquis es insulso qui fundis acumine versus,
Hellespontiaco victima digna Deo;
Quam frustra vacuum scalpsisti sinciput? O quos
Rifus Hybrida vox semilatrina movet!
Dum tua mens varie turbata elementa pererrat,
Et spargis virus nomen in innocuum:
Quin & in hoc casu quaedam est industria, dum tu
In laudem imprudens nomina nostra trahis.
Namque lupo cohibemus equos; agitator eqourum
Improbioris equi comprimit ora lupo;
Qui in gyrum cogit, facilique peritus habena
Compositos gressus agglomerare docet.
Ergo lupus mundo est, qui fraenans ora lupato
Dura, per erorrum devia monstrat iter.
Nec mirum si nos, Papalis verna culinae,
Si ciniflo Satanae, dixerit esse lupos:
Cum Christum Satanam Pharisaeus dicat appella,
Nemo bonus secum mitius optet agi.
Ergo Dei servum vanis latratibus urgens,
Meque lupum appellans de sinat esse canis.

King James's love to Du Moulin increasing, he would see him, and by Sir Theodore Mayerne who took a journey to Paris in February, 1615. he invited him very earnestly to come over to him. The Consistory of Paris opposed that motion, being perswaded that if he went once over into England, he would never return. But Du Moulin removed that jealousie by his solemn promise with an oath made in publick to the Church of Paris, that he would return shortly. So he obtained his leave, and in March following went over into Eng­land with Sir Theodore Mayerne, taking along with him Captain John Du Mou­lin his half brother.

The King received him with extraordinary favour, and would have him neer his person very often. Almost every day while the King was at dinner, Du Mou­lin stood behind his Chair; and several times the King shut up himself with Sir Theodore Mayerne and Du Moulin, for no other business but to enjoy their company, which his Majesty was extraordinarily pleased with. And the truth is, that he could hardly have pickt in all the world two persons of a more ingenious and pleasant conversation.

Two moneths before Du Moulins coming into England, Du Perron had made an Oration in the States of Blois, where he had maintained that the Pope had the power to depose Kings, and had used King James very ill; and having publisht it in Print, he sent it to his Majesty: To answer that Oration his Majesty made use of Du Moulins service for the French Language, and it was Printed the first time in French while Du Moulin was in England, in that year 1615. before it was Printed in English.

The King going to Cambridge carried Du Moulin along with him, and made him take the degree of Doctor: Then was Ignoramus acted the second time be­fore the King. Doctor Du Moulin would have excused himself from seeing that Play, but the King would needs have him to see it: Yet the King could not make him conceal the offence he took, when he was told that sundry of the Actors were men in Orders; and that some that had acted it the first time, were sent for from the Churches to which they had been promoted, to act it the second time.

Of this he exprest his dislike, even in the pulpit, and before the King; for his Majesty having commanded him to preach in French before him in Greenwich Chappel, he took for his Text, Rom. 1.15. and was so ill a Courtier in his Sermon, as to say that the Ministers of the Gospel in the antient Church would [Page] not be spectators, and much less would have been Actors of Stage Plays. Yet the Sermon was so well accepted at the Court, that the most illustrious Prince of Wales (since King Charls the first) was pleased to require a copy of it, and gave a fair Diamond Ring to the Doctor.

After three moneths stay the King going to his Progress, he took his leave of his Majesty, who would have staid him in England, and highly advanced him. And when nothing would perswade him to stay, the King said to him, not with­out some anger, that he was unworthy to have the love of a King, and gave him a Prebend at Canterbury, and to his brother a chain of gold.

In that time of his stay in England he contracted friendship with many wor­thy Divines, especially with Doctor Andrews the Reverend and Learned Bishop of Ely, and since of Winchester, who was very favourable to him, and renewed many of his old acquaintances of Cambridge.

In his return he was installed in his Canons place at Canterbury: In his admis­sion the Dean and Chapter offered him the Oath of Allegiance, and the Oath of Canonical obedience which he took, but with this exception, which was al­lowed him; As far as it doth not prejudice the Allegiance due to my King.

Two or three years after, the King gave him a Rectory sine cura: These two Benefices were rented for 200. l. per annum.

The Doctor landed at Bullen where Monsieur de Campagnoles was Gover­nour for the Duke of Espernon. It was the time when the French Princes began to stir against Mary the Queen Mother of France. And because the Prince of Conde was courting the Reformed Churches to joyn with him in that design, the Doctor was suspected, as having taken that journey to procure help from Eng­land for the Princes. Wherefore Campagnoles was charged to arrest him at his landing, which he did, and committed him to the guard of two Souldiers, sei­zed upon his Trunks and Papers, and searched them. But after two days he re­leased him, and desired him to tell no body of the wrong he had done him.

How ill grounded that suspicion was, his following actions did justifie: For the Doctor finding at his return, that the Protestants began to engage with the Princes against the Queen Mother, and in effect against the King, who was then declared Major by the Parliament, he disswaded them from it as much as he could, both by Sermons and Letters. And to him the Court was obliged, that all the Protestant Towns on this side of Loire kept in the Kings obedience. He shewed, that he did it not to serve the times, but God. For the Queen having sent the same Monsieur de la Chesnaye (who had been sent to him before from Henry the fourth) to thank him for his good service to the King, and to give him a present in money, and exhort him to continue his good affection; The Doctor answered, that he needed no money to be loyal to his King, and refused to take it. When la Chesnaye urged him to it, saying, That it was a disrespect to refuse a Royal Liberality: The Doctor answered, that if he would give it him in pre­sence of the Consistory of Paris he would take it; but it was more then la Ches­naye had Commission to do. The declaring of the Politick Assembly of the Pro­testants for the Prince of Conde in the year 1616. was the greatest errour that ever they committed. And they smarted for it (as Du Moulin had foretold them) when once the young King had got more age and vigour.

Doctor Du Moulin after his return out of England was persecuted more then ever with disputes. The Jesuit Arnoux, a Court Preacher, sent a Challenge to the Ministers of Paris, to appear before the Queen Mother to give account of their Religion, preacht fire and sword against them before their Majesties, and sent them a Pamphlet full of heavy accusations. The Doctor was charged by his Colleagues to make an answer to it. Which he did, and addressed it to the King. In that answer by way of just recrimination, he affirmed, that he had seen in the Colledge of the Jesuits at la Flesche, a picture of the Martyrs of their Order, and in that rank some Traitors who had been executed for conspi­ring against the life of their Kings. That the maximes of the Jesuits were per­nicious to Kings, whereas the doctrine of the Protestants maintained their life, [Page] their authority, and their States: And the Pastours of the Reformed Churches taught their people fidelity and obedience to the King. Then he represented the many perils and combats which the Protestants had sustained for the defence of King Henry the Fourth, till they had brought him to the Crown. Of which ser­vices, they that had been the Kings Enemie received the reward. This An­swer of the Ministers was presented to the King by the Duke of Rohan.

Such a bold address to the Soveraign power, did irritate the great Officers of the Crown, of whom not a few, or their Fathers, had been of the party of the League. The Jesuites therefore letting their challenge fall, indicted the Mini­sters of Treason, although all the ground they could find for it, was, that the Ministers called the reformed Churches their people, as if they had pretended some soveraignty over them.

The Chamber of the Edict (a Court consisting half of Papists, half of Prote­stant Judges) would take knowledge of that business. But the Great Chamber would not let them, pretending that to the Great Chamber belonged the cog­nizance of crimes of Treason. Three weeks they were contending about that. At the end of whiche the Councel of State took the cognizance of it from them both, and by that time the heat of the Statesmens wrath was allayed. The Mi­nisters being summoned before the Councel, the indictment of Treason was not much urged, as being but a cavil. And it was wittily eluded; for whereas it was objected to them that they called their Churches nos peuples, it was answered, that the N was a u turned upside down, and should be read vos peuples, so that the Ministers speaking to the King, call'd their Churches your not our people. The Lords of the Councel smiled, and were contented to have one cavil wiped off with another. Only after grave admonitions and high threatnings by Chan­cellor Bruslart, they dismissed them.

That challenge of Arnoux, and a Pamphlet of his against the Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches of France, occasioned the Doctor to write his Buckler of the Faith.

The Jesuites, who compass sea and land to make a Proselyte, had devised this feat of Legerdemain, that when they saw a person of quality (for those especi­ally they hunt after) little grounded in the Protestant Religion, ill stored with piety, and gaping after preferments (which are all confined to the Popish par­ty) they tempted him to change his profession; and after they had partly by arguments, partly by promises, won him to their side, they made him promise not to declare his resolution to change till after a Conference between two Di­vines of the two Religions, that his declaration might assign the victory of the Conference to their side. But when they would give fire to that mine, com­monly it turned upon them that had sprung it: For thereby the perverted per­sons were either reclaimed in good earnest, or by the evident ill success of the Jesuites compelled for shame to remain in their former profession. Divers times these Jesuite have tryed to serve Doctor Du Moulin with that trick, but un­fortunately. A Gentleman called Liembrune, corrupted by the Jesuite Gontier, had promis'd him to declare himself a Roman Catholck after a Conference of the said Jesuite with Doctor Du Moulin. And having taken his lodging at the same street as the Doctor, with whom he had got some familiarity, he drew him once into his chamber, where the Doctor found a great company of per­sons of quality, most of them Ladies, who, as they had been instructed by Gon­tier, began to question the Doctor about his calling. And upon that Gontier came to the door in a coach full of books, and being come up to the company, he asked what they were speaking of? A Lady said, I was desiring Monsieur Du Moulin to satisfie my curiosity about his calling. The Doctor, to put the Jesuite upon the defensive part, said, I answered the Lady, that a man of your sort, that will question another about his calling, obligeth himself to prove his own. And since the calling of Priest in the Roman Church is to be a sacrificer of the body of Christ, I desire you, Sir, to shew me the institution of that Priesthood, and in what place of Scripture God commanded that the body of his Son should be sacrified. The [Page] Jesuite answered, that it might easily be proved; called for Bibles and Concordan­ces, and was seeking and turning leaves a great while. But being unable to find a thing that is not, he retired silent, full of anguish and confusion into a corner of the room. Upon which Liembrune grew angry, and told Gontier, Father, you told me, that if I brought a Minister before you, you would confound him; Here is one, and you stand dumb before him. After that Conference Li­embrune defamed Gontier everywhere, and was confirmed in the true Reli­gion.

Another Jesuite came to the Doctors study to dispute with him. Monsieur de Monginot, a famous Physician, was present at the Conference, whereby he was converted, and set out an excellent Book of the reasons why he abjured Popery.

An Eminent Protestant Lady, widow to the Marshal of Fernaques, Gover­nour of Normandy, being sick to death, was very much sollicited by the Prince of Joinville, called since Duke of Chereuse, whom she intended to marry, to change Religion on her death-bed; and he used the interest he had in her, to make her a Roman Catholick. The Doctor going to visit her, could not be ad­mitted till Monsieur de Roissy, a person of high quality, went in with a great at­tendance, and with him the Doctor came to her bed-side. As he began to speak to the sick Lady, Monsieur de Salles, the titular Bishop of Geneva, came in, sent by the Princess of Piemont, the Kings Sister, to exhort her to die in the Roman profession. Whereupon, when some contestation arose between the Bishop and Doctor Du Moulin, Monsieur de Roissy spake thus to the sick Lady; Madam, it is no more time to dissemble, speak openly, Will you have my Lord Bishop of Ge­neva to comfort you, and pray by you, or will you have Monsieur Du Moulin to do that office? The Lady answered, I desire Monsieur Du Moulin to take that pains. Then the Bishop and many Roman Catholicks went out of the room. Some re­mained, who while the Doctor was praying, made mouths at him, to abuse and interrupt him. He did his part to dispose and strengthen her in her last combat. After he had been there half an hour or more, three Lords, one of them Monsieur d' Andelot, came up to him, and told him, Monsieur du Moulin, there is below a company of Princesses and great Ladies that desire to see you confer with my Lord Bishop. The Doctor answered, My Lords, do you not make that motion purposely to take me off from the last office which I do to this Lady, and to keep me from returning hither? All three promis'd upon their honour, that after the Conference ended, they would let him into the room co continue the Office which he was about. The Doctor followed them into a large room, where the Dutchess Dowager of Longueville was with many other great persons, and asked them upon what point they would have the Bishop and him to confer; The Ladies desired that they should speak of those words of Christ, This is my body.

The Doctor said, that the clear Exposition of those words was given by S. Paul, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The Bishop answered, that the same Apostle affirmeth that it is the very body of Christ that we eat, 1 Cor. 11.24. Christ said to his Disciples, Take, eat, this is my body. I wonder (said the Doctor to the Bishop) how you have the con­fidence to alledge that Text which your Church hath so foully falsified: For whereas St. Paul relates how Christ said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, The Roman Church hath put in her version, which shall be delivered for you, lest that it should be known that Christ speaks of a body which may be broken in the Sacra­ment, which cannot be said of the true body of Christ. The Bishop then taxed the Doctor with calumny, maintaining that in the vulgar Roman version it was set down, which is broken. Bibles were brought forth, and it was found that the Doctor said true. This silenced the Bishop, and broke the Conference. The Dutchess of Longueville took the Doctor aside, and told him that she had heard much of him; but now that she had both seen and heard him, it would be an excess of joy to her if he would turn Catholick. The Doctor answed, that he [Page] would willingly do it, and in her sense, if it might be shewed him in the word of God, that God hath commanded the Priest to sacrifice the body of Christ. Then taking leave of the company, he went up to the sick Lady, who soon after gave up the ghost.

These are few of his many encounters. If I would relate all his Conferences, they might fill a great volume. Scarce was he a week without one, while he lived in Paris, and some of them were very long. He was the object of the publick hatred of the Romanists. His name was the general Theam of libels cryed up in the street, of railing Sermons in all pulpits, and of the curses of ignorant zealots. They that durst not come near that Lion, barked at him afar off. And because the Adversaries could not overcome him in conference, they tried two other wayes.

The one was to win him by preferments from the Reformed party. I will not make this Relation so Romance-like, as to say all that he might have had from the Court of France, and that of Rome. I will relate but one passage of my particular remembrance; That one of the prime men of Paris came to him; how haughtily he lookt upon us all, I remember still. His errand to the Doctor was to this purpose. ‘Sir, my name is N. N. You cannot but know that it is the best name of the civil Corporation of Paris. I come to declare unto you the great compassion I have, that a man of such eminent parts as your self, should be imployed to defend Heresie, and engaged with the sordid Hugonot party; Among whom, after all your services, and all the hatred which you sustain for their sakes, you can leave your Family but meanly provided for: Whereas if you will embrace the Catholick Cause, I that speak to you, will pro­vide for your Family, and I undertake for my self and others of my name in Pa­ris to settle eight thousand livres per annum in good land upon your self and your heirs for ever.It was at that time full 800 l. a year. The Doctor imitating his haughty way, answered him; Sir, I perceive that you value me at a very low rate; for if I could be won to com­mit that great wickedness, I might have twenty times more. No other thanks did he give him, and no more discourse would he have with him. I remember that they parted very abruptly.

That way succeeding not, they went about to make him away. Divers At­tempts were made against his life, besides that which I related before. One evening after Sun-set, two men with long black cloaks came to his house; One of them staid at the door to keep the egress free for his fellow, who went softly into the parlour, and so to the Doctor, without speaking a word, keeping his hands under his cloak. The Doctor judging by his countenance that he came with a mischievous intent, removed further, and put a chair in the mans way. The man turned about the chair and the table, pursuing him: Then came the Doctors servant, a proper strong man, who repulsed the fellow with threatnings, and put him out of the house.

Another came to the same parlour while the Doctor was at dinner, and came near him with his hands under his cloak. The same servant took up a daggers scabbard which the man had let fall, and gave it him, saying, Get you gone, you have mist your blow for this time. The fellow, without answering one word, took his scabbard and went away.

Another came to his house with the like intent, in all likelyhood, at seven a clock at night in the short days, and asked to speak with the Doctor. But when he began to speak, he faultered in his speech, and quaked, and changed colour; which Mrs. Du Moulin perceiving, stept between her husband and the man, and told him, Friend, you are come with a wicked design. The man made no Apo­logy, and departed.

One night, about two or three a clock, when the Doctor and his Family were abed, one knockt at the door with great noise, and being told from within that the Doctor was asleep, he answered, that he must be awaked, for he must speak with him, and so continued knocking till the door was opened, and he would be brought to the Doctors bed-side; To whom he said, Sir, You will pardon me this unmannerly address to you at this undue hour, when you know that [Page] my errand is to save your life. I came this night to this City, in the Boat of Montereau, where a man acquainted me, that he had a present of Prunella's for you, which would rid the world of you. The bearer is easie to know, for he is blind of an eye, and will bring you these Prunella's from such a friend of yours; but taste them not, for they are poisoned.’ The next day a man blind of an eye did not fail to come to him with Boxes of Prunella's, but the Doctor would not speak with him, and sent him back with his Boxes.

Twice was his house besieged by a rabble of people to destroy him and his Fa­mily, but brought no greater Artillery then Muskets, wherewith they shot through the gate in several places: they assayed to break the door, but could not. These many attempts, made his Friends to desire him that he should never go abroad unattended, nor be at home without defence. He hearkened to their counsel, and got two stout servants, that had been Souldiers, that attended him with their swords: Yet that he walked so long among wilde beasts, and was not devoured, it is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

While Doctor Du Moulin lived in Paris, he was invited by many Universi­ties to accept of the Chair of Divinity; but the Church of Paris would never part with him. That University which did most constantly and unwearedly wooe him, was that of Leyden, considering him still as a member of their body. They began in the year, 1611. and offered him the place of Arminius, then newly dead: And not only the Curators by frequent addresses to the Church of Paris and to him, but the States by their Embassadors, and the Prince of Orange by his Letters, did from time to time demand him.

In the year, 1617. when the States of the United Provinces had desired the Churches of England, France, Germany, &c. to send some able Divines to the Synod of Dort, the Churches of France named four, Doctor Du Moulin, Chamier, Rivet and Chaune. But when the Doctor was making readie for his journey, he was forbidden by a Messenger of the Council of State of France to go out of the Kingdom, upon pain of Life: The like prohibition was made to the three other Divines.

The Lords States accepted of his good will very thankfully, and sent him the same present which they gave to the Deputies of their Synod, A large golden Medal with a chain of Gold, and two hundred Crowns of Gold.

A year after, the Lords States and the Curators of the University of Leyden renewed their former demand of Doctor Du Moulin to be their Divinity Rea­der. The Learned Erpenius was sent twice into France on that errand: And when he could not be obtained from the Church of Paris, they demanded, by the same Erpenius, the famous Rivet, and had him.

But the Church of Paris could keep no longer their dear Pastour whom they held so fast; and the ruine then ready to fall upon the generality of the French Churches did light upon him first. In the year 1620. a National Synod being called at Alais in Languedok, Doctor Du Moulin was sent Deputy to it, and he made account in his return to go out of the way to see Rochel. A little before he took that journey, My Lord Herbert of Cherbury, then Embassador of Eng­land in the Court of France, urged him very much to write to the King his Ma­ster, to exhort him to undertake vigorously the defence of his Son in Law the King of Bohemia. The Doctor represented to his Lordship, that it was too high a business for a man of his sort. My Lord Herbert represented to him again that his Letters were always very acceptable to his Majesty, and might work very much upon him. So the Doctor writ to the King, and delivered his Letters to the Lord Embassadors Secretary. Then immediatly he went to Alais where he was chosen President of the Synod.

In the mean while his Letters to King James went the wrong way, and were delivered to the Council of State of France; how, or by whom, the Doctor could never learn, or whether his Majesty ever received them. Howsoever it was, scarce was he in Languedok, when it was concluded at Paris in the Coun­sell of State, that he should be apprehended, and committed prisoner for ex­horting [Page] a Forraign King to take Arms for the defence of the Protestant Chur­ches. And because the Council was informed that the Doctor would return by Rochel (a place which then gave great jealousies to the Court) they would not take him before he had been there, the Informers against him intending to make his going to Rochel an Article of his Indictment. Doctor Du Moulin knowing nothing of all this, was sitting in the Synod, where he heard first the ill news of the taking of Prague, the overthrow of the King of Bohemia, and the ruine of many Churches in that Country. And at the same time the waste made in the Churches of Bearn by the Armies of King Lewis, and how the Protestants would keep a Politick Assembly at Rochel against the Kings will, which proved the cause of so many ruines that followed. Wherefore the Synod being ended, the Doctor Judged that it was an ill conjuncture of time for him to go to Rochel, and took the way of Lyons. In that resolution he was guided by a good pro­vidence; for if he had gone to Rochel, he should have been apprehended not far from that town after his coming out of it. At Lyons he received a Letter from Monsieur Drelincourt Minister of Paris, which gave him notice of his danger. This warning made him baulk the high way: yet he went to Paris, and entring the City in the night went directly to my Lord Herbert, who bade him to flie in haste for his life, which was in danger by the interception of his Letters to the King his Master. That very night then without so much as going to his house, he went out of Paris with his brother Capt. John Du Moulin to Lumigni a house of the Count de la Suze ten leagues from the City: There two Elders of the Church of Paris came to him from the Consistory, to desire him to remove himself out of the reach of those that waited for his Life: Which he did, and the next night travelled towards Sedan, a place then acknowledging the old Duke of Bovillon a Protestant Prince for Soveraign, where he came safe, by Gods mercy, in the beginning of the year, 1621. and was kindly received by the Duke to his house and table.

This was his parting with the Church of Paris; for although great means were made to appease the Court, and although many years after, the Indict­ment against him was taken off, and leave was given him to live in France, yet it was with that exception, that he should not live in Paris.

Being come to that separation, I cannot but cast a parting look upon that best part of his life, the time he lived in that great light of Paris which was one and twenty years: A time truly honourable to him, since in it he did much to the honour of God, whether we consider his publick service in the Church, which he edified with his frequent preaching full of evidence of spirit and power, seconded with the prime eloquence of the time, and encouraged with the throng­est concourse, and the greatest applause; or the many combats that he sustain­ed for Gods Truth, which still ended in so many Victories; Or the godliness and charity of his conversation: Or the fervent mutual love between him and his Flock; Or the envy and invectives of the adversaries; Or the favour of great Princes abroad; Or his great esteem in the opinion of his Soveraign, who courted him, though they hated him.

Paris being the great resort, not only of all France, but of all Europe, his house also was the resort of all the eminent persons of the Protestant Religion that came to Paris: seldom was his door in the afternoon without Coaches be­fore it.

Being visited by Englishmen, Germans, Dutch, Danes, Polanders, &c. he held himself especially engaged to love and serve the English Travellers, who also bore to him a singular respect. It was from them that the learned Doctor Heylin had that saying of his about the scruple of preaching with a Surplice; which I must confirm, as having heard it from his mouth: That he wisht that the Queen Regent would give him leave to preach before her, though it were in a Fryers coat. Doctor Heylins Friend told him in a Fools Coat: But the difference is not so great, but that man may take the one for the other without misprision.

Being known abroad by those that had never seen him, he received Letters out [Page] of most parts of Europe from the greatest persons of the Protestant party: The chief of them King James of glorious and blessed memory, his great and good Patron, from whom he had many Letters, which his children keep care­fully, as precious monuments of his religious mind, and of his Royal favour. He also being thus imboldened by his Majesty writ to him many Letters, which I have seen sowed up into a Book, kept in the Kings Paper Office, where I sup­pose they are still. He received also several presents from abroad, which did ra­ther honour, then inrich him.

I remember when he received from a Merchant of Dantzick, unknown to him, a present of Sables for a furred Gown, and he put them to that use, saying pleasantly, That they would have been too dear for him to buy, but that they were not too good to keep him warm.

Being come to Sedan, he was presently desired to accept of the place of Mi­nister of that Church, and of the chair of Divinity, then lately le [...]t by Tilenus in discontent, and by Andrew Melvin by death. He accepted of these places, but conditionally, in case that he could not obtain his restitution to the Church of Paris.

He found at Sedan much respect, and love from the Prince, and the Church, and the Academy; yet his parting from Paris proved very ruinous to him, and his Family; For having sold his wives Land in the Dutchy of Bar, and laid the money upon a piece of Land neer Paris, which was extended for debts, and bought the right of the first Creditor, the other Creditours took advantage of his absence, and disgrace, and got the Land adjudged unto them; for which he never got any redress.

Of these private losses he was less sensible, because the sad condition of the Reformed Churches did totally possess his thoughts and cares. And having had time and occasion while he was President of the Synod of Alais, and in his long journey to it and from it, [...]o know the evil posture of their affairs, he found himself prest in spirit to write to the Assembly of Rochel, that which his know­ledge and his zeal prompted to him.

Because that Epistle is a piece that giveth much light to the History of that time, and a wholesom lesson to all that pretend conscience and Religion for their resistance to their Soveraign by force of Armes, I will insert it here.

Gentlemen,

I Do not write to you to pour my sorrows into your bosom, or to entertain you with my private crosses: Upon that I need no comforter, accounting it a great honour that in the publick affliction of the Church God would have me to march in the Front. And I would account it a great happiness, if all the storm should light on my head, so that I were the only sufferer, and the Church of God should enjoy peace and prosperity. A more smarting care hath mo­ved me to write to you, & forced me to go beyond my nature, which was always averss from medling with publick businesses, and from moving out of the sphere of my proper calling. For seeing the general body of the Church in eminent danger, and upon the brink of a dismal precipice, it was not possible for me to keep silence: Nay, I cannot be silent in this urgent necessity without draw­ing upon me the guilt of insensibility, and cruelty, towards the Church of God. And I am full of hope, that while I deliver my minde to you about publick businesses, my domestick affliction wil free me from jealousies in your opinion: If it be not believed, at least I shall be excused. It becomes me not indeed to take upon me to give counsel to an Assembly of persons chosen out of the whole Kingdom to bear the burden of the publick affairs in a time so full of difficul­ties. Yet I think it is usefull for you to be truly informed what the sense and [Page] what the disposition is of our Churches, by persons that have a parti­cular knowledge of it.

The question being then whether you ought to separate your Assembly, to obey his Majesty, or keep together to give order to the affairs of the Chur­ches; I am obliged to tell you, that the general desire of our Churches is, that it may please God to continue our peace, in our obedience to his Majesty. And that seeing the King resolved to make himself obeyed by the force of his arms, they trust that you will do your best to avoid that storm, and rather yield unto necessity then to engage them in a War, which most certainly will ruine great part of our Churches, and will bring us into a trouble, of which we see the beginning, but can see no end. By obeying the King you shall take away the pretence used by those that set on his Majesty to persecute us: And if we must be persecuted, all that fear God, desire that it may be for the profession of the Gospel, and that our persecution may truly be the cross of Christ. In one word, I can assure you, Gentlemen, that the greatest and best part of our Chur­ches wisheth for your separation, if it may be with the safety of your per­sons: Yea that many of the Roman Church, desiring the publick peace, are continually about us, beseeching and exhorting us, that we do not by casting our selves headlong, involve them in the same ruine.

Hereupon we need not represent unto you, how terribly and generally our poor flocks are frighted and dismayed, casting their eyes upon you, as persons that may procure their rest, and by yeilding to the present necessity, blow away the storm hanging over their heads. Many already have forsaken the Land; Many have forsaken their Religion; whence you may judge what dissipation is like to follow, if this exasperation go on further.

No more do I need to recommend unto you to have a tender care of the preservation of our poor Churches, knowing, that you would choose death rather then to draw that reproach upon you, that you have hastened the per­secution of the Church, and destroyed that which the zeal of our Fathers had planted, and put this State in confusion.

I am not ignorant, that many reasons are alledged to perswade you to con­tinue your Assembly. They tell you that the King hath granted it; But for that grant of his Majesty you can shew no warrant, nor any written Declara­tion, without which all promises are but words lost in the ayr: For Kings be­lieve they have power to forbid that which they have permitted, and to revoke that which they have granted, when they judge it expedient for the good of their affairs. Neither is there any of you, after he hath sent his servant, or given him leave to go to some place, that thinks not that he hath power to call him back: Soveraign Princes especially are very unwilling to keep their pro­mises when they have been extorted.

Also great numbers of grievances and contraventions to to the Kings Edicts are represented unto you, which complaints to our great grief are too true: But besides that, we have given occasion to many of those evils our own selves; the difficulty lyeth not in representing our griefs, but in finding the remedies. Consider then whether the subsistence of your Assembly can heal all these sores; whether your sitting can give a shelter to our Churches, provide all things ne­cessary for a War, where the parties are so unequal, raise forces, and make a stock of money to pay them; whether all the good that your sitting can pro­duce, can countervail the dissipation of so many Churches, that lye open to the wrath of their enemies? whether when they are fallen you can raise them again? Whether in the evident division that is among us you are able to rallie the scattered parts of that divided body, which if it were well united, yet would be too weak to stand upon the defensive part.

Pardon me Gentlemen, if I tell you, that you shall not find all our Prote­stants inclined alike to obey your resolutions, and that the fire being kindled all about, you shall remain helpless beholders, of the ruine you have provoked. [Page] Neither can it be unknown to you, that many of the best quality among us, and best able to defend us, openly blame your actions, holding and professing that suffering for this cause, is not suffering for the cause of God. These ma­king no resistance, and opening the gates of their places, or joyning their arms with the Kings, you may easily judge what loss, and what weakening of the party that will be: How many of our Nobility will forsake you, some out of conscience, some out of treachery, some out of weakness! Even they who in an Assembly are most vehement in their votes, and to shew themselves zea­lous are altogether for violent wayes, are very often they that first revolt and betray their brethren. They bring our distressed Churches to the hottest danger, and there leave them, going away after they have set the house on fire.

If there be once fighting, or besieging of our Towns, whatsoever may the issue be of the Combat or the Siege, all that while it will be hard to keep the people animated against us from falling upon our Churches, that have neither retreat nor defence. And what order soever the Magistrates of contrary Re­ligion take about it, they shall never be able to compass it.

I might also represent unto you many reasons out of the state of our Chur­ches, both within and without the Kingdom, to shew you that this stirring of yours is altogether unseasonable, and that you set sail against wind and tide. But you are clear-sighted enough to see it, and to consider in what posture your neighbours are, and from whence you may look for help; Whether among you the vertue, and the concord, and the qualitie of the heads is grown or diminisht. Certainly this is not the time when the troubling of this pool can heal our diseases. And certain it is, that if any thing can help so much weakness, it must be the zeal of Religion, which in the time of our Fathers hath upholden us, when we had less strength and more vertue: But in this cause you shall find that zeal languishing, because most of our people believe that this evil might have been avoided without any breach to our Conscience. Be ye sure that there will be alwaies disunion among us every time that we shall stir for civil causes, and not directly for the cause of the Gospel.

Against this it is objected that our enemies have determined our ruine; That they undermine us by little and little; That it it better to begin now then to stay longer. Truly that man should be void of common sense that should doubt of their ill will. And yet when I call to mind our several losses, as that of Lectoure, Privas, and Bearn, I find that we our selves have contributed to them; and it is no wonder that our enemies take no care to remedie our faults, and joyn with us to do us harm. But hence it follows not that we must throw the helve after the hatchet, and set our house on fire our selves, because others are resolved to burn it; or take in hand to remedy particular losses by means weak to redress them, but strong and certain to ruine the general. God who hath so many times diverted the counsels taken for our ruine, hath neither lost his power, nor altered his will. We shall find him the same still, if we have the the grace to wait for his assistance, not casting our selves headlong by our im­patience, or setting our minds obstinately upon impossibilities. Take this for certain, that although our enemies seek our ruine, they will never undertake it openly, without some pretence, other and better then that of Religion, which we must not give them: For if we keep our selves in the obedience which sub­jects owe to their Soveraign, you shall see that while our enemies hope in vain that we shall make our selves guilty by some disobedience, God will give them some other work, and afford us occasions to shew to his Majesty that we are a body useful to his State, and put him in mind of the signal services that our Churches have done to the late King of glorious memory. But if we are so unfor­tunate, that while we keep our selves to our duty, the calumnies of our enemies prevail, at least we shall get so much, that we shall keep all the right on our side, and make it appear that we love the peace of the State.

Notwithstanding all this, Gentlemen, you may and ought to take order for [Page] the safety of your persons: For whereas his Majesty and his Councel have said often, that if you separate your selves, he will let our Churches enjoy peace, and the benefit of his Edicts, it is not reasonable that your separation be done with the peril of your persons: And whensoever you petition for your safe dissolu­tion, I trust it will be easie to obtain it, if you make possible requests, and such as the misery of the time and the present necessity can bear. And in the mean while you may advise before you part what should be done, if notwithstand­ing your separation we should be opprest. That order your prudence may find, and it is not my part to suggest it unto you.

If by propounding these things unto you, I have exceeded the limits of discre­tion, you will be pleased to impute it to my zeal for the good and preservation of the Church. And if this advice of mine is rejected as unworthy of your con­sideration, this comfort I shall have, that I have discharged my conscience, and retiring my self unto some forreign Countrey, there I will end those few days I have yet to live, lamenting the loss of the Church, and the destruction of the Temple; for the building whereof, I have laboured with much more courage and fidelity then success. The Lord turn away his wrath from us, di­rect your Assembly, and preserve your persons. I rest, &c.

These Letters being read in the Assembly, raised much contestation. In the end the violent party overcoming, it was resolved that Monsieur de la Mille­tiere should write to Doctor Du Moulin in the name of the Assembly, to desire him that he would not impart the said Letters to any, amd to tell him that his ad­vice was not approved.

Yet his advice was so relished by some of the Assembly, that they arose and presently left it, and never returned to it again.

One would have thought that this advice of peace and obedience to the As­sembly of Rochel, should have made the Doctors peace with the Councel of State; but I believe that it made the Kings Councel more averse from granting his return to Paris; for the violent men in the Assembly did good service to the Court by their violence, and were fee'd by the Court to thrust their brethren into a pre­cipice, and give to the King the long desired occasion to take from the Prote­stants the places granted to them by his Fathers Edict. The forenamed Miltiere was one of those violent men, who afterwards forsook his Party and his Religi­on; and by his working and unhappy wit, he hath created many sorrows unto the French Churches.

Neither did the Jesuites work Doctor Du Moulins expulsion out of Paris for any greater reason then because by preaching obedience upon occasions, he cros­sed their long-winded design to undo the Reformed Churches of France, by suggesting violent counsels unto them by their secret instruments. Some of which having gotten places of Trust by their counterfeit zeal, betrayed them, and got money for them, doing open service to those whom they had served be­fore in secret.

At Sedan, in the year 1623. Doctor Du Moulin being a Widower, married a vertuous Gentlewoman, that had with great constancy resisted the severity of her Father Capt. de Gelhay, who having left the Protestant Religion, would force her to do the same.

About that time came forth the famous Book of Cardinal Du Perron against the most excellent King James. That Book was extolled by the Romanists with great praises and brags; and the truth is, that it is the most learned and subtil piece of work that ever appeared in French in defence of Popery. His Majesty being especially interessed and provoked by that book, was pleased to recom­mend the confutation of that to his old Champion Doctor Du Moulin, who un­dertook it upon his Majesties command.

That he might attend that work with more leisure and helps, his Majesty in­vited [Page] him to come into England. And together being moved with compassion by the adversities the Doctor had suffered for his sake, he offered him a refuge in England, promising to take care of him, and to imploy him in one of his Uni­versities.

He accepted that Royal favour. And because it was dangerous for him to travel through France, he got a pass to go from the Spanish Netherlands to Holland.

He set out of Sedan in March 1624. and went to Bruxels and Antwerp, and so to Holland. Whence after some dayes stay at the Hague with his worthy Brother-in-law Doctor Rivet, he took shipping for England.

He was graciously received by his Majesty. And about half a year after his coming, the Hospital of Savoy falling vacant, he would have bestowed it upon him, and gave him his word for it. Yet his Majesty was perswaded by the Scots that waited in his chamber, to give it to Doctor Belcanqual, and to offer to Doctor Du Moulin a Living of inconsiderable value, representing it to his Majesty as equivalent to the Savoy; but the Doctor would not accept of it.

He never was a good hunter of preferments; but then worse then ever: God having visited him with a grievous sickness, by an heavy oppression in his hypocondries, with an inflammation of black choler, which seldom let him sleep, and kept him in perpetual agony. Yet being a man of great vigour, he went about and walked much; yea in that sore affliction he spent much time in this great work against Cardinal du Perron, and preacht often in the French Church. The great Physician Sir Theodore Mayerne took him into his house to cure him; but the malignancy of that melancholy stood out against his Remedies. Sir The­odore taking a journey into France, Mr. Philip Burlamachi received him, and entertained him in his house half a year together, yea when his wife, and family, and three of his Nephews, hearing of his sickness, came over to assist him, that bountiful and magnificent Gentleman entertained them all.

My duty to such a Father having called me from Leyden to London, I had the happiness to be his daily attendant, and to sit up with him a hundred nights, which he passd almost all without sleep, in deep anguish, and holy discourses, imploying all the strength of his Faith, and of his pregnant rational brains, to fight against the pain of his body, and the temptations of the darkest melancholy with the comforts of Heaven. So that he might say after David, that in the multitude of his thoughts which he had within him, Gods comforts refresht his soul. If sometimes I had the happiness to suggest some thought to him in which he found comfort, he would bestow upon me most hearty blessings, with fervent prayers to God, of which I find the benefit to this day. Could I remember all the divine and vertuous discourses which I heard from his mouth in that time of my attendance, it would conduce very much to make me grow in grace, and in all good gifts.

In the depth of his pain and anguish, he was beyond measure afflicted with the persecutions that ruined the Churches of France, and the divisions increasing in the Church of England. He might say with St. Paul, that he was in weari­ness and painfulness, in watchings often. And that besides those things that that came upon him, the care of all the Churches opprest him. To that purpose he was once saying to me, Son, considering the face of the times, I fear very much that the deadly wound of the Beast will heal up, at least it will skin over. Yet we have given her the blow that will serve her turn. She must die of it soon or late. Hae­ret lateri lethalis arundo.

There was at London at that time the Marquess d' Effiat, extraordinary Em­bassador of France, a zealous Papist, who upon a false information of Fisher and others Jesuites that were about him, that Doctor Du Moulin, by his long watch­ings and melancholy fumes, was decayed in his intellectuals, did maliciously in­vite him to his house, to engage him in a Conference, and insult over his weak­ness. The good man perceived well enough the trap that was laid for him; yet he went in the strength of the Lord, praying after David, Let not those that seek [Page] thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. I attended my Father to the Embas­sador, who received us with some face of kindness, and made us dine with him. After dinner the Embassador desired him to hear a Scottishman, who would tell him the reasons that made him leave the Protestant Religion to embrace the Ca­tholick. The Scottishman then assisted by Fisher & others of his sort, made an ela­borate discourse half an hour long of the Church, of S. Peters Primacy, of successi­on of Chairs, and the like. When he had done, the Doctor resumed all his points and allegations in the same order, and answered them with his ordinary vigour and presence of wit. And because the principal matter in question was about the marks of the true Church, he maintained that the profession of the true Doctrine was the mark of the true Church, and thence took occasion to lay open the foulness of the errours of Popery with so much pregnancie, that the Embassadour, a cholerick man, rose from his seat in great fury, and gave many soul words to the Doctor, who upon that went out and return­ed home.

The Embassadour repenting himself of his violence, sent his Coach to him the next day, and desired his company to dinner. The work and success of that day, was like that of the day before: For after dinner the Scottishman spoke again of the same points; and when the Doctor in his answer had turned his Dispute against the grossest errours of Popery incompatible with the true Church, Fisher would have taken the Scottishmans part; but the Embassadors passion gave him no time to answer, but broke out worse then the day before (yet without foul words) saying that he could hear no longer that one should revile before him the Catholick Religion, and maintain to him that he did wil­fully damn himself, his wife, and his children. We left him to his own passi­on, and went out of his house. Whatsoever the effect might be of these Confe­rences upon the hearers, they shewed the gracious and indeed miraculous assi­stance of God to his servant: For neither he, nor we that tended him in his sickness, and saw his perpetual torment, could expect of him the stength, pati­ence, and readiness requisite in such an important occurence, and before per­sons of great respect, and his Adversaries.

The Embassador was less too blame for giving him ill words, then for enter­taining him at his table. For seeing that there was a criminal process against the Doctor in the Councel of State of France, for his correspondence with Eng­land, it was a great errour in an Embassador of France to shew him any coun­tenance, especially in England. All that can be said for him, is, that his zeal and hope to get credit to his party by the Doctors discredit, made him run into that great oversight in point of State, and that greater fault in point of charity and ordinary humanity, to seek to pick advantages out of a sick mans weakness. But he came short of that end, and the Doctor might say to God after this, as after all his other Conferences; By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me.

The Doctor continuing sick, the King sent twice his Chaplain Doctor Young to visit him; and to comfort him, offered him a Living, which he took not. And at the same time that great and good King fell sick of the sickness of which he died. That death of his Royal Patron, and the plague raging in London, soon perswaded the Doctor to return to Sedan, hoping that God would give him strength for that journey, and that the change of Air would mend his health. To return the way he came, through the Spanish Dominions of Flanders and Brabant, he could not for want of a Pass; and to go through France, it was dangerous for him: Yet he ventured it, and taking me along with him; and gi­ving order to the rest of his Family to come after him a week after, he went from London secretly to Dover, where he imbarqued himself in a French bottom full of Frenchmen of both Religions, who had attended the Queen when her Ma­jesty came over the first time. Though he was in a gray suit, disguised with a periwig, he was known by some Lawyers of Roven of contrary Religion, who knowing that he was gone out of France upon a criminal indictment, plotted to­gether, [Page] yet not so secretly, but that I heard it, to give notice of him to the Governour of Deep to arrest him.

The Duke of Langueville, Governour of Normandy, was then at Deep, and lay in the Castle; but because the Castle did not open but late, they that had plotted our ruine, could not give notice of us, neither to the Duke, nor to the Governour before we were gone; for being landed before Sun-rising, we hasted away to Roven.

The Duke hearing that we had taken horses for Roven, sent three Messengers to apprehend us, or if they missed us, to give order to the first President of Roven to secure the Doctor. The messengers overtook us half a mile from the City, and enquired of our Inn at Roven, and rid before us to the Town, where they might better examine whether we were the men that they lookt for. We knew them presently for such as they were. To avoid them, the Doctor left his horse, and gave money to a Peasant to bring him to the City by a by-way, and by another gate then that of the Road of Deep. Going on foot, in that by-way, he could see afar off the Sergeants looking about for him, but they perceived him not. He had left order with me to meet him at Master de l' Angle, the fa­mous Minister of Roven, who had married his Neece. His horse and mine I committed to the Post of Deep, who was driving many horses before him to Ro­ven, and I met him at the appointed place. The next morning a Gentleman of the Reformed Church of Roven came to give us warning that the Officers of the first President had been seeking for the Doctor in the Inn, where we were to deliver the Hackneys we had taken at Deep, and were examining our fellow-Travellers to know where they had left us. Whereupon we presently shifted to that Gentleman house, making no doubt but that Monsieur de l' Angel's house should be presently searched, he and his wife being the only relations that the Doctor had at Roven; yet none came thither to seek for him. In the evening a Gentlewoman came to us and carried us in her Coach to a house of hers a League from Roven. The next day our men, which by that time were come from Deep, brought us horses for our journey to Sedan, where we arrived safe by the great mercy of God, who had so the inclined the heart of the first President (who might have apprehended us) that he winked at us, and would not see where we were; for whereas he knew well enough where to finde the Doctor at Roven, he would not send to his Kinsmans house, but to an Inn, where he knew that he was not. And that his kindness might not be interpreted as an oversight, he sent for Monsieur de l' Angle four or five days after we were gone, and told him, Sir, I should have been glad to have seen Monsieur Du Moulin when he was at your house, but that it could not be with his safety. A year or two after the Duke of Longueville being come to Sedan with the Count of Sois­sons, whose party he had taken against the King, would see the Doctor, and told him. Sir, when you came out of England, I did all my endeavour to ap­prehend you, but now I am very glad that I mist you. Let all that love God and his servants help us to praise God for this miraculous deliverance.Psal. 66.8. O bless our God ye people, and make the voice of his praise to be heard, which holdeth our soul in life, and suffereth not our feet to be moved; Joh. 5.12. Who disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprize.

The labour of the Journey, and the intolerable he [...]t of the season increa­sed his sickness. Which to heal, the Physicians of Sedan made him drink Spaw waters, which were brought to him from Spaw to Sedan. Whereby they wrought a strange kind of cure upon him; for these waters brought him to a most vio­lent Feaver, and the Feaver consumed all those humours, and winds that op­prest him, and left him in health, but it brought him so low before, that we de­spaired of his life; and the Physitians proved true, who told us, that the Fea­ver would consume either the sickness, or the sick man.

So he returned to his former Function in the Church and University, ser­ving God with cheerfulness and assiduity, and blest with great success. He li­ved at Sedan three and thirty years from his return into England unto his death, [Page] without any notable change in his condition, but one of publick concernment by the miserable change of the Duke of Bovillon.

That Duke being Prince of Sedan, the Protector of a flourishing Protestant Church, and the refuge of many oppressed Protestants in France, was perverted by falling in love with a beautifull Lady, a Subject born of the Spaniard, and a Papist of the deepest Jesuitish dye; which seduced and turned him, both to the Romish Religion, and to the Spanish party: Marrying that Lady he presently profest the first, and a few years after embraced the second.

Before he had profest himself a Papist, he and his brother, now Marshal and Prince of Turenne, being at Luyck, the said Monsieur de Turenne fell grievously sick. Whereupon his Mother, the old Dutchess of Bovillion, desired the Doctor to go to him with another Gentleman, bringing a Physitian and an Apothecary along with them. The Duke, who was already revolted in his heart, received the Doctor unkindly, and desired him to withdraw and return to Sedan, but procured him no Pass for his safe return, exposing him with great inhumanity to eminent danger in the enemies Countrey, in a time of fierce War. Whereby he afforded him new occasions of experimenting the wonders of Gods watchfull and fatherly care for his preservation.

For when he came with his company to Givay, a place under Charlemonts Castle, where there was a Spanish Garrison; The Souldiers hearing of their coming, and that they had no Pass, resolved to apprehend them: They might have taken them in the Inn, but they chose rather to take them the next morning in a Boat which they had hired to make the rest of their journey by water. But one of the Doctor's Company advised his fellow-Travellers to walk on foot to a Village a mile off, to avoid a compass of twelve miles which the River makes, and there to expect their Boat. They followed his Counsel, and thereby disap­pointed the Souldiers, who coming to the Boat and missing them, plundred their Cloak-bags, and took the Doctors man, but them they followed not, which they might have done, and overtaken them; but having their plunder; they were less eager to have their persons; And God preserved them, both then and the rest of the journey, which they performed with great danger and difficulty.

Soon after this, the Duke of Bovillon declared himself a Papist, to the incre­dible loss of the Protestant party. Sedan was grown by the persecutions in France; The greatest number, and the richest sort, consisted of the posterity of persons that had transported their Families and their estates to Sedan, during the Wars of Religion, and that place was a refuge at hand for the Protestants, when any trouble arose in France: Wherefore this change in the Prince wrought a great consternation in the people of Sedan, and a great grief in the genera­lity of all the French Protestants; which the Duke of Bovillon perceiving, and judging, that as they lived at Sedan upon the account of their Religion, they might retire from it upon the same account; He called the Church, and the U­niversity, and told them that he would lend them the same protection as before, and innovate nothing. Only whereas he gathered the Tythes of his Domini­ons, and therewith gave wages to the Ministers, Professors, and Regents, as also stipends to the Priests, now the Priests must have the tythes as their anci­ent right, and he would pay to the Ministers, Professors, and Regents their or­dinary stipends out of his own estate.

Sedan enjoyed that rest for a year or two, till the Duke won by his wife to forsake the Protection which he enjoyed under the King of France who paid his Garrison, agreed with the Spaniard to put himself under his protection, turn out the French Garison, and receive his. Which Plot being discovered by some of Sedan, was made known to the French Court, and such order was taken that the Dukes Design was prevented. Himself, his Lady, and all his retinue were turned out of Sedan, and kept out of it to this day, and the place continu­eth under the subjection of France. What recompense he had for it, is beyond my knowledge and the limits of this relation.

In this sad change of Religion at Sedan, the Doctor besides his sufferings com­mon with others had many particular trials, being especially maligned by the Capucins and the new Clergy, with whom he had many Conferences, and was persecuted by them with continual invectives. He suffered much also by the war, his house in the Country being plundered, and his cattel driven away, which in all likelyhood was done upon especial recommendation.

Of the charge laid against him about his Letters to King James of blessed and glorious memory, he heard no more when Sedan was brought under the French Scepter; for it was but a pickt quarrel to remove him from Paris.

About the year 1644. Upon a return of the sickness that had troubled him in England, he was advised to travel into Auvergne to some waters which he went to drink upon the place, and with good effect. He returned to Paris, where he was received and entertained by his ancient flock with most singular expressions of love; but he was setled in Sedan, and his restitution to Paris had been tryed many times, and found an impossible pull. At Sedan then he lived the rest of his days, serving God in the Church, and in the University, defending the truth of God by his Sermons, Conferences and Books, confirming Gods people in the faith, and powerfully convincing the Adversaries.

Thus he held out in his constant course of Sermons, and Divinity-Lectures, without abating any part of his ordinary duties, till by extremity of old age his voice being grown too low for a great Congregation, he desired to be excused of preaching upon the Lords day, but instead of it he preacht every Tuesday: And because his weakness suffered him not to go much abroad, he obtained leave of the Academical Counsel to make his Divinity Lectures in his own house in a spacious Parlour, where he had as great audience as the University could afford.

Three years and a half before his death, as he was taking the air abroad, he got a great hurt by a fall from his horse; since which time he enjoyed no health, yet he did not give over the exercise of his charge either in the Church, or in the School, and very seldom mist preaching once a week and reading two Divinity-Lectures. And having been all his life time much given to private devotion, in that last sickly time he was so extraordinarily taken up with holy private exer­cises, that he did almost nothing else but pray and meditate. He kept to the last hour that neatness of language, wherein he was so eminent, and the readi­ness of his memory, which afforded him matter of holy Discourses, upon any subject offered to him in question.

Upon Tuesday Feb. 26. 1658. [stilo novo] he awaked in the morning, so weak and opprest in his breast that he thought himself not able to preach that day; yet taking heart, he was led and helpt up to the Church; being got into the pulpit with much difficulty, he fainted: And some wine being brought to him he would not taste it, choosing rather to expect Gods help, then to do any thing which might seem to border upon indecency. And he was not disappoint­ed of his expectation; for after he had read his Text, which was, Psal. 16 9. My flesh shall rest in hope, he spake with more vigour then he had done of a long time before, and applied the doctrine to himself, giving an account of his Faith and hope to his Hearers, taking his leave of them in a manner, and preaching his own Funeral Sermon, as if he had had a Prophetical knowledge that he spake the last time to his people in the Church.

Upon Thursday the last day of February he found his oppression so much in­creased in the morning that there was no small fear of a sudden death. Being then visited by his Colleagues, who prayed by him, he desired them to remember him that day (which was a Sermon day) in the prayers of the Church. After the Sermon a great company flocked to him to bid him farewell, and to receive his blessing: He looked upon them all, and spake to them with much facility and presence of minde: To such as he knew to be of an exemplary life he gave praises and encouragements to vertue and piety. Those in whose life he knew there was matter of blame, he would not in downright terms rebuke before that [Page] great company; but going about in a discreet way he would (addressing his speech to them) commend those vertues that were opposite to their vices, and would say to them that were somewhat given to tricks, that of all crafts the master-craft was to be an honest man.

Seeing a blind woman in the company he told her; You want the eyes of the body, but you have the eye of Faith, penetrating as far as heaven: You see not the light of the Sun, but God will let you see the brightness of his face.

Then turning his eyes upon a Gentleman who was a Roman Catholick, he said, This is a worthy Gentleman: And speaking to him he said, Sir, I suffer great pains, but God will have mercy upon me: I have many wayes offended him, yet my conscience bears me witness, that I never preacht or writ any thing, but what I believed to be consonant unto the word of God.

Next he applied himself to his Colleagues, and said, Farewell, my Masters, I have that satisfaction in my mind, that I leave this Church in the hands of per­sons whom God hath endowed with great gifts, and above all with an exemplary piety: I make no doubt but that you will carefully look to the conduct of the flock committed unto you.

One of them having answered, The Lord grant Sir, that we may imitate you, for you are that good servant, who not only have not buried your talent, but have very much improved it: You have done good service in your time, and your labours will live, and do good when you are gone.

He replied, ‘Ah Sir, you little know how much you grieve me by speaking so; for I have not done all the good that I should have done; and that little be­nefit which the Church hath reaped by my labour is not from me, but from the grace of God in me, as it is usual with him to do a good effect by a weak instrument. I am conscious to my self that I have neglected my duty in many things, and that I have offended my God; but I have loved his holy truth, and I hope in his mercy. He is my Father and my God, and Jesus Christ is my Savi­our; Whosoever believeth on him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

His Friends told him that he did himself harm by speaking so much. It is true (saith he) but I will die glorifying God.

He spent the four or five first days of his sickness in expressions of deep hu­miliation: his prayers were vehement and fervent, and full of penitent sor­row: He acknowledged himself the greatest of sinners, and the most unwor­thy of the graces which he had received of God: He abhorred his own ungrate­fulness, aggravating his faults, and despising all that others commended in him. ‘Lord (said he) I have done nothing but deserveth punishment: Thou hast heaped blessings upon me, Thou hast honoured me with a holy Calling: But I have not laboured according to the great worth of it: I have mingled mine own glory with thine; I have often neglected thy service to seek my particu­lar interest. O how much self love, how many perverse affections have op­posed the Kingdom of thy Son within me! How many times have I grieved thy good Spirit by a thousand idle thoughts, and carnal affections! But though it had been but justice in thee to have crusht me in thy wrath, yet thou hast al­ways shewed thy self a mercifull and gracious Father unto me: In very faith­fulness thou hast afflicted me: Indeed thou hast sometimes beaten me with thy most terrible rods; Thou hast hid thy face from me for a moment, but thou hast remembred me in thy great compassions.’

His devout expressions suffered but little intermission, and his holy medita­tions none at all. For, if sometimes he was kept silent by a drousie fit, one might see by the lifting up of his eyes and hands that his heart was with God: And every time that he resumed his discourse, it was evident that his speech was but the attendance of a longer meditation.

As when he began thus, Lord thou wilt do it, Thou art faithfull in thy pro­mises; I am thy creature; Thou hast led me and taught me from my youth. O forsake me not in this last period of my life: Have mercy upon me, my God, my my Father, have mercy upon me: O Lord hear, O Lord forgive, O Lord hearken [Page] and do: Defer not for thine own sake, O my God; even for thy Sons sake, who hath loved me, and given himself for me.

That meditation of Gods mercy he did much stretch himself upon, saying, ‘The mercy of God is infinite as himself; no sin so great but may be remitted. How great was Aarons sin that made the golden Calf? How grievous that of David in the business of Ʋriah? And that of Solomon whom God so highly honoured, whose heart was seduced by the love of strange women to the abo­minable worship of false gods? And yet God said of him, that if he brake Gods Statutes, and kept not his commandments, he would visit his transgres­sion with the rod, and his iniquity with stripes, but nevertheless he would not utterly take his loving kindness from him. Then making application to him­self, he cryed, Thou wilt pardon me, even me also, O my God; Thou wilt deliver me from every evil work, and save me unto thy heavenly Kingdom: Let me dye the death of the righteous: Let me see thy face in righteousness: Let me taste goods of which thou hast given me many foretasts. O how hap­py a thing it is to live in Gods fear, and to die in his peace!’

His sickness being violent, and his pains sharp, one of the Ministers seeing how he suffered, bade him to be of good chear, because the time of his delive­rance drew nigh. ‘How welcom you are to me (said the holy Patient) with that good news! Welcom kind Death! O how happy shall I be to see my God, to whom my heart hath been of a long time aspiring! He will be merci­full to me. Pray to him that he perfect his work in me. Then feeling his pulse, It is intermittent (said he) and to another, it would presage a sudden death; but my soul cleaveth so fast to this wretched body, that it shall have much ado to come out of it.’

Sometimes the violence of his pains extorted some complaints from him. 'O Lord (said he) lay not too heavy a hand upon thy poor servant. Thou hast suffi­ciently afflicted me to make me sensible of my sin. Then correcting himself he ad­ded; Nay, Lord, I am far from murmuring against thee; I have kept my self from that in my long tryals. Why? I have deserved infinitely more then I suffer. Bruise this dust and ashes, my body, and save my precious soul: As miserable as I am, I would not exchange my condition with that of a King, while I hope in the grace of my God.

He would be entertained with good discourses, and delighted much that his friends should help him with those Texts of Scripture which were the fittest to strengthen his faith, and raise his hope: And when they began a Text, he would end it, and added something to it, or did illustrate it with some interpretation. As when one told him the words of Jacob, I have waited for thy salvation, O God; he said, Many of our Doctors by that salvation understand the temporal de­liverances which God did promise his people; but I will apply it to my self in the same sense as you take it.

When the words of the hymne of Zacharias were used to him of the tender mercy of our Lord, whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us; he added presently, Yea it is that Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings. Like­wise when he heard that Text of the 130. Psalm. I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope, he said, That word is the promise of the Go­spel, that whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ hath everlasting life. That is the word which my soul doth wait for.

He had very often the 51 Psalm in his mouth, and insisted especially upon this verse, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart O God, thou wilt not despise. And then he would say, That sacrifice, O my God, I offer unto thee; Thou knowest my heart, and how it is bruised and wounded with sorrow that I have offended thee. Forgive me, my God, graciously forgive me all my sins; deal with me as thoa didst with the poor Publican, as with the humble Canaanitish woman, as with the converted Thief. O let me be this day with thee in Paradise. Crucifie the old man within me; kill that man of sin which is too [Page] quick and too strong, and raise me unto newness of life, that I may behold thy face, and be with my Saviour Jesus Christ.

He had a particular love for the Holy Tongue. Seeing a Student that was learned in the same, he desired him to read before him some Psalms in Hebrew. Then he began to reckon how many names were given to God in the Old Testa­ment, making learned considerations upon each. Thus passing from one good discourse to another, he gave occasion to the Student to ask him whether he thought that Hebrew was the Language used in the Kingdome of Heaven? That is not revealed (said the Doctor) neither do I think that the language of Heaven is known here on Earth. But I think that we shall learn it in a moment when God shall be all in all. And that is that tongue of Angels which St. Paul mentions. This is as other things which God hath prepared for those that love him; things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and which are not come into a mans heart.

The next Lords day-morning, being visited by the Minister that was to preach that morning, he desired him that for his sake the Congregation should sing the one and fiftieth Psalm, which he would often repeat with a profound humiliation. He had also the 130th. in his mouth very often, and the two and thirtieth. Once having said the first and second verses of verses of that Psalm, Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. He added, Thou knowest, Lord, that in sincerity, and without guile, I humble my self before thy face. I am a miserable sinner, and durst not lift up mine eyes towards thee, did I not trust in thy Commandement and Promise. Such as labour under the sense of their miseries, are those whom thou callest, saying, Come unto me all ye that la­bour, and are heavy laden, and I will ease you. O then let me come unto thee! Draw me Lord, that I may run after thee. I am tired, I am weary to be absent from my God; My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God; when shall I come and appear before God? Alas! I am unworthy of it, for I am conceived in sin. My whole life hath been a continued transgression; yet far be it from me to doubt of his power and faithfulness. Where sin aboundeth, his grace aboundeth much more. It is not for the righteous, but for repenting sinners that he hath given his Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have life everlasting. Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief; increase and strengthen my faith. It is now weak and small; but it is true and unfeigned, and stayeth upon Jesus Christ only. There is no salvation in any other: He is the way, the truth, and the life: None can come to the Father but by him. Away with all other intercessions. Away with all merits of works; all our righteousnesses are but pollutions. Ah my God! I have no righteousness but thine; for I am conceived in sin. I never did any work so good, but it needs pardon. Mercy Lord, Mercy! Pardon me my sins; pardon me my righteousnesses. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Purge me with hyssop; but let it be dipt in the blood of the Lamb without ble­mish and without spot, which taketh away the sins of the world. Thou knowest Lord, that I have loved thy holy truth, and that I have believed thy promises. They are the joy of my heart: They are the comforts which have kept up my soul from being cast down with sorrow. O God, perfect thy work within me. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Restore unto me the joy of thy sal­vation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit.

When by too long bending of his spirit and voice he found himself spent, and constrained to intermit these elevations, he would say, or cause to be read be­fore him some Psalms, and chose them himself, leaving out those verses which were not for his present use. As when he said the sixth Psalm, Return, O Lord, deliver my soul; O save me for thy mercies sake. Then came to the ninth verse: The Lord hath heard my supplication, the Lord will receive my prayer. And then said, All the rest of the Psalm is not for me: For death is not my fear, but my joy and deliverance from a languishing life; And I have no enemies.

He that read Psalms to him, would also skip over that which was not for the [Page] Doctors use. And if sometimes he did forget some Text fit for his turn, he would presently take notice of it; As when the 31. Psalm was read to him, he said to the Reader, You have omitted the principal and most convenient Text for me, Into thy hand I commit my spirit. Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth. And you have omitted something about the 11. verse. I left it out purpose­ly (said the Reader) because you are not a reproach among your neighbours, nor a fear to your acquaintance; neither do they that see you, flee from you. You see that all your sheep are flocking about you: They bless you, and crave your blessing. ‘I am not sorry (said the Doctor) that my Ministery leaveth a good favour after me. I beseech God with all my heart, that he send faithful Labourers into his Harvest, which may do that holy work better then I. O Lord, I have not been diligent as I should have been; but I have obtained grace to be faithful: For with all the affection of my heart I have studied to speak, and to defend the truth; and I have been grieved with the affliction of the Church. O Lord, Purifie her from all scandal. Let her be blessed, and let not the adversa­ries of thy truth triumph over her for ever.’

So humble he was, and such a contemner of himself, that he could not abide those that exprest before his face the great value which they set upon him, or said any thing to his commendation: And when they came out with some praises, he rejected them with a kind of indignation; Away (said he) with that flatttery; Pray to God that he have mercy upon me.

His sickness was an inflammation of the Lungs, with a burning Feaver, which re­doubled every day at the same hour. Once coming out of a strong fit which had handled him very sore, he said. ‘My God, how weary, how tired am I! When shall I rest in thy bosome? When shall I be filled with the true goods? When shall I drink in the River of thy pleasures? I am unworthy of it, O my God! But thou art glorified by doing good to the unworthy. It is not for them that are whole, but for them that are sick, that thy Son the great Physician was sent. Whoso believeth in him, is pass'd from death to life.’

He was compassed about with his Family and his chief friends. Every one com­forted him according to his talent. Being asked by one of them whether he did Perfectly hope in the grace of God which was presented to him? I hope (said he) but not perfectly; yet as much as I am able. I suffer now the pains of death; But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall re­ceive me.

When some comfortable place of Scripture was brought to him, whereby he found himself strengthened, he strived to rise to embrace him that spake it; and being too weak to do it, he would take his hand and kiss it, giving him some blessing, and saying, It was the Spirit of God that spake by your mouth. The Lord bless you, and increase his graces in you.

Another time, after an exhortation which had affected him very much, he said, These are excellent words; The Lord by his grace print them in my heart.

This Text, Eph. 1.3. was alledged unto him; Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; He added the following verse; According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the World.

Sometimes he was in such a rapture, hearing them that spake to him of the ex­cellency of that glory which he was going to possess, that he opened his mouth and his eyes in an exstatical countenance, pronouncing but few words with great intervals between; as, O what is it to see Geds face in rigteousness! O when shall I be satisfied with his likeness!

Many times he would say these words of Psal. 36. How excellent is thy loving kindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings. They shall be abunantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house, and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures. And these again: For with thee is the fountain of life, and in thy light shall we see light. And out of the 67. Psal. Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, [Page] that he may dwell in thy Courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house even of thy holy Temple.

Very often he would repeat the 27. the 63. and the 71. Psalm. In the last staying especially upon these words, O God, thou hast taught me from my youth, and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works: Now also when I am old and gray-headed, O God, forsake me not.

No day pass'd but he prayed for his children, both present and absent, saying, The Lord bless them, and give them his peace, his love, and his fear.

Every hour his Family lookt that he should expire; but he examining his pulse, would say, You shall see me very sick, but I shall not so soon die.

The four first dayes of his sickness he spake both day and night with little in­termission: So that it is impossible exactly to follow the fluency of his discourse, and the fervency of his expressions, especially in his prayers. So much we re­late here as his diligent hearers can remember; for all this was spoken before many and worthy witnesses that resorted to him to hear him, and to learn to die. But the six last dayes of his sickness, he was for the most part of the time in a deep slumber, against which he did earnestly strive. Prick me (said he) Now I should watch. It is no time new to sleep, but to die. Watch and and pray (said my Saviour) that you enter not into temptation. O great God, abandon me not to mine infirmities; but so preserve and keep up my spirit, that I may glorifie thee even when I am dying.

And though after such expressions he fell presently into his slumber, one might see by his gestures, and by the words which he spake now and then, that it might have been said of him, as the Spouse said of her self, He was asleep, but his heart waked. He open'd his eyes; He lift up his hands; He said often, Lord be merciful to me; Be gracious to me. Even when he seemed to be deep asleep, he would come out with five or six words, which shewed what his mind was set upon. Death (said he) is swallowed up in victory. And a good space after, It is the gift of God — It is my hope — It is my comfort. Sometime the same thing came often to his mind and mouth. For a whole day he would say every time that he awaked, The Word was made flesh.

When he was too long without speaking, his friends were careful to awake him, to know whether he had sense and knowledge still. Being awaked, he was asked whether he did lift up his soul unto God? He answered, Yes, incessantly. He was asked again whether he would be glad to go to God? O (said he) when shall I see him, that good God?

He was not much troubled with his slumber in the morning from seven to nine, because then his Feaver was less, which used to redouble about nine. In that interval he would speak with facility. That interval was husbanded to com­fort him, and to pray by him. He would then hearken to prayers with great at­tention, and to all the good things that were said to him. And it is observable, that in this last sickness he was less deaf then he had been ten years before.

Many times he would feel his pulse, and then said, O what a grief is this, I can­not die! Good God have mercy upon me. Set my soul free. I am weary of being ab­sent from my God. I desire to depart, and to be with Christ. O my God, come fetch me. Shorten the dayes of my combat. Let me die, I beseech thee. Into thy hands I commend my spirit; for thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.

His chamber was full of people day and night. Once opening his eyes after a slumber, he said, Here is a great company. One answered him, Sir, they are your sheep, that desire you to call for Gods blessing upon them; The Lord bless them (said he) and give them his fear, and the promised salvation.

The two last dayes of his sickness added to his burning Feaver, and deadly slumber, contractions of sinews and convulsions. Every hour was thought to be his last. None lookt to hear him speak any more. All his friends thought that his deep sleep would end in that of death; But about midnight he opened his eyes, and said to one of them that stood by, I shall soon be eased. I am going to my Father and my God. He hath heard me indeed. And soon after, I go to him [Page] with confidence; for he hath arrayed me with his robe. Then being raised into an unexpressible rapture, he said, I see him. And with an exclamation, O how beau­tiful he is! Being thus exalted in spirit far above the world, although he was alwayes tender-affected towards his Family, he said to them that were there pre­sent, putting them far with his hand, I renounce all earthly affections. I will no more love any thing in the world but thee, O God, who dost alone possess me. After these words he continued a good while in that holy rapture, causing more edi­fication in all the standers by with his countenance without words, then with all the words which he had spoken before. His eyes were clear and sparkling; his mouth panting after the living God. His arms stretcht up to heaven, and his bo­dy striving wonderfully to rise as it were to meet and to embrace that beautiful object of love and contemplation. All that were present wisht that God would receive him in that happy instant; But his hour was not yet come.

All the next day, which was Saturday the ninth of March, he struggled with the agony of death, being tormented with frequent convulsions, and still fight­ing the good fight by faith, and humilitie, and patience. Towards the even­ing, tokens of his approaching death made his assistants to double their endea­vours to comfort him. He understood all that was said to him, and shewed ho­ly elevations in his prayer; he gave thanks to those that prayed, saying, The Lord hear you, and the Lord bless you.

When he heard the glory at hand extolled in some emphatical terms of Scri­pture, he returned into his former raptures: And once more he pronounced these words of Psal. 17. I shall be satisfied with thy likeness when I awake. And twice or thrice, Come Lord Jesu, come; Come Lord Jesu, come. And for the last time that Text which he loved so much, He that believeth in Jesus Christ, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Then a little after, Lord Jesu, receive my spirit.

He that comforted him said to him, Sir, you shall see your Redeemer with your eyes. To which he answered with an effort, laying his hand over his heart, I believe it.

That was the last intelligible word which he pronounced, though he made yet great efforts to make himself understood, and was a quarter of an hour speaking with a fervent affection: But the flegm that filled his throat and palat, suffered not the assistants to understand any of his words.

After this he was half an hour without speaking, yet without losing sense and knowledge. His friends made the last prayer, during which he did perpetu­ally lift up his eyes and hands to heaven.

And some moments after he quietly gave up the last breath, dying with peace and joy visible on his face. It was half an hour after midnight the tenth of March 1658. [stylo novo] in the fourscore and tenth year of his age.

Thus died the good Servant of God, the faithful Pastour of his Church, The valiant Champion of his Truth, the zealous Promoter of his glory, the great Master of clear Wit, exquisite Learning, and admired Eloquence, the Pillar of the Universitie, and the Father of the poor. Such men as he live after their death: And of him we may say, not only he was, but he is a burning and a shi­ning Lamp, for to the worlds end the Church of God shall rejoyce in his light.

We have set a Marble Stone upon his Grave, with this Inscription.

Qui sub isto Marmore quiescit,
Olim fuit
PETRƲS MOLINAEƲS.

HOC SAT VIATOR, CAETERA NOSTI, QƲISQƲIS ES
QƲI NOMEN INCLYTƲM LEGIS.
LAƲDES, BEATI GLORIA NON DESIDERAT,
AƲT SƲSTINET MODESTIA.

Obiit Sedani AD VI. NON. MART. MDCLVIII.

So much was enough for him who hath erected a lasting Monument to him­self. But I cannot take leave of my precious Father in so few words. Not then to advance his glory, but to satisfie my love, I must attend his going to Heaven with these filial breathings.

OPTIMO PARENTI sic Parentabat moerens FILIƲS.

QUalis quadrijugis raptum super aethera flammis
Heliam, famulus passis ad sydera palmis
Suspiciebat hians, & demirantia fletu
Ora rigans, divo pascebat lumina visu:
Talis te, Genitor, vastum per inane volante,
Invectum super astra triumphantemque quadriga
Prosequor aspectu sphaeras penetrante polorum,
Laetitiae & luctus medius; oculosque sub axem
Defigens, lachrymis utrinque fluentibus udos.
O Pater, O nostrae currus turmaeque Sionis,
Cujus fida comes lateri Victoria sedit;
O si parte sui quadam sacer ille tuusque
Spiritus haereseon victor certissimus, in nos
Defluat, attonitos te discedente, gementesque,
Et tibi delapsam vix dignos tollere vestem!
Tu certe hinc abiens tua nobis arma resignas
Grandia, Romuleas debellatura cohortes.
Haec haret tibi propria laus, antiqua Sionis
Supplevisse novis armamentaria telis.
Sed vires, quique incutiant haec tela lacerti
Heu desunt; moerent gladii rubigine turpes,
Lugent lenti arcus viduam duce conclamato
Militiam, magnamque manum magna arma reposcunt.
Hic meminisse juvat qualis quantusque videri
In Latii turmas coelestia strinxerit arma;
Agmina tota ruens, unus satis omnia contra
Tela Latinorum; quo turbine fulmina Verbi
Torserit, & late Monachorum armenta nefandorum
Impiger incussa Veri prostraverit hasta,
Pulveream temere pedibus spargentia nubem,
Horrida mugitu, curtoque minacia cornu.
Quid quod perpetuus ineuntem praelia terror,
Bellorumque regens sortem tuba praevia Famae,
Anteibant; ictum quae lumine nominis hostem
Ei jam seminecem ceu fulgure praestringebant!
Consimiles animos prae se toto ore ferebat
Jovae bella gerens immani robore Samson,
Mirifica instructus mala, qua solus, inermi
Proximus, armatae sternebat millia turbae,
Humana major specie, flamm [...]sque micantes
Intorquens oculos, sacrum testantibus aestum
Aetheriae mentis, & foetum numine pectus.
Absit enim, Deus alme, tuae miracula dextrae
Ut cuiquam illustri quantumlibet instrumento
Attribuam: quisquamne tuo nisi robore fortis,
Tarpeiae sacra lustra Lupae, rictusque cruentos,
Et late dominam non formidasset Erynnim,
Lethatique ferum fodisset vulnere pectus?
Illa sub ima gerens fixum praecordia telum,
Nec satis ad morsus ex labris vulneris exstans,
Dentibus incassum viro spumantibus ardens
Appetit, & morsu nitens educere, figit
Altius; exacuunt iram dolor, ira dolorem.
Mox demente fuga & terrifico ululatu
Exagitat, augetque suum lymphata furorem.
Tum repetit morsu pungentem insana sagittam,
Si queat incussum lateri depellere lethum:
Hui frustra; licet usque furat, & ovilia vastet
Vindictae indulgens, pastoris saucia dextra;
Ilicet intus habet quo post conamina mille,
Mille strophas patrio tandem reddatur Averno.
Interea puris celsum caput inserit astris
Longum expectatos carpens MOLINAEUS honores,
Luce Dei fulgens, & Christi sanguinis ostro
Purpuream indutus trabeam; laetusque corona
Justitiae, camitem sanctis Heroibus addit,
Queis datur aeternas aeternum implere curules.
Militiam antiquam nondum tamen intermittit
Magna pace fruens: dum Mundus & ista supersunt
Scripta Quirinali fatalia tela Tyra [...]no,
Militat in terris, quamvis super astra triumphet.

EPIGRAMMA Subjiciendum nostri Authoris imagini aeri incisae.

QƲi modo sydeream miranti lampada Mundo
Praebuit, incertum doctior an melior,
Occidit heu! nostri Sol aureus occidit aevi;
Jamque latens metam purpurat Occiduam.
Cernis ut illustrem texant sibi posthuma limbum
Lumina, & elapsi splendeat ignis honos?
Ceu rutilis Titan sua tecta coloribus ornat,
Hesperio faciem conditus Oceano.
Sed modo digressi vanescunt Solis honores;
Perpetuum nostri crescit in orbe decus.

To the Kings most Excellent Majesty, CHARLES By the grace of God King of Great Britain and Ireland, &c. Defender of the Faith.

SIR,

HAving undertaken this work by the com­mand of your Royal Father of glorious memory, I thought my self bound in duty to dedicate it to no other then his Son, the true heir both of his Crown and vertue. That great Monarch having honoured my pen so much in his life time, as to employ it for his de­fence, I should be unthankful to his memory if I forsook his Cause after his death; seeing especially his Cause to be that of God, and the heavenly truth assaulted in his person: Seeing also that the Cardinal against whom I write, who hath found out many new shifts, and laid fresh colours over the idol, is the great Teacher of those Seminaries whose restless labour is to subvert the consciences of your Subjects. By assisting them in that danger, I thought I should do an acceptable service to your Majesty, who be­ing filled with the true knowledge of God, burns also with the Zeal of his house. For a King whom God hath en­dowed with his knowledge and fear, must be firmly per­swaded that God hath raised him to an eminent place, that he may discover afar off the plots and workings of that grand enemy of our salvation, who hath a particular ma­lice [Page] against Kings that are no servants to his Empire. As Ravens will build their nests on the tops of high trees, Sa­tan likewise endeavours to nestle himself in the top of Em­pires, and in the houses of great Kings, and there to hatch his brood, which are errours and vices, that they may be conspicuous and borrow authority from the place they stand in. Whence if he be thrown down and defeated of his hopes, no doubt but he hates such a King more then any man on earth, and will spare no strength and no devices to disturb his rest and shake his constancy.This came forth, An. 1626. In this short time that your Majesty hath been sitting upon the throne, you have found already that the frame of great Kingdoms here­in differs from that of the great building of Nature, that in the supream part of the Universe there is a perpetual rest and tranquillity, but the lowest part is the region of trouble and confusion: whereas Kingdoms and Empires are like trees, whose top is the most shaken. And it is without question that many Kings would have quitted their place, if as there are stairs to get up to an Empire, there were some to come down from it. If this be true in all Kingdoms, much more in those where the Ruler hath subjected his Scepter to the Cross of Christ, and by an holy magnanimi­ty hath set himself to wage war with the Devil. Wherein, Sir, we acknowledge the work of God, admiring his pro­vidence and exalting his goodness, that while he called your Majesty to these tryals, he endowed you also with strength to overcome them: Having filled you with the Spirit of his fear, and set you forth in the eyes of the world as a rare example of vertue and holiness in your conversation, of prudence above your age, and of meekness below your greatness. In all which your praise is the greater, because you apply your self to do the will of God, while your dig­nity gives you more power then to the rest of men to do your own. This fills us with hope that God will make use of your Majesty to do great things, and that the ruines of the Church, happened in the time of the King your Father, will be repaired under your happy reign. We know Sir, how sensible you are of the wound of the Church. We know that your Majesty hath the lively zeal of Gods glory; [Page] As indeed of all the men of the world none hath more rea­son for it, since of all men in the world you are the most evidently favoured of God. For hath God poured his bles­sings upon any Countrey of the world so bountifully as up­on your England? A Countrey which in a profound peace of many years, in a great plenty, and in a safe posture from all fears round about, enjoyes the saving light of the Gospel, whilest a black smoak from the bottomless pit over-spreads well nigh the whole face of the earth. Certainly for one to raign where Christ raigneth, and to have the Church of God under the shadow of his Empire, it is twice raigning. A Monarch that employeth his power to establish the Kingdom of God, is a Ruler of men, not only as they are men, but as they are Gods children. One flower of such a Crown, is a thousand times better then the three Crowns of the Prelate of Rome. For which heavenly favours, it is not only convenient but necessary for your Majesty to raise your heart with a holy glory, whereby God may be glorifi­ed. He will pour down with a liberal hand his graces from above upon your Royal Head, whence they may flow about upon your whole Kingdom: He will direct your counsels: He will prosper your armes: He will make you the love of your Subjects, and the terrour of your enemies, and will prolong your dayes in his blessing; employing your au­thority, that in your Kingdoms his pure service be main­tained; and that the Pastors of the Church by their resi­dence with their flocks, their vigilance in their work, and their simplicity and modesty in their habit, may edifie Gods Church. Our part will be, after the example of Moses, to help with the lifting up of our hands the sword of Ioshua. And the Lord will take compassion of his people, hearing the prayers for your Majesties prosperity and preservation, which are poured by him who is and must be all his dayes,

Sir,
Your Majesties most humble and most obedient servant P. Du Moulin.

Errata.

IN the Translators Preface, Page 4. line 43. for lived read live; p. 5. l. 9. dele not, ib. l. 17. for Duke de la Foize, r. de la Force; ib. l. 33. for Sholars r. Scholars; p. 9. l. 30. add after Eng­land, The writings of. p. 11. l. 9. for ready r. already.

In the Authors life, Page 2. line 41. for cocnvres, read cocuvres; p. 15. l. 13. for Fernaques r. Fervaques. In the Epigram at the end of the Authors life, the last l [...]ne but one, for Sed modo digressi vanescunt Solis honores; read Sed modo digresso vanescunt Sole colores.

Errata in the Book, Pag. 5. line 23. for soile read style; p. 7. l. 20. for Hence r. Here; p. 22. l. penult. add be in the end of the line; p. 24. l. 18. for be r. is; p. 29. l. 10. r. to the Croisada; l. 43. r. every five and twen [...]ieth; p. 32. l. 5. r. In the Acts; p. 35. l. 10. r. may not perceive; p. 51. l. 16. r ignorant; p. 62. l. 30. r. hath been instructed; p. 65. l. 38. r. give to your commandl; p. 79. l. 45. r. by our adversaries; p. 86. in the margent, l. 42, & 43. for commiseratio r. contes­seratio; p. 127. l. 23. r. famous pride; p. 130. l. 37. & 38. r. Mandy Thursday; p. 161. l. 29. r. not pardonable; p. 224. l. 9. r. I will give thee; p. 246. l. 49. r. It was never; p. 251. l. 42. for Sabellius r. Dionysius; p. 254. l. 17. r. unto him; p. 311. l. 4. cap. 15. r. not with; p. 314. l. 25. r. Novarre in Lombardy; p. 329. l. 43. r. provisionally; p. 377. l. 42. & 43. put out these words, before they hold Baptism necessary to salvation; p. 464. l. 23. r. in their debt; p. 484. l. 39. r. he said, himself; p. 542. ch. 6. l. 7. r. who lent: p. 561. l. 27. r. that they have not the souls; p. 563. l. 6. r. acquiesce to their judgement: p. 595. l. 40. r because the fault.

THE PREFACE. Occasion of Cardinal du Perron's Book. Answer to the two Prefaces, which he premiseth be­fore his Book. Iudgement of the Book, Wit, and Capacity of the said Cardinal.

THE late King James of glorious memory,Occasion of Monsieur du Perron his Book. moved with the zeal of Gods house, had by an example beyond all examples, consecrated his Pen to the defence of Gods Cause. In which good warfare he was free from the niceness of Alexander the Great, who disdained to enter the Lists of the Olympick race, unless he had Kings for his Antagonists. This great King was not ashamed to descend from the height of his dignities to run this race, holding it not a lessening of his greatness, to take upon him a Labour by which God is honoured: Whereby he hath stirred against himself a multitude of Writers, like a cloud of humble Bees, that either buz without stinging, or break their sting when they make bold to use it. Cardinal du Perron would have his part in that glory of measuring his Pen with the Royal, to raise his reputation by the greatness of his adversary: But the honour of the Combate remained on his Majesties side. That Prelate in the Assembly of the States held at Paris made a long Oration to assert the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, whom he affirmed to be deposable by the Bishop of Rome; saying, that the Apostles command,Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, was but provisional, and for a time. And among his assertions, some were offensive to the person of His Majesty of Great Britain, and prejudi­cial to his State. Of which Oration he sent a Copy to the King, as if he had pre­sented him with a nettle to sting him.

Hereupon his Majesty undertook the refutation of that Oration, by a Book, in which the Cardinals reasons are overthrown, his allegations convinced of fal­shood, and the independency of the Crowns of Kings is maintained with great solidity.

That Royal Book being short and strong, and concerning the Cardinals credit very near, the world did look for a short answer from him. But he chose rather to swallow the affront quietly, and condemned himself to a perpetual silence; seeking other occasions to shew his sufficiency to the King, to whom he writ by the mediation of M. Casaubon, that he admired the vertues and rare conditions [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] of his Majesty; and that to express the Character of a perfectly accomplished Prince, he wanted nothing but the title and name of Catholick.

This Prince not used to be rocked with offensive praises, thought himself obli­ged to shew to the Cardinal, that the title of Catholick, as well as that of King, belonged to him by right: And with his Royal Pen writ a Treatise, wherein to appropriate that title unto him, he giveth a touch to the most part of our Con­troversies, saying among other things, that he believes all the doctrines necessa­ry to salvation, which have been universally received in the Primitive Church, of the five first Ages after Christ. That this Book might have a larger course, his Majesty would have it in Latine, making use for it of the Learned pen of Mr. Casaubon.

The Cardinal having received that Book, thought it a fair occasion to publish several pieces which he had in his Study, supplying what was wanting to them to answer the Kings Book; which being Latin, and spread among Forreign Nations, reason and the nature of the Work required that Monsieur du Perron should have answered in Latin. Wherein finding himself short, not for want of learn­ing, but of exercise, he contented himself to answer in French. Many years he hath spent in licking that Bear; for the great desire he had to satisfie others, kept him from satisfying himself. I living then in Paris, was told by those that often visited the Cardinal, and by those that resorted to his Printer Antony Steven, that the Author had many times torn his own work, like another Saturnus that de­voured his own children; That Book was like Penelope's web, which she did only to undo it, so that it was always to begin anew; and so he would have continued still, entertaining the people with the expectation of that Book, if he had lived longer: For that he might not be obliged to an answer, he would not suffer the Book to see the light, till himself could see it no more. Thus that Book is a child that oweth his life to the death of his Father. In the end, being on his death bed, he delivered into the hands of his friends and heirs his whole Manuscript to make it publique after his death.

Answer to the first Preface.In the beginning of the Book he put two Prefaces, whereof the one is an E­pistle to Mr. Casaubon. The first perfection of it is, that there is almost no men­tion in it of the Word of God: It treateth altogether of the word Catholick. A word which now adays is given as the principal mark of the true Church: They will have that to be the true Church which is called Catholick, that is universal: And yet Heretical Churches have always assumed that title. And the Greek Church, an enemy to the Roman, and more ancient then it, yet at this time takes that title. It is a great abuse to make names the marks of things. The marks of a good horse, or of a vertuous man, are not words, but things; the marks also of the true Church must serve to make her goodness known: But this word Catholick, or Ʋniversal, imports no goodness, and doth not signifie any vertue or perfection of the Church, but only noteth her extent. As in matter of coyns, the broadest pieces are many times the most suspected; so for the Church the breadth and the large extent is no proof of purity. But if you take this word of Catholick Church for orthodox and pure in the Faith, as the Fathers take it very often, the Church of the Apostles reduced to one upper room, or fled into a de­sart, was nevertheless the Catholick Church.

Herein especially appears, how vain und unreasonable is the dispute about this term of Catholick, that several particular Churches are contending which of them must be called Catholick or Ʋniversal; for it is as if Asia, Europe and A­frick were contending which of them must be called the universal world. All the Texts which Monsieur du Perron alledgeth out of the Fathers to this purpose are to no purpose; for the Fathers, by the Catholick Church understood all the Churches of the East, of the West, and of the South; as those of Greece, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africk, Italy, Gauls, &c. which at that time were orthodox, and made up one body, but now are separated, and have lost their former communion. Where­fore none of those separated parts can be now called Catholick. Neither hath the Roman Church any more right to challenge that title, then the Greek or the [Page] Syrian, from which the Roman is descended. In three of the four first Ages, if a stranger travelling through Syria or Egypt, had asked where the Catholick Church was, no body would have shewed him the Roman; for every particular Church called it self Catholick, that is, orthodox, and embracing that faith which ought to be universal.

In the second place the Cardinal speaks of those things which the Fathers hold as necessary or usefull, saying that they must be received according to the pro­portion of the belief which the Fathers have bestowed upon them. A dispute altogether useless, before he hath specified those points controverted among us which have been believed by the Fathers, as usefull or necessary.

In the third place, he enumerates several kinds of necessity. An absolute and a conditional necessity; A necessity of medium, and another of precept: A necessity of special, and another of general belief; A necessity of act, and a necessity of appro­bation. All these distinctions of necessity he heaps up without necessity, rather to set out his Learning then to instruct the Reader. For we give him free leave to specifie a hundred several sorts of necessity, since they do us no harm, and de­cide no controversie.

He adds a fourth observation, whereby he declareth who are those Antients to whose judgement we ought to subject our selves: Those are (in his opinion) the Fathers that have written in the time of the four first Councils, that is, from the year of our Lord, 325. unto the year 451. the space of 126. years. As for the three first Ages, he saith, That we have but few books of that date, and that in them the face of the ancient doctrine, and practice of the Church cannot be seen wholly represented. He holds then that the Fathers of the three first Ages are not such as can decide our controversies. Thus the Cardinal useth the Fathers of the first and purest Antiquity, undervaluing them as men unfit to judge of our dif­ferences. Yet have we these Authors of that time, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Ire­naeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Origen, Minuti­us Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Eusebius: Out of whole writings, better then from those that came since, one may learn what was the face and the doctrine of the Christian Church near the Apostles time: Yea, I say, that those that writ since, cannot be understood but by the help of these first: for the Fathers of the following ages often alledge the ancienter Fathers, and borrow their terms.

But the Cardinal leaveth them out, because in some points they are far more express against Popety then those of the following Ages, as in the Invocation of the Saints, the veneration of Images, the Popes Primacy over the universal Church, and the celibat of Ecclesiastical persons. For we shall shew in this Book how Mon­sieur du Perron M. du Per­ron, 19. ch. of the 5. Book, p. 1009. And p. 994. he confesseth that even in Austins time the Church had not yet pronounced any decision upon this, whether the Saints enjoy the sight of God before the last judgement. acknowledgeth that the Fathers of those first ages speak only of the intercession of Saints, but of their invocation not at all, and that there is not the least trace among them of that custom of praying to the Saints. For some of them say, that the Saints pray for us, but never say that we must pray to them. Likewise he acknowledgeth,Pag. 712. that the Pastours of the Church were married un­till Constantines time, which is a space of three hundred years. We shall shew also in the right place, that even our adversaries confess, that in the first Ages the Pope was little acknowledged, and the Roman Church was not much regarded. And as for Images, not only they had no veneration,See the 7. Book, 2. Contro­versie, and 2. ch. of this work. but it was even a crime to be a Picture-drawer, or a Statuary, and those Trades were abominable among the Christians. It is not then without reason that Monsieur du Perron will not submit himself to the judgement of the Fathers of the three first Ages: Not that the following ages may be more favourable to him, but the multitude and unmea­surable length of their writings is fitter for finding of shifts, and fewer persons are skilfull in them.

Yet to make that rejection of the Fathers before the four first Councels more specious, he saith, that to his thinking, his Majesty of Great Britain had consent­ed to confine himself to the Fathers of the four first Councils. He should have produced the Kings words. For I maintain that this cannot be found. True it is (as Monsieur du Perron addeth) that the King hath extended that space to the five [Page] first Ages. But he that will have his belief examined by the Fathers of the five first ages, doth not exclude the three fitst, but includeth them within that space.

In the fifth place Monsieur du Perron declareth, how he would have the consent of the Fathers to be taken, namely, that a doctrine is held by the universal con­sent of the Fathers, when some of the most eminent affirm a thing, and the others are silent about it. But I hope to shew1 Book ch. 47, 48, & 49. in this Book that the Roman Church of this time opposeth not only every Father by himself, but also the consent of a great number of Fathers. And though they make a flourish of the names of Fa­thers to amuse the people, yet really they make little reckoning of them. Besides if one Father, yea, if two or three Fathers of the fourth or fifth age, have said something, of which no trace be found in the precedent ages, I see nothing that obliges us to believe that all the precedent ages have believed the same.

All that vexation which this Cardinal gives to himself comes hence, that he will not stand to the judgement of the Holy Scripture, but looks for other Jud­ges then the Word of God, to cast the Readers understanding into an inextricable labyrinth. For the writings of the Fathers are Greek and Latin Books, endless for length, and infinite for number, of which therefore the common people can have no knowledge. Also among the Books ascribed to the Fathers many are sup­posititious, whose falsity is hard to be known: and of the sense of the Text of the Fathers there is as much contention as of the sense of the Holy Scripture, if not more: In which contention, if the Roman Church be judge of the sense of the Fathers, she will be sure to overcome. Consider also, that the Fathers dis­sent among themselves in many things; and in their differences we are not told which of them we must adhere unto, nor how many Fathers are requisite to esta­blish an article of Faith. Moreover, succession of times altereth the doctrine, and changeth the customs: So that many words used by the ancients have lost their sig­nification. The words of Sacrifice, of Pope, of Mass, of Purgatory, of Sa­tisfaction, of prayer for the dead, of indulgence, and the like, are now turned into another sense, and signifie no more what they signified in old time. And after all, the Fathers are men subject to err, whom therefore the Roman Church doth condemn in a thousand things, and the Fathers themselves will not be belie­ved but as much as they speak according to Scripture; upon which, as the only infallible rule, they will have their writings examined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this especially the imposture and the spirit of errour is visible, that the Car­dinal will have the people to address themselves unto the Church to have the sense and infallible intepretation of Scripture, which is putting the people to seek for a thing which cannot be found, for hitherto the Roman Church hath made no in­terpretation of Scripture. Only you shall find great number of Comments upon Scripture, made by private Doctours that confute one another, and an extream diversity among them. The Roman Church never set out any interpretation of Scripture, approved by publick authority, of which one may say, This is the Ecclesiastical interpretation, This is the sense of Scripture which the Roman Church commands to be received. And here it would be proper to produce the ridicu­lous or impious interpretations given by the Popes in their Canons, Decrees, and Councils unto Scripture; of which the Learned of this Age among our Adversa­ries are ashamed. M. Du Perron was wiser then to make use of them in his1. Book ch. 22. Book. For these we dedicate a Chapter purposely.

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

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

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

But what texts do they use to confer the title of an infallible Interpreter upon the Roman Church? They alledge these words, Tell it unto the Church, Matth. 18.17. and if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen man and a Publi­can. Is not that mocking God? Is it spoken there of the Roman Church any more then of the Greek, or Armenian, or Syrian, or Ethiopian? See the text, and you shall find that it is not spoken there of the Universal Church, nor of the decisions of Faith, but of quarrels and offences between two private persons, upon which, if he that hath wronged his Neighbour will not hear the admoni­tions of the Church, the Lord Jesus will have him held for a stranger, and put out of the communion of the faithful. To take up such a quarrel between two brothers, doth the Universal Church assemble her self? Is it not evident, that in that text the doubts about Faith are not meant, but Ecclesiastical censures about manners? Is there any mention in that place of the Roman Church, or of her authority to expound Scripture? Is not then this interpretation brought byCap. Novit. Extra; de Ju­diciis. In­nocent the III. and approved byBellar. lib. 2. de Concil. c. 16. Cardinal Bellarmin a gallant one. Tell it unto the Church, that is, unto the Pope; and let the Pope tell it unto the Church, that is, unto himself.

In vain Mr. Du Perron goeth about to daube so many absurdities with some texts of the Fathers, which exault the authority of the Church, and the successi­on of Pastors. In vain doth he bring forthOf Vincen­tius Lirinen­sis there is a Chapter in this Book, which is the 30. of the first Book. Vincentius Lirinensis, who will have Scripture interpreted according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catho­lick sense; For none of those whom the Cardinal alledgeth, speaks of the Roman Church; None of them puts the Church above Scripture. And all things con­sidered, that which the Ancients write of the Church of their time, cannot be accommodated to the Church of our time. For they spake in a time when the Churches of Europe, Asia, and Africa were joyned in one body, the parts whereof are now separate in Communion, and in a time when the succession was short and of fresh date, and known of all. But now, that all those Churches are divided by a Schisme of many Ages, and the successions of chairs have been confounded and interrupted by a thousand alterations; and in the same chairs, not only in those of Alexandria and Antioch (which are held to have been found­ed by St. Peter) but also, in that of Rome; I say now after so many years and changes, it is offering an abuse both to God and men, to go about to apply to the Roman Church that which the Ancients say of the Church of their time. As if Apes coming into a room whence men are gone out, would attire themselves with their cloathes. There was more need to teach the Roma [...] Church to speak as the Apostles do, and to reform her by the Word of God.

The exhortation which M. Du Perron addeth, whereby he doth exhort us to charity and union, is very specious: And would to God that it were in our power to practice it. For what profit do we reap from this discord but ruine and dis­grace? [Page] And can any thing be more desirable then a peace with God, whereby we be rejoyned with men, and the Union in the true Faith be made fast by the bond of charity and concord? Oh that such a great good might be purchased with our blood! Oh that we migt be more afflicted yet then we are, so that God thereby were glorified, and our Adversaries brought to Salvation! There was no need then of the Cardinal's exhortations in the words of ourJohn 13.35. Saviour, and of St. Paul 1 Cor. 1.13. Eph. 4.4. that we love one another, that we avoid divisions, and that we be­come one body and one spirit; For to that charity we are wholly and heartily in­clined, as every godly person ought to be. But that Union ought to be in good things. And we hope that no exhortation shall ever prevail so far with us, as to make us agree with any to do evil. We owe much unto Concord, but we owe all unto Truth. As in the breasts of the wicked peace of Conscience is not a true peace but a lethargy and a profound drowsiness; likewise the agreement of ma­ny wicked men is not a peace but a conspiracie. Therefore the Apostle to the Hebrews saith, Follow peace with all men and holiness. And St. Paul will have us to speak the truth in love. Heb. 12.14. Ephes 4.15. For the Apostle would not have our charity employ­ed to foster untruth. So the Cardinals exhortations to charity will be welcome to us, when we are satisfied once of the truth of his doctrine. That being not evi­dent unto us, but rather the clean contrary, while we keep far from the do­ctrine of those that hate us, yet we will love their persons and pray for their conversion.

Towards the end he doth triumph though he hath got no victory; taking it for granted,Cant. 4.9. Eph. 5.25. Isa. 60.12. Isa. 54.17. Matth. 16. & 18. that the Roman Church is that which is meant in Solomon's Song, Thou hast ravished my heart my sister, my spouse. And that for which St. Paul saith, that Jesus Christ hath given himself. That of which Isaiah saith, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish. And every tongue that shall rise against thee in Judgement thou shalt condemn. That of which Christ saith that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her; and that who so refuseth to hear her, must be accounted as a Heathen man and a Publican. Of which texts, some speak of the Church of the Elect; for she is that Church meant in the Canticles, that Church redeemed with Christs Blood, That Spouse and that Body of Christ, without blemish and without spot, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, as we shall shew in the right place. The other texts speak of the Universal and Ortho­dox Church planted by the Apostles, not of the Roman Church, of which Isaiah never spake. Or they speak of every particular Orthodx Church, of which, whosoever (that hath offended God or his Neighbour) doth not receive the ad­monitions, and opposeth the discipline, must be held as a Pagan and a Publican. For by a great abuse of Scripture the Cardinal confounds all these texts as speak­ing of the same thing, and of the same kind of Church, and supposeth without proof, that all that belongs to the Roman Church.

Finally, he concludes his Preface by some texts, which he imployeth to prove that out of the Church there is no Salvation. He brings in the first place a text of St. Paul, Eph. 1.22, & 23. that God gave him to be the head over all things unto the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. A text nothing to his purpose; for the Apostle speaks not of the Roman Church, nor of the visible Church neither, but of the Church of the Elect, which only (to speak proper­ly) is the mystical body of Christ; unless we will put dead members in the body of Christ, who is the Author of life, and affirm that many profane and hypocrites living in the visible Church, are members of the body of Christ, and that the same man is a limb of the body of Satan and of the body of Christ together. Is there any doubt that when St. Paul cauls the Church the body of Christ and the fulness of it, he means the whole body of Christ? Out of which body those Saints which are reigning in Heaven cannot be excluded, nor the Elect which are yet unborn. That being granted, it is impossible that the visible Church be meant in that text, seeing that the greatest and the best part of that Church which the Apostle speaks of is invisible unto us; and there is neither reason nor likelyhood, that the profane and false Christians that are on earth, be of the same body as the [Page] Saints which are in Heaven. Wherefore also the same Apostle in the same Epistle saith, that this Church hath neither spot nor wrinckle, which cannot be proper to any visible Church, and to the Roman Church less then to any, she being de­filed with so much uncleanness by the very confession of the most passionate of our Adversaries, as we have shewed many times. Besides, that text doth not speak of a necessity of joyning with the Church, but of the dignity and Spiritual Empire which the Father hath bestowed upon his Son our Lord.

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

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

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

Nevertheless the more I esteem the wit and learning of Monsieur du Perron, the more I deplore his condition for selling his pen unto the Pope, and bending his wit to war with God. For whoso shall seriously consider this book which I am to examine, shall find in it a great contempt, yea, a secret hatred of the Holy Scripture; of which he endeavoureth to breed a disgust into mens minds, to find in it insoluble absurdities, and to undermine its authority. For besides that in so great a book as his, Scripture is very seldom alledged, insomuch that some­times in fifty leaves there is no mention of God or his word; he makes bold to maintain that the Church can change the things which God hath commanded in his word,In the se­cond book of M. du Perron, in the third observation, ch. 3. p. 674. Pag. 1110. & 1115. in the Treatise of the Com­munion under both kinds. and hath authority to dispense from the commandments of Jesus Christ. Of that subject he hath written an express chapter, whose argument is, Of the authority of the Church to alter things contained in the Scripture. There he affirms that there are things in Scripture, which the Church can alter, and hath in effect altered. And speaking of the form after which Jesus Christ hath instituted his Sacraments, he saith that when great inconveniences occur in it, the Church can bring to them, both dispensation and alteration. Especially concerning that command of the Lord Drink ye all of it, he maintains that this precept is not indispensable and unalterable; A blasphemous proposition arriving to the last period of impiety! for none of the antient Hereticks ever went so far.

Innoc. III. Decret. de Concess. Praebendae Tit. 8. Cap. Proposuit. Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. Et ibi Glossa. Nam contra Apostolum dispensat. Item contra Vetus Testa­mentum. Item in Voto. Item in sa­cramento.They took pretences indeed to dispense themselves from the commandments of God, and contradict his word, making use of glosses and exceptions. But never any heretical Church presumed to use this language, We acknowledge indeed that God hath given this commandment; but we have the power to alter it; and it belongs to the Church to judge what commandments of God are dispensable. By that means the Church shall not be subject to Gods commands, but as far as she thinks good; and shall blot out of the Law of God whatsoever she disliketh; saying, This commandment I judge to be dispensable. Thus shall man be above God, being once judge of the Law of God. Such is the rude and hard dealing offered to God by the Gloss of the Canon Lector [...]n the thirty fourth Distinction of the Decree, where it is said, that Papa dispensat contra Apostolum, the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle. Pope Innocent the third saith the same. These are his words, We can according to the fulness of our power dispense from the right, and above the right. And upon that, the Gloss of the Doctors addeth, For the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle, and against the Old Testament, and in vows and oathes. Conformably to the gloss of the Canon Sunt quidam, in the first Question of the twenty fifth Cause, Papa dispensat in Evangelio interpretando ipsum, The Pope dispenseth in the Gospel by giving interpretation to it.

Thomas Aquinas goeth so far as to say thatThomas 2a. 2ae. qu. 2. Art. 10. Ad solam authoritatem summi Ponti­ficis pertinet nova editio symboli. Vasquez. Tomo III. Disp. 216. Num. 60. Licet conce­deremus hoc fuisse Aposto­lorum prae­ceptum, nihil­ominus Ec­clesia & summus Pon­tifex potue­runt illud justis de cau­sis abrogare. the Pope can make a new Edition of the Symbole, which is making a new Christian Religion. And so the Jesuite (c) Vasquez, Though we should grant that it was a commandment of the Apostles, nevertheless the Church and the Soveraign Pontifex could abolish it upon good causes. AndAndra­dius lib. 2. Defens. fidei Tridentinae: Minime vero majores nostri religione & pietate excel­lentes Apo­stolorum haec & quamplu­rima alia decreta refi­gere in ani­mum indu­xissent nisi intellexissent, &c. Andradius, Our ancestors men excellent in religion and piety, have disannulled these and many other decrees of the Apostles. Whence he doth infer,Idem ibidem. Liquet mine­me eos errasse qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnun­quam in legi­bus dispensa­re à Paulo & primis quatuor Con­ciliis. that those have not erred, that say that the Roman Popes can sometimes dispense from obeying the Laws of the Apostle St. Paul, and the four first Councils. For so much the Gloss of the chapter Quando personam, saith in the first book of the Decretals,Decre­talium Gre­gorii IX. lib. 1. titulo 7. cap. 3. The Pope can change the nature of things, and dispense above the right, and the wrong he can turn into right. Which is the same as Bellarmin saithBellar. in Barklayum cap. 31. In hono sensu dedit Christus Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum. That Christ hath given to Peter (that is, unto the Pope) the power of making that which is sin to be no sin; and that Idem. lib. 4. de Summo Pontifice cap. 5. Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare. which is no sin to be sin. And that if the Pope erred in commanding vices, and prohibiting vertues, the Church should be obliged to believe that vices are good, and vertues evil, unless she would sin against her conscience. We tremble out of horror at these blasphemies and shake out the dust of our feet. Must the Pope be above God? Can a mortal and sinful man dispense us from the commandment of God? Or shall he be wiser then Jesus Christ and his Apostles? But of that impious propo­sition of the Cardinal more shall be said in its proper place.

Of the like nature are these assertions of the Cardinal, when finding himself prest by the express word of God, he saith that such a commandment was given only for a time, and by provision, not for perpetuity; As in the question of the Celibat of the Clergy he makes Chrysostom to say, that this commandment of the Apostle [Pag. 172. Let the Bishop be the husband of one wife] was free in St. Pauls time, by reason (saith the Cardinal) of the rarity of unmarried persons in the time of the birth of the Church. And a little after, They were constrained to ac­cept of married persons for the Priesthood, so that they had been but once married; and acknowledgeth that custom to have lasted as far as Constantines reign, that is, in the three first ages. By his reason we must say that when St. Paul made this order [1 Tim. 3.2. The Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, &c.] he charged Bishops to be sober and blameless only for a time, not alwayes: For since these commandments are joyned together by the Apostle, why shall the Church have the power to dispense with the one, not with the other? And who is he that first made that distinction? It is pitty then that the Apostle forgot to specifie, till when, and for how long that commandment was to be kept, and how long that permission for Bishops to have wives, was to take place. It was ill providing for the good of the Church to command absolutely without exception of persons and restriction of time,Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, if that precept was given but for a time, and provisionally, as M. du Perron will have it.

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

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

As for the Fathers of the three first ages, whom M. du Perron will not receive for Judges, I maintain that from them, more then from the Authors of a latter time, we learn the state and the doctrine of the Primitive Church. Yea, I say, that to those Fathers of the three first Ages, we owe the intelligence of the Fathers that are come since, which follow the steps of the former, and borrow their terms. But how should the Fathers of the time of the first four Councils be rather our Judges then the Apostles, since those very Fathers will be judged by the Apostles, and acknowledge themselves obliged not to speak but after them? Now the reason why M. du Perron stands rather upon the posteriour Fathers, and inferiour in An­tiquity, is not that which he brings: The true cause is, that the ancienter the Fa­thers are, the more contrary they are to Popery. Also because those later Fathers are of an infinite length; and that of twenty thousand persons in the Roman Church, scarce one hath any considerable knowledge of them. How is it possible then to end our differences by that means? To fight a Duel, is there need of a Cart-load of swords? What other sword do we need but that of the word of God, which God puts in our hand? A sword before which the Devil trembleth; a sword that gives sure blows, so that one needs not after look for another wea­pon. To that sword indeed belongs that which David said of Goliaths sword, There is none like it. 1 Sam. 11.9.

If a Reader, that hath yet some liberty of judgement left, will here open his eyes, it will be easie for him to discern what opinion the Cardinal had of Chri­stian Religion, and whether he spake of it in earnest, or only to serve the time, and follow the stream.Pag. 523. In the fifty sixth chapter of the first Book he compares these two Propositions; the one, that the Church is founded upon the person of St. Peter; the other, that it is founded upon the faith or confession which St. Peter made; Matth. 16. which confession is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And see how he compares them: he saith, that the first is original and perpetual, but the other is accessory and temporal: The one consigned from the beginning, the other brought in upon occasion. With him this maxime [that the person of St. Peter, and by consequence that of the Pope is the foundation of the Church] is such a maxime and ground as is perpetual, original, and from the beginning. But this other maxime, or this saith, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, with him, is not the foundation of the faith, but accessorily, and for a time, and is brought in but occasionally. After that, can we believe that this Prelate did believe the Gospel? And what remaineth more for his followers to do, but to [Page] put on a Turban, if it be once lawfull in the Christian Church to maintain that St. Peter and the Pope are the original and perpetual foundation of the Church, but that this faith [that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God] is the founda­tion of the Church, only ad tempus, and upon occasion, and not for per­petuity?

That this is no wrongfull imputation, it is easie to shew; for this is the sum­mary of his Discourse, That the Church is grounded causally, not formally upon that confession of St. Peter, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God, that is, (as himself expounds it) that St. Peters confession was the cause why Jesus Christ chose him for the foundation, which is clearly saying that this confession is not at all the foundation of the Church. As when the vertue of a Gentleman is the cause why the King giveth him an Office of Admiral or Governour, that vertue is not the Admiralty, or the Government: Likewise if the confession of St. Peter is the cause for which Christ made him the foundation of his Church, it follows that this confession is not the foundation. The same he sheweth, by saying that this confession is not the foundation of the Church formally, that is, really. Also by making in the same place that proposition [The confession of Peter is the foun­dation of the Church] like unto this:Pag. 522. The faith of Peter hath walked upon the waters, which is an improper and figurate proposition, and a false one too, if it be taken literally. In this especially the impiety is manifest, that this confession, Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, is true properly at all times, and before that Peter believed in Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Church. But the Cardinals sense is, that it began to be the foundation of the Church when Peter pronounced it; and will not admit it to be the foundation of the Church for any other cause, but that Peter pronouncing that sentence, thereby incited Jesus Christ to make him the foundation of the Church.

That which follows is no better, in the beginning of the ninth chapter, where he disputeth about the elect and predestinate unto salvation, he makes St. Paul to say, that God hath marked his elect with his seal. St. Paul saith indeed,1 Tim. 2. 2 Cor. 1.22. Eph. 1.13. Eph. 4 30. Gal. 4.6. Rom. 8.1. that God hath sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts; And that having believed we were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise: And he for­bids us to grieve the holy Spirit, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption. So the Apostle calls the inward testimony which the Holy Ghost secretly bears in our hearts that we are Gods children. But the Cardinal abolisheth (as far as in him lyeth) that Seal and inward testimony of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the faithfull, saying, that God hath marked his elect, not in them, but in him­self: As if one said that a shepherd hath marked his sheep not in them, but in himself, so that the sheep are not marked, but the shepherd. By so doing he maketh the whole comfort of the Faithfull to fade away, opposing the Apostle who puts that seal in our hearts,Rom. 8.16. and saith that the Spirit beareth witness unto our spirit, and that it is we that are sealed, not God. But Monsieur du Perron mea­suring other mens consciences by his own, and not feeling in himself that inward testimony, striveth to blot it out in others; he denieth it to be in the faithfull, and will have it to be in God only.

Thus when the Lord Cardinal declares his opinionDu Per­ron in the se­cond obser­vation, c 7. & 7. p. 553, & 554. that one should rather suffer a King, yea and Jesus himself to be killed, then to reveal a confession. And when he maintaineth, that2 Book, 2. ch. p 774. by the Books of Moses one cannot prove the im­mortality of the soul, which yet is so clearly, and so often proved there. When he4. Book in the an­swer to the second in­stance, c. 6. makes two kinds of redemption of our souls, the one original, the other applicative. When he saith thatIn his Book against M. du Plessis, p. 60. the Sacraments of the Old Testament were vain Monuments and Cenotaphes, as if God had given vain things unto his Church, like unto empty and imaginary graves, whose inscription is false. When to make Holy Scripture ridiculous, he makes a collection of those things which seem to him absurd, and to make it more absurd, imputes to it those things which are not found in it, as that Gen. 2, it is said, that within the Garden of Eden were both Nilus and Euphrates, which are above two thousand Leagues asunder; but there is no such thing there; for the second chapter of Genesis speaks indeed of [Page] Euphrates, Pag. 1100. In that text, Eccl. 9.5. there is only, neither have they any more reward. In his se­cond obser­vation of the second book, ch. 8. p. 658. but of Nilus not at all. Also when he saith that in the ninth of Ec­clesiastes Solomon affirmeth, that the dead have no reward [par de la] yonder, mean­ing, it seems, beyond this life, as if the souls were mortal. In all these (I say) he layeth open the secrets of his thoughts, even that he made very little account of the holy Scripture, and of the mysteries of Christian Religion; and that he was not well perswaded of the immortality of the soul.

This appears also in that when he alledgeth Scripture, among many passages that have some colour, he brings other texts which seem to be alledged meerly to make sport. To prove Lent, which is a fast of fourty six days, he employeth Scripture, saying, that God made the waters of the flood to rain forty dayes, and fourty nights: That the people of Israel were forty years in exile in the wilderness: That in the ancient Law the chastening of these that were beaten with rods, did not exceed fourty blows: Which are goodly and convincing proofs. So he defends the authority of the Church by these words of the Canticles88. ch. of the 1. book. We have a little sister that hath no breasts. With the like subtilty he proveth the primacy of St. Peter, Matth. 17. where Jesus ChristP. 539. biddeth Peter to pay the tribute for himself and for him. Of the like ingenious vein was his proofIn his book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis. by the Quatrains of Pibrac, which say, Adore sitting after the Grecians rule; that the Apostles, though they were sitting at the table, yet did adore the Host.

I doubt also, whether the Sorbon and other Doctors of the Roman Church will approve of several things in this last book of his, and in that of the Eucharist. As when he saith,In the book of the Eucharist a­gainst Mr. du Plessis, pag. 287. that after the consecration God preserveth the bread in the u­niversal latitude of its being. And his confession, whereby he acknowledgeth,In his book against the King in the Treatise of the com­munion un­der two kinds, pag. 1108. that the denying of the cup to the people diminisheth the signification of the Sacrament. And this new doctrine, whereby he makes two redemptions of our souls, the one original, the other applicative; making two payments of the same debt, the one original, the other applicative. Likewise I make a great question whether the other Romish Doctors will like of his doubtingIn his Treatise of the prayer for the dead, ch. 11. p. 950. whether Purga­tory be a real or a Metaphorical fire, which is only the horror of conscience. Or of his saying in his Letter to M. Casaubon that the invocation of Saints is not ne­cessary to every particular man; that is, that every particular person may very well be without praying to the Saints, and to the Virgin Mary, and can be saved with­out that. Of the same sort is his solution of the words of the Canon of the Mass, where the Priest prays for the dead, Qui dormiunt in somno pacis, that sleep in a peaceable sleep, and by consequence prayeth not for the souls tormented in a fire. Thepag. 950. The Cardi­nals book was printed without ap­probation of the Doctors. Cardinals answer is, that the souls which are burning in Purgatory are sleeping, not in respect of themselves, but in respect of the Church, as if a man could wake in respect of himself, but sleep in respect of others.

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

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

But yet sometimes he will fall out with those Fathers which he hath called to help, doing like the Chinesi, who after they have called upon their Demons, if the success doth not answer their requests, they beat and dash to the ground their Images.1 Book, ch. 56. p. 523, & 524. He saith that the Fathers, translating these words, Thou art Peter, and upon that stone I will build my Church, and applying them to the faith or confession of St. Peter, turn them from their true sense, to employ them against the Arians, and thereupon accusethIn the same ch. p. 526. Austin of inadvertence. He disputes against the six hundred and thirty Bishops that defined in the Council of Chalce­done, that the Bishop of Constantinople must be equal to that of Rome in all things. He blameth two hundred Bishops of Africa, among whom were those two great men,Austin Bishop of Rome, and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, for wri­ting Letters to Celestin Bishop of Rome, to forbid him to send Legats into Africa, or take cognizance of the causes already judged by them, and desire him that he bring not the pride of the world into the Church. Many times, under pretence of excusing the Fathers, he accuseth them; saying, that they have not spoken ac­cording to their sense, and that they have dissembled for fear of being under­stood by the Catechumeni, and that the mysteries should not lie open unto the In­fidels. He saith, that to learn the belief of the Fathers, we must not seek it in their Books, where they dispute against the Hereticks or Infidels. He speaks of Austins treatises upon John with contempt, saying,Pag. 877, & 878, 879. & in many o­ther places. that they are but popular Sermons, and that in them he doth not declare his sense. But the true reason of his exception against those Treatises is, that they are clear against the eating of the Lords body, with the mouth of the body. For the same reason he speaks of the Dialogues of Theodoret, as of books where he hid his sense for fear of being understood by the Catechumeni. If we produce some very express Texts of the Fathers, M. du Perron declineth them, saying,Pag. 879,Pag. 879, that the Fathers wrest and turn aside the Scripture, and play with it. And that they have mediate, collateral, and accessory meditations, which are the eccho and the resounding of the literal sense to recreate the spirits of the Readers, with the sacred mirth and ingenious invention of allusions and Allegorical applications.

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

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

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

A Pattern of Falsifications and depravations of passages alledged by the L. Cardinal Du Per­ron, in his Book against the King of Great Britain.
The Reader shall find more of these observed in the Table in the end of this Book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his fifth book chap. 2. of the fourth instance pag. 964. to prove that we must adress our Prayers to the Saints departed he alledgeth, Gen. 20.7. in these words, Address thy self unto Abraham and he shall pray for thee. These words Address thy self unto Abraham are of the Cardinals addition. Note also that Abraham was then living,See in the last chapter of the sixth book of this Work four Texts of Scripture falsely al­ledged by M. Du Per­ron, in his Oration pro­nounced be­fore the States at Paris. wherefore though this text were not falsified, it were of no force for the invocation of the Saints departed.

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

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

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

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

In the same chapter, page 533. he alledgeth for St. Peters Primacy a passage of St. Austin, in the second book of Baptism against the Donatists, where Austin alledgeth Cyprian in these words, as M. Du Perron relates them. You see what St. Cyprian saith, that the holy Apostle Peter, in whom so great a grace of the pri­macie did shine, being rebuked by St. Paul, answered not that he had the primacy, and would not be corrected by new men and posteriour unto himself. So does this Cardinal alledge that passage. But the Latin of Cyprian is much different from it. These be the words, Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus, speaks thus of Peter,Nam nec Petrus (in­quit) quem primum Do­minus elegit, super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Pau­lus de cir­cumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vindicavit si­bi aliquid insolenter, aut arrogan­ter assump­sit, ut diceret se primatum tenere & ob­temperari à novellis & posteris sibi potius debe­re. for saith he, neither Peter whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he founded his Church, when Paul disputed with him about the Circumcision, assumed any thing to himself insolently after that, or did appropriate any thing to himself arrogantly, to say, that he had the primacy, and that new men come after him were to obey him. In that passage St. Cyprian clearly saith, tha if St. Peter had assumed unto himself the primacy, or pretended that St. Paul ought to obey him, he should have spoken arrogantly and insolently. But M. Du Perron hath pared away these words that displease him, Peter assumed nothing insolently, neither did he appropriate any thing to himself to say that he had the primacy. We will shew hereafter that St. Cy­prian makes St. Peters primacy to last but two years, that is, until our Saviours Resurrection, and saith, that after the Lords Resurrection all the Apostles were equal in honour and power. Neither is this all the falsification of this passage; for M. du Perron interprets the word posteris posteriours, instead of, come since, as Cyprian meaneth, as it appeareth by the word novellis, which goeth before posteris. But the Cardinal would give it such an exposition as would bear an in­ference, that St. Paul was posteriour both in order and power unto St. Peter.

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

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

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

Thus in the same chapter, page 177. Gregory Nazianzen calls Rome, [...], that which presideth over all, that is, over all the Empire; but the Car­dinal translateth that which presideth over all the Word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same chapter, page 478. to prove that in Austins time the Bishop of Rome had the power to send Bands of Souldiers into Africk to get his command­ments [Page] executed,In the sixth Book, cap. 6. he alledgeth an Epistle of Austin which is newly coined, as I will shew in the right place.

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

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

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

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

In the 35. chap. of the first book, pag. 283. to prove that Hosius Bishop of Cordova did preside in the Council of Nice in quality of Legat of Pope Syl­vester, Monsieur du Perron alledgeth Photius in the Book of the Councils addrest unto Michael King of the Bulgars, and brings these words; With Vito and Vin­centius was joyned Osius Bishop of Cordova. An horrible Licence of falsifying; for in that book of Photius the clean contrary is found: Of which book we have an extract, treating of the seven Oecumenical Councils from the beginning of the first Tome of the Councils. These are the very words of Photius; The first Oecumenical and holy Council hath been celebrated at Nice in Bithynia, where three [Page] hundred and eighteen holy Bishops undertook the judgement of the truth. Tomus 1. Concil. Edit. Colon. An. 1567. apud Ge [...]vi­num Cale­ [...]ium. Prae erat & Alexander qui sedem Constantino­politanam ob­tinebat, vir cum senectu­te, tum pru­dentia gravis, &c. & Syl­vester & Ju­lius illustres, ac celebres Ecclesiae Romanae Pontifices, quorum tamen neuter interfuit, sed Bitonem & Vincentium nomine s [...]o adesse voluerunt. Phocius Epistola ad Michaelem Bulgariae Principem de septem Conciliis Oecumenicis. Alex­ander did preside in it, who held the See of Constantinople, and Sylvester and Ju­lius illustrious and famous Bishops of the Roman Church. Nevertheless neither of these were there in person, but they would that Bito and Vincentius should be there in their names. Of Hosius he speaks not at all, and puts Alexander Bishop of Con­stantinople before that of Rome.

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

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

In the Controversie of the Prayer for the dead, ch. 10. pag. 948. he alledgeth Josephus in the third Book of the war of the Jews, ch. 25. in these words, Jo­sephus describing the extremity of the siege of Jotapata, and the resolution which they would take, rather to cause themselves to be killed then to fall into the hand of the Romans, testifyeth that he disswaded them from it by this re­monstrance, that the Law of their Nation did not permit that the souls of those that had killed themselvs should be prayed for.’ No such thing shal be found in Jo­sephus, but only [...], that is, there is an order among us, that they that have killed themselves be hid without burial until sun-set.

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

The Author of the Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans, attributed to Ambrose, upon the first ch. saith. ‘For this cause we go to the King by Colonels and Governours, because the King is a man, and knows not to whom he should commit the administration of the Common-wealth. But to get Gods favour (for he knows what all men deserve) suffragatore non opus est, sed mente devota, there is no need of any that help us with his suffrage, but of a devout soul.’ Monsieur du Perron translates this word Suffragator, a giver of advice or attesta­tion against the nature of the word, and the authors intention. For they that em­ploy Colonels or Governours to speak to the King, do it that they may inter­cede for them, not that they may give advice or attestation to the King. And Am­brose speaks of intercessors to God, not of persons that give advice or attestation to God; for God to know us needs not the attestation of any.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the sixteenth chapter of the same book, page 907. he alledgeth a place of Cyrillus of Alexandria, but with three corruptions of his own. That place of Cyrillus is found in the defence of the eleventh Anathematismus, inserted in the first Tome of the Councils, and is set down in these words;Num homi­nis come­stionem no­strum hoc Sacramentum pronuncias? & irreligiose ad crassas cogitationes urges eorum qui credid [...] ­runt mentem, & attentas humanis cogi­tationibus tractare ea quae sola pura & irre­quisita fide accipiuntur? And in the Greek, [...], &, [...]. Dost thou pronounce that in our Sacrament we eat a man? And dost thou in an un­godly manner urge the understanding of those that have believed into gross thoughts? Dost thou attempt to handle with humane thoughts, those things which are not re­ceived but only with a pure and not far-fetcht faith? The Lord Cardinal al­together corrupteth this text, translating it thus; Do not pronounce that our mystery is an anthropophagy, or eating of mans flesh, irreligiously engaging the spirits of the believers into fallacious reasonings, and submitting to humane argumentations those things which are admitted by the only and not inquisitive faith. He translateth [...] fallacious reasonings: But [...] is not a reason­ing, but a thought. And [...] signifieth not fallacious, but vain and easily wearing away. He had heard of [...] and he hath mistaken the one one for the other. And he translates [...] a faith not inquisitive, whereas it signifieth a faith not far-fetcht. And he omitteth the word of only faith, in which lyeth all the strength of that place.

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

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

Pag 279. going about to correct Sozomenus, he translateth [...] venerable, which signifieth hoary or gray-haired.

Pag. 126. he translateth [...] reverencing, whereas it signifies cogitan­tem, thinking and imagining.

In the same page he translates [...] discretion, whereas it signifieth trial or examination.

Pag. 961. In the second instance he interprets [...] a bathing tub, or a cistern, taking [...] for [...], whereof the first signifieth the washing liquor, the second a cistern or bathing tub.

Pag. 137. he translates [...] representing, whereas it signifies troubling or importuning.

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

In the first chapter of the Treatise of the Sacrifice, pag. 910 [...], which signifies non amplius polluent, they shall defile no more, he translates, they shall smoak no more, which is a great ignorance in the Greek tongue.

In chap. 49. of the first book p. 428. [...] he translates studious, taking [...] for [...], for [...] signifies expetitus, & quod studiose expetitur, that which is desired or sought for with care. Whence is derived [...] desired by every one, and [...] worthy to be desired and sought for.

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

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

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

The like ignorance of his in the word [...], I shew in XI. Controversie of the VII. Book, chap. 4. And another ignorance of the word [...] in his nineteenth chapter; M. du Perron makes [...] to signifie then, whereas it signifies altogether. Many the like falsifications and depravations we represent in this Work. They shall be found marked in the Table at the end, in the word falsi­cation, and in the word Ignorance.

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

The Confession of three POPES.

ONuphrius Panuinius an Augustinian Monk in the life of Marcellus the II. hath these words, Post lon­gum in prandio silentium re­cordatus aliquando est Hadriani Quarti ver­ba, Romano Pontifice nemo est miserabilior, conditione ejus nulla miserior. Et paulo post, Non video quomodo qui locum hunc altissi­mum tenent salvari possint. Marcellus after a long silence in dinner time, remembred the words which Pope Adrian the fourth had sometimes spoken, There is no man more to be pittied then the Bishop of Rome, and no condition more unfortunate then his. And a little after, the same Marcel continuing his discourse, struck the Table with his hand, saying, I see not how they that hold this most high place, can be saved.

Aeneas Sylvius, otherwise called Pope Pius the second, in his sixty sixth Epistle to John Peregral, saith Nihil est quod absque argento Romana Curia dedat; ipsa manuum im­positio & Spiritus S. dona venduntur, nec peccatorum venia nisi nummatis impenditur. The Roman Court gives nothing without mo­ney, yea the imposition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost are sold, and the remission of sins is bestowed upon none but such as have money. The same in his Epi­stle to Martin Mayer which is the one hundred eighty eighth, speaking of the state of the Christian Church of the first ages, saith, Sibi quisque vivebat, & ad Ecclesiam Romanam parvus habebatur respectus. Every one at that time lived for himself, and little respect was given to the Roman Church.

THE CONTENTS.

BOOK I. Treating of the Church and of her Marks, and of the authority of holy Scripture, and of Traditions.
  • Chap. 1. OF the nature of the question of the Church. Page 1
  • Chap. 2. Of the word Church, and the diverse significations of the same. Page 3
  • Chap. 3. That there is a Church of elect or predestinate. Page 6
  • Chap. 4. Reasons of the Adversaries against the Church of the Elect. Page 7
  • Chap. 5. Reasons of Cardinal Du Perron against the Church of the Elect, in the ninth ch. of his book. Page 8
  • Chap. 6. Whether the societies of Hereticks and Scismaticks or Idolatrous Christians, ought to be called Churches. Answer to Cardinal Du Perron. Page 12
  • Chap. 7. How that Proposition must be understood, that out of the Church there is no Salvation. Page 13
  • Chap. 8. Whether the true Church be alwaies in sight. State of the question. Page 15
  • Chap. 9. That the Church to which we must joyn that we may be saved, is not alwaies eminent and exposed to every ones sight. Answer to the Cardinal. Page 16
  • Chap. 10. Places of Fathers upon that Subject. Page 18
  • Chap. 11. Passages and reasons of the Adversaries for the perpetual visibility of the Church. ib.
  • Chap. 12. Answer to that question made to us, Shew us where your Church was before Luther, remounting from Luther to the Apostles. Page 20
  • Chap. 13. Whether the Church can err. Page 22
  • Chap. 14. That the Roman Church hath erred, and erreth. Page 26
  • Chap. 15. Of the Antiquities of the Roman Church. A Treatise wherein it is shewed that the ceremonies of the Roman Church are descended from the ancient Hereticks, and that the Pagans and Jews have contributed towards them. Page 38
  • Chap. 16. Reasons why Cardinal Du Perron, making little account of the three first ages, confines himsel to the time of the three first Councils. And that he sets down unjust rules and such as himself observeth not. Page 54
  • Chap. 17. Of the authority of the Church. And whether she must have more authori­ty with us then the holy Scripture. Opinions of the Parties. Page 55
  • Chap. 18. Proofs that the Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures is above the Church, and ought to be of greater authority with us then the Church. Page 58
  • Chap. 19. Reasons of our Adversaries to the contrary. Page 60
  • [Page]Chap. 20. Examination of the places of the Ancients which M. Du Perron objecteth to this purpose. Page 63
  • Chap. 21. Of the Authority of the Church to interpret Scripture infallibly. Page 64
  • Chap. 22. Seven differences between our interpretations of Scripture and those of the Roman Church. Page 67
  • Chap. 23. Examination of the reasons which Cardinal Du Perron brings in the fifth chapter for the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture infallibly. Page 69
  • Chap. 24. Of the authority of the Church to alter that which God hath commanded in Scripture. Confutation of the Cardinal. Page 70
  • Chap. 25. Which and of what nature must the marks of the Church be. Page 72
  • Chap. 26. Of the true mark to discern the true Church. Page 73
  • Chap. 27. Testimonies of the Fathers. Confutation of the Cardinals answer. Page 75
  • Chap. 28. Reasons of the Cardinal and others, to prove that the true doctrine and con­formity to the Word of God is no mark of the true Church. Page 76
  • Chap. 29. That the word Catholick cannot be a mark of the true Church. Page 79
  • 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 signifies, nor the sense of Vincentius Lirinensis. Page 80
  • Chap. 31. Of holiness in doctrine. Page 84
  • Chap. 32. Of the succession of Chairs. Whether it be a mark of the true Church. And what that succession is of which the Fathers speak. Page 85
  • Chap. 33. What the succession was, and what the calling of those who in our Fathers time took in hand the reformation of Popery. Page 89
  • Chap. 34. That in the time of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and in the ages next to the Apostles, many have preacht the Word of God in the Church without suc­cession and without ordinary calling. Page 90
  • Chap. 35. A difference to be observed between the Office of Pastour of the Church, and the means to enter into it. Page 92
  • Chap. 36. That the Popes have a false title, and without any Word of God to the succession of St. Peter in the charge of Head of the Universal Church, and that such a charge is not grounded in Gods Ordinance. Page 95
  • Chap. 37. Of the succession of Popes and Cardinals. By what wayes the Popedom useth to be obtained. Of Schisms. And that the Popes have no lawful succes­sion. Page 97
  • Chap. 38. Of the wayes whereby Cardinals and other Prelates come to their char­ges. Page 109
  • Chap. 39. Of the perpetual duration which M. Du Perron calls indefectibility. Page 110
  • Chap. 40. Of the multitude and great number. And that the multitude is not a mark of the true Church. Page 111
  • Chap. 41. Examination of the proofs which M. Du Perron brings to prove that the true Church had alwaies the greatest number. Page 113
  • Chap. 42. Of Miracles. Page 114
  • Chap. 43. Of Union in the visible Church. Page 116
  • Chap. 44. Whether the Universal Church must be called Roman. Page 117
  • Chap. 45. Of Antiquity, whether it be a mark of the true Church. Page 118
  • Chap. 46. Of the Fathers and antient Doctors, and of their authority. Page 120
  • Chap. 47. That our Adversaries condemn the Fathers, and by consequent cannot have them for Judges. Page 122
  • Chap. 48. That the Roman Church opposeth her self to the consent of ancient Do­ctors. Page 126
  • Chap. 49. Doctrines in which the Roman Church rejecteth every Father in particular. Page 133
  • Chap. 50. How far the ancient Church was from the belief which is now received in the Roman Church. Observations upon the 18. ch. of the first book of Card. Du Perron. Page 143
  • Chap. 51. Of the pretended power and authority of the Church to add unto Scripture. And of the unwritten Traditions. And why the Pope not only equalleth [Page] them unto, but preferreth them before the holy Scripture. Page 148
  • Chap. 52. That the holy Scripture containeth the whole doctrine necessary to Salvati­on. Examination of the Cardinals answers. Page 152
  • Chap. 53. Testimonies of Fathers of the sufficiency of Scripture against unwritten Tra­ditions. Page 153
  • Chap. 54. The Cardinals reasons for Traditions against the perfection of Scripture. And first of the Traditions which he calls Mosaical and Patriarchal. Page 159
  • Chap. 55. Texts of the New Testament which Cardinal Du Perron brings for the Tradi­tions not contained in the Scripture. Page 161
  • Chap. 56. Doctrines held in the Christian Church, which the Cardinal saith not to be contained in Scripture. Page 163
  • Chap. 57. Of the Traditions which the Fathers allow. Page 164
  • Chap. 58. Of the prohibition of reading holy Scripture. Shifts of Cardinal Du Per­ron. Page 167
  • Chap. 59. Defense of the purity and truth of Scripture against the Cardinals accusati­ons and falsifications. Page 174
  • Chap. 60. Of Canonical and Apocryphal books. Proofs by Gods Word that Tobit, Ju­dith, Maccabees, &c. are not Canonical. Page 177
  • Chap. 61. Untruth and errours in the Apocryphal books. Page 178
  • Chap. 62. That the Cardinal attributes weak objections to us and defends that which we do not impugne. Page 191
  • Chap. 63. That we reject not the Apocrypha because they are contrary to us. And that they are rather favourable to us. ibid.
  • Chap. 64. Belief of the ancient Greek Church about the Canonical books. Page 193
  • Chap. 65. Belief of the Fathers of the Latin or Western Church about the Canonical books; and that the Cardinal doth not truly represent it. Page 196
  • Chap. 66. Confutation of the Cardinals shifts. Page 199
  • Chap. 67. Of Austin's opinion concerning the canonical books, and of the canon of the III. Council of Carthage, upon which the Cardinal grounds himself. Page 204
  • Chap. 68. Of the canon of the holy Scriptures defined by Pope Innocent the I. And of the Decretal Epistle of that Innocent to Exuperius. Page 207
  • Chap. 69. That the Popes have put their Canons and Decrees not only in the same rank as Canoincal Scriptures, but above. Page 208
BOOK. II. Wherein is treated of St. Peters Primacy, and of his abode at Rome.
  • Chap. 1. THat the Government of the Universal Church, cannot and must not be Monarchical. State of the question. page 211
  • Chap. 2. That St. Peter had no jurisdiction over the other Apostles, and was not Mo­narch of the Universal Church. Answer to the Cardinal. page 214
  • Chap. 3. Testimonies of Fathers upon this Subject. An excellent place of St. Ambrose falsified by the Cardinal. And a text of the Apostle falsified likewise. page 216
  • Chap. 4. Examination of the text of Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, &c. Shifts of the Cardinal. page 218
  • Chap. 5. Six reasons of the Cardinal to prove, that by this stone the Person of Peter is understood. page 222
  • Chap. 6. Other proofs brought by the Cardinal out of Scripture. page 223
  • Chap. 7. Of Cyprians opinion about Peters Primacy. That the Cardinal hath not un­derstood it, and how all the Apostles have been Heads of the Universal Churc [...]. page 225
  • Chap. 8. Of St. Peters being at Rome. Examinations of the Cardinals reasons. page 226
  • Chap. 9. The Cardinals falsifications about this matter. page 234
  • Advertisement to the Reader. page 237
BOOK III. Which is the first part of the History of Papacy. Wherein so much of the History of the Antient Christian Church is deduced from the beginning unto the year 300. of Christ, as will prove that then the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Ʋniversal Church.
  • Chap. 1. THat in the first age the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged the Head of the Universal Church. page 239
  • Chap. 2. That the Bishop of Rome in the second age was not acknowledged Head of the Universal Church. Vindication of Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea against the Cardinals false accusations page 241
  • Chap. 3. That in the third age the Bishops of Rome were not acknowledged Heads of the Universal Church. page 246
  • Chap. 4. That the Cardinal would not make use of the authority of the Decretals to prove the Popes Primacy in the three first ages. And of the authority of the said Decretals. page 252
  • Chap. 5. The first cause why M. Du Perron would not make use of the Decretal Epi­stles of the Bishops of Rome of the three first ages; even because in many places they are contrary to the Roman Church of this time. page 253
  • Chap. 6. Other causes why the Cardinal would make no use of the Decretals of the three first ages. Of the barbarousness of those Decretals, and how Scrip­ture is profaned in them. page 255
  • Chap. 7. Evident untruths in the Decretals of the three first ages. The gross ignorance in History, of him that coined them. page 257
  • Chap. 8. That many of our Adversaries have acknowledged the untruth of those De­cretals. page 260
  • Chap. 9. Of the Popes motives for causing these false Decretals to be forged; and when and by whom they were forged. page 261
BOOK IV. Proving by the History of the Bishops of Rome from the year 300. of the Lord till two years after the death of Constantine the Emperour, which is the year of our Lord 340. That in all that age the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Ʋniversal Church.
  • Chap. 1. OF the idolatry of Marcellinus Bishop of Rome, and of the Coun­cil of Sinuessa. page 265
  • Chap. 2 Of the Judges given by Constantin to Cecilianus and to the Donatists. And of the Council of Arles. page 266
  • Chap. 3. Of the deliverance and establishment of the Church under Constantin. page 267
  • Chap. 4. Of the diversity of the Churches in observing the day of Easter. page 268
  • Chap. 5. Of the convocation of the Council of Nice; Answer to the Cardinal. page 269
  • Chap. 6. That the Bishop of Rome did not preside in the Council of Nice. Confuta­tion of the Cardinals assertion that Hosius was Legat of the Roman Church in that Council. page 270
  • Chap. 7. Of the Canon of Nice which sets limits to the Roman Bishoprick. And of the suburbicary Churches. Absurdity of the Cardinals interpretation. page 272
  • Chap. 8. Of the convocation of the Council of Tyr. page 275
  • Chap. 9. Death of Sylvester Bishop of Rome. How little his authority was. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Baptism and death of Constantin. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. How poor and weak and few are the proofs which Cardinal Du Perron brings out of the three first ages, till the year of Christ 340. to defend the Popes Primacy. page 276
  • [Page]Chap. 12. How our Adversaries being destitute of true proofs of the Popes primacy in the time that followed next to the three first ages, have forged false Epi­stles and supposititious Decrees. page 280
  • Chap. 13. Of Constantin's donation and the untruth of if. page 282
  • Chap. 14. Of the Baptism of Constantin mentioned in the same Donation. page 286
BOOK V. Proving by the Ecclesiastical History from the year of our Lord 340. unto the year 400. that then the Bishop of Rome would begin to exalt himself, but missed of his attempt. And what hindrances he met with.
  • Chap. 1. OF the persecutions happened to Athanasius. And how Julius Bishop of Rome would make himself Judge of his cause. Of the convo­cating, sitting, and success of the Council of Sardica. page 289
  • Chap. 2. Three points which the Cardinal finds in this History to establish the Popes primacy. And the falsifications which he accumulateth in this matter. page 292
  • Chap. 3. Of the Council of Sardica. page 297
  • Chap. 4. Of the convocating of the Council of Sardica. How much the Cardinal is mistaken in it. page 300
  • Chap. 5. Of the Presidency in the Council of Sardica. page 301
  • Chap. 6. Of Liberius Bishop of Rome, and of the Schism after his death. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Of the Fathers famous in that time, Hosius, Athanasius, Meletius, Gregory, Nazianzen. page 302
  • Chap. 8. Of Damasus Bishop of Rome, and of Basil Archbishop of Cesarea. Igno­rance of the Cardinal in the Greek tongue. page 303
  • Chap. 9. Of Peter Bishop of Alexandria, and of his retreat to Rome, and of Gre­gory Nazianzen Patriarch of Constantinople. page 305
  • Chap. 10. Of the convocating of the first Council of Constantinople, which is the se­cond Universal Council. How the Cardinal hath falsified the Epistle of the Oriental Bishops to Damasus Bishop of Rome. page 306
  • Chap. 11. Of the invitation and request of Damasus Bishop of Rome, whereby he de­sired the Bishops assembled in Council at Constantinople to transport them­selves to Rome, and come to the Council which Damasus held there; and of the small authority which the Council of Rome had in comparison of that of Constantinople. The Cardinals Faults. page 307
  • Chap. 12. Remarkable passages in the Council of Constantinople. page 308
  • Chap. 13. Of Hierome, and of the title of Pontifex left by the Emperour Gratian. page 309
  • Chap. 14. Of the abolition of the Penitentiary Priest by Nectarius. page 311
  • Chap. 15. Of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, and of John Chrysostom. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. Of Ambrose Bishop of Milan, and that in his time the Church of Milan was not subject unto the Bishop of Rome. page 312
  • Chap. 17. Contention of Paulinus and Flavianus competitours of the Patriarchat of Antioch. page 316
  • Chap. 18. Observations upon the History of the four first ages. And how the Cardinal hath found nothing in it for his purpose. ibid.
BOOK VI. Proving by the Papal History from the year of the Lord 400. unto the Council of Chalcedon, which is the IV. Ʋniversal Council, held in the year 451. That in all that time the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged the Head of the Ʋni­versal Church.
  • Chap. 1. NArration of that which happened to John Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople. Page 319
  • [Page]Chap. 2. Of the power of the Patriarchs of the fifth age. Page 323
  • Chap. 3. Of the Milevitan Council, and of the prohibition there made to appeal un­to Rome. The Cardinals answers are examined. Page 324
  • Chap. 4. Of the Schism hapned at Rome between Bonifacius and Eulatius. Page 327
  • Chap. 5. Of the Council of Carthage called the sixth. Of the appeals from Africa to Rome. The remonstrances of the Bishops of Africa to the Bishop of Rome upon that subject. Confutation of the 40. chapter of the Cardinals first book. Page 328
  • Chap. 6. Examination of the LII. chap. of the Cardinals first book about the above-mentioned Epistle of the 6. Council of Africa, written by the Fathers of the Council to Celestinus Bishop of Rome, concerning the appeals from Africa to Rome. Page 331
  • Chap. 7. Notes upon the XLVIII. and XLIX. Chapters of the first book of Cardinal du Perron. His ignorance in Greek. Page 337
  • Chap. 8. Of St. Austin Bishop of Bona in Africa. Whether he did acknowledge the Bishop of Rome head of the Universal Church. And what was in his time the order and dignity of Patriarchs and Apostolick Sees. Page 338
  • Chap. 9. Of the Epistles of the Bishops of Africa (of whom Austin was one) to Inno­cent the first Bishop of Rome. And that our Cardinal labours without ground to turn them to his advantage. Page 341
  • Chap. 10. A place of Austins 162. Epistle examined. Page 344
  • Chap. 11. Of Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople. Of the convocating of the first Council of Ephesus, which was the third Universal. And that the Empe­rours by their own single Authority convocated the Councils. Page 346
  • Chap. 12. Of the assembling of the first Council of Ephesus. The Cardinals falsifica­tions. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. That none but the Emperour could or ought to convocate an Universal Council: And that the Bishop of Rome did not meddle with that. Page 348
  • Chap. 14. Of the Patriarchs that were present in the first Council of Ephesus. And of the strife between Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and John Patriarch of Antioch. Page 349
  • Chap. 15. Of the order of sitting in the first Council of Ephesus. And in what quality Cyrillus did preside in it. How Monsieur du Perron corrupteth that Hi­story. Page 350
  • Chap. 16. Some incidencies happened in the first Council of Ephesus, or by occasion of the same, conducing to this question. Page 352
  • Chap. 17. Occasion of the second Council of Ephesus, and by whom it was convo­cated. Page 353
  • Chap. 18. Of the things happened in the 2. Council of Ephesus, and who presided in it. Page 354
  • Chap. 19. Of the appeal of Flavianus and of Theodoret Bishop of Cyr to Leo Bishop of Rome; And of the appeals in general. That the Cardinal did not un­derstand the nature of those appeals. Page 355
  • Chap. 20. Of the excommunication that Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria fulminated against Leo Bishop of Rome; and of other censures pronounced against the Bishop of Rome. Page 360
  • Chap. 21. Of the Letters, and of the Law of Valentinian the 3. And of the Law of the Emperour Leo, contrary to that of Valentinian. Page 361
  • Chap. 22. Of the ordination of the Patriarch of Antioch by that of Constantinople. Page 364
  • Chap. 23. Of the assembling of the Council of Chalcedon, which is the 4. universal Council. ibid
  • Chap. 24. Who presided in the Council of Chalcedon. Page 365
  • Chap. 25. Of that which past in the Council of Chalcedon, and of the Canons made in the same about the order of the Patriarchs, and the Ecclesiastial Po­licy. Page 366
  • Chap. 26. Of the 28th. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the protestation which the Legats of Leo Bishop of Rome made against it, and how they [Page] offered to falsifie a Canon of the Councel of Nice. Page 368
  • Chap. 27. Answer to the nullities which M. Du Perron brings against this canon of Chalcedon. Page 370
  • Chap. 28. Confutation of the exposition which M. du Perron giveth to the canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Page 372
  • Chap. 29. Of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon, and of the little credit which ought to be given to the Tomes of the Councils, both Greek and Latin. Page 373
  • Chap. 30. Answer to the examples which Cardinal du Perron brings in the 34. ch. to prove that notwithstanding this Canon of Chalcedon, the Bishops of Con­stantinople have been subject to the Bishop of Rome. Page 374
  • Chap. 31. A Summary Answer to the examples, posteriour to the 4. Universal Council brought by the Cardinal in his 34. Chapter. Page 376
  • Chap. 32. A multitude of falsifications of Cardinal du Perron. Page 382
BOOK. VII. Wherein divers Controversies are examined, handled by Cardinal du Perron in his second, third, fourth, and fifth Book.
  • First Controversie. Of the Invocation of Saints.
    • Chap. 1. STate and distribution of the question. Page 387
    • Chap. 2. That the glorified Saints know not all that is done in earth, and know not the hearts and thoughts of men. Confutation of the Cardinal. Page 388
    • Chap. 3. The opinion of the Fathers about this point. Page 391
    • Chap. 4. Examination of the Texts and Reasons which the Cardinal brings to prove that the Saints know all things, see our thoughts, and hear our prayers: His foul dealing is laid open. Page 396
    • Chap. 5. What assurance the Roman Church hath, that the Saints whom they call up­on, are true Saints. Page 399
    • Chap. 6. Whether Saints and Angels ought to be worshipped. Page 402
    • Chap. 7. What was the opinion of the three first Ages, and till the midst of the fourth, about the invocation of Saints and Angels. Page 406
    • Chap. 8. Vindication of Origen upon the point of Invocation of one only God, against the accusations of Cardinal du Perron. Page 410
    • Chap. 9. A place of Origens 8. book against Celsus falsified by Cardinal du Perron. Page 414
    • Chap. 10. Reasons why Hierome said, that the Fathers writing against the Pagans, often write against their own sense. Page 415
    • Chap. 11. Of the opinion of those that condemn not Invocation of Saints, but think it unnecessary. Page 418
    • Chap. 12. Opinion of the Fathers about invocation of Saints, from the year of the Lord 365. unto the fourth Council. Page 419
    • Chap. 13. What honour is due to Angels and deceased Saints, and of the worship of Dulia and Latria. Page 429
    • Chap. 14. Of the Legends of Saints. Page 433
    • Chap. 15. Of the Psalter attributed to St. Bonaventure. Page 434
  • Second Controversie. Of Images.
    • 1. Chap. OF Gods Images. Page 436
    • 2. Chap. Of the Images of Saints. Page 438
    • 3. Chap. Reasons of the Adversaries for the adoration of Images. Page 448
    • [Page]4. Chap. That the excuses and reasons which our adversaries bring for the defence of their Images, are the same which the Pagans alledged against the ancient Christians. Page 449
    • 5. Chap. When the Images of Saints were first brought into the Latine or Occidental Church, and of the progress of that abuse. Page 451
    • 6. Chap. Of the origine and progress of Images in the Greek & Oriental Churches. Page 452
  • Third Controversie. In answer to the third instance of the 4. Book of Cardinal du Perron. Of Prayer for the Dead.
    • 1. Chap. OF prayer for the dead, and of Purgatory. What Scripture saith of it. And of the Purgatory of the Primitive Church. Page 455
    • 2. Chap. Of Indulgences given unto the dead, and generally of Indulgences. 46 [...]
  • Fourth Controversie. Of the Celibat of Clerks and Monks.
    • 1. Chap. A Comparison of continent Virginity with Matrimony. That many Prophets and Apostles were married. Examination of the Cardinals shifts. Page 469
    • 2. Chap. That the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7. obligeth incontinent Clerks to marry: Con­futation of the Cardinals reasons. Page 472
    • 3. Chap. Another Text of the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 4. against the prohibition of mar­rying; examination of the Cardinals answers. Page 475
    • 4. Chap. Another Text of the same Epistle, 3. chap. Page 477
    • 5. Chap. Vindication of the assertion of his Majesty of Great Britain, that Canonists teach that Fornication is more tolerable in the Ministers of the Church then lawfull Matrimony. Page 479
    • 6. Chap. Answer to the reasons and testimonies which the Cardinal brings against the marriage of Clerks. Page 480
    • 7. Chap. What was the belief of the ancient Church about the marriage of the Mini­sters of the Church. The reasons and allegations of Cardinal du Perron are examined, and some of his falsifications observed. Page 483
    • 8. Chap. Examples of Clerks married, both Ancient and Modern. Page 492
    • 9. Chap. Confession of the Adversaries. Page 494
    • 10. Chap. Of the disorders happened by the Celibat. Also of the Carthusians, and of St. Francis, and his rule. Page 496
    • 11. Chap. Of affected austerity. Reasons whereby the Cardinal maintaineth professed slovenliness. The origine of Monks. Page 499
  • Fifth Controversie. Of Fasting.
    • Chap. 1. THat in the question of Fasting, and of Lent, M. du Perron doth not touch the state of the question, but discourseth about things not controverted. Page 505.
    • Chap. 2. That as sobriety and fasting are recommended in the word of God, so distin­ction of meats is condemned by the same. Page 507
    • Chap. 3. Of the custom of the ancient Church about distinction of meats. Page 508
    • Chap. 4. Of ordinary Fasts upon week days, practised in the ancient Church, and of Saturday Fast. Page 513
    • Chap. 5. Of the Fasts of Saturday, and the Lords day. Page 514
    • Chap. 6. Examination of the Proofs, whereby Cardinal du Perron goeth about to prove [Page] that Lent is of Divine institution. Page 515
    • Chap. 7. That Cardinal du Perron was ignorant of the origine of Lent, and in what sense that word was taken in the Antient Church. Diversity of ancient cu­stoms in this matter. Page 516
    • Chap. 8. How the discipline of fasting in the Roman Church is full of absurdity and abuse. Page 521
  • Sixth Controversie. Auricular Confession.
    • 1. Chap. FOur sorts of Confession in our Churches. Answer to the Cardi­dinal. Page 523
    • 2. Chap. That the testimonies of the Fathers which Cardinal du Perron objecteth to us to establish the auricular Confession are to no purpose. Some falsifications observed. Page 526.
    • 3. Chap. Of the Penitentiary Priest abolisht by Nectarius. How Cardinal du Perron al­tereth, and corrupteth that History. How he disguiseth and concealeth the doctrine of Chrysostom about confession. Page 528
    • 4. Chap. Why Cardinal du Perron contradicteth the Councils of Trent and Florence, making confession not to be part of the Sacrament of Penitence. That Pe­nitence cannot be called a Sacrament. Page 533
    • 5. Chap. What we find amiss in the auricular confession of the Roman Church. Page 537
    • 6. Chap. Examination of the 6. and 7. Chapters of the second observation, wherein Cardinal du Perron treats of the secret of confession, and of the danger thereby created unto the life of Kings. Page 542
  • Seventh Controversie. Of the Authority and power of the Pastors of the Church to pardon sins. And of Sacramental absolution.
    • 1. Chap. HOw negligently M. du Perron treats of Sacramental absolution. A summary answer to that he saith of that subject. Many Falsify­cations are observed. Page 550
    • 2. Chap. What is that pardon of sins which the Pastors of the Church grant, and how far their power to forgive sins extends. And of the power of the keys. Page 556
    • 3. Chap. That the Pastors of the Church cannot blot out sins before God. And cannot by pardoning sins exempt sinners from Gods judgement. That unto God alone, as the only judge of souls and consciences, it belongeth to forgive sins. And that the absolution of the Priests of the Roman Church is void and of no vertue. Page 559
    • 4. Chap. Proof of our doctrine by the antient Fathers; and even by the Roman Church. Page 566
    • 5. Chap. Of the abuse of the Keys, and of Absolution, both that which is called Sa­cramental, and that which is given without the Sacrament. Page 573
  • Eighth Controversie. Of Penitential satisfaction, where also is spoken of satisfaction in general.
    • 1. Chap. DOctrine of the Roman Church about penitential satisfaction. Page 585
    • 2. Chap. Of the word of satisfaction, State of the Question. Page 590
    • 3. Chap. That the holy Scripture makes Christ, and the merit of his death to be the ground of the remission of sins, as his death being the only ransom and propitiation for our sins. And that the Roman Church feigning to acknow­ledge [Page] the sufficiency and perfection of that satisfaction, debaseth and weakens it with all her power. Page 593
    • 4. Chap. This Maxime of the Roman Church is examined, that God having forgiven the whole fault, doth not always forgive the whole pain. Page 595
    • 5. Chap. Proofs of our adversaries, whereby they pretend to prove that God after all the fault is forgiven, inflicteth the satisfactory pain. Page 598
    • 6. Chap. That the satisfactions of the Roman Church derogate from Christs satisfacti­on, and are injurious against Gods Justce. 602. Page 602
    • 7. Chap. Causes why we especially reject the satisfactions of the pretended Sacrament of Penitence. Page 610
    • 8. Chap. Reasons of the Adversaries for humane satisfactions. Of the application of the merit of Christ. And of humane merits. Page 612
    • 9. Chap. That none can satisfie Gods Justice for another. Page 621
    • 10. Chap. Answer to the Invectives of our adversaries upon this matter. And of their reproach to this Author, that he is a Fryars Son. Page 625
    • 11. Chap. What tyrannie the Popes have exercised over England for some Ages under colour of absolution ann satisfaction. And from what horrible bondage England was delivered by the light of the Gospel. Page 629
    • 12. Chap. In what sense the word of Penitence is taken in Scripture, and in the Fa­thers. Page 658
    • 13. Chap. In what sense the words of Penitence and Satisfaction are taken in the wri­tings of the Fathers, and that the Penitence of the Ancient Church is much different from the Penitencies of the Rhman Church. Page 660
  • Ninth Controversie. Of the Necessity of Baptism.
    • 1. Chap. CArdinal du Perron's Reasons for the absolute necessity of Baptism. Examination of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon that point. How they abuse this Text, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Page 664
    • 2. Chap. Sense of the forealledged Text, Joh. 3.5. How unworthily and unjustly the Cardinal dealeth with Calvin. A notable ignorance of the Cardinal. Page 671
    • 3. Chap. How contemptible Baptism is in the Roman Church, and miserably dis­graced. Page 673
    • 4. Chap. The doctrine of our Churches, about the vertue and efficacy of Baptism. Page 674
    • 5. Chap. How the Romanists after they have disgraced Baptism, exalt it with improper praises. Page 675
  • Tenth Controversie. Of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
    • 1. Chap. STate of the Question, how M. du Perron doth not touch it, but wan­ders about useless discourse. Page 680
    • 2. Chap. That the Sacrifice of the Mass was not instituted by Christ. And of the fruit and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Page 681
    • 3. Chap. Examination of the Cardinals reasons, to prove that the Fathers call the Eu­charist a Sacrifice in a proper, not in a Metaphorical sense. Page 684
    • 4. Chap. That the Fathers call the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, because it is the commemo­ration of the Sacrifice of Christs death. Page 686
    • 5. Chap. Examination of the Cardinals shifts. Page 690
    • 6. Chap. Other reasons for which the Fathers called the Lords Supper a Sacrifice. Page 692
  • Eleventh Controversie. Of the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament: And of Transubstan­tiation.
    • 1. Chap. OF the first Institution of the holy Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per. Page 694
    • 2. Chap. That the doctrine of the real presence, and of transubstantiation, is repug­nant [Page] to Christs institution. The Cardinals reasons are examined. Page 696
    • 3. Chap. Of the sense of the 6. chap. of Iohn, and of the spiritual manducation of the body of Christ, and how many absurdities and inconveniencies follow the oral manducation of Christs flesh taught in the Roman Church. Page 705
    • 4. Chap. How and in what sense the Fathers alledged by the Cardinal call the Sacra­ment the body of Christ, and say that Christs body is made in the Eucha­rist, and that we eat his flesh in it. Answer to the Cardinals deprava­tions. Page 710
    • 5. Chap. That the Fathers did not believe transubstantiation, but believed that the sub­stance of bread and wine remaineth after the consecration. Page 723
    • 6. Chap. What is the signification of the word Sacrament. And in what sense the Fa­thers call the Eucharist the body of Christ. Page 731
    • 7. Chap. That the Fathers not only call that which we receive in the Eucharist, sign, figure, symbol, type, and antitype; but also teach that the words of the Lord are Sacramental, that is, in these words the name of the thing signi­fied is given to the sign. Page 732
    • 8. Chap. Some passages of Austin, wherein he teacheth that Christs words. This is my body, and except you eat my flesh, &c. are figurative. The Cardinals an­swers are examined. Page 737
    • 9. Chap. Examination of Cardinal du Perron's answer, whereby he endeavours to give reasons why the Fathers call the bread and wine of the Lords Supper, signs, figures, types, and symbols of the body and blood of Christ, even after the consecration. Page 743
    • 10. Chap. Some passages of the Councils upon this subject. Page 745
    • 11. Chap. That the Fathers did not believe accidents without subject in the Eu­charist. Page 748
    • 12. Chap. That the Fathers not only speak of a Spiritual manducation, which is not done with the mouth, but also understand Christs words, Ioh. 6. of a Spi­ritual manducation. Page 751
    • 13. Chap. That the Fathers believed not that the wicked and unbelievers, or hypocrites could eat the Lords body. Page 754
    • 14. Chap. Confutation of two shifts, which the Cardinal useth upon all occa­sions. Page 755
    • 15. Chap. Shewing how the Fathers say, that the Fathers of the Old Testament ate the same meat which we eat in the Eucharist. Page 760
    • 16. Chap. That the Fathers believed not that the body of Christ is really present under the element of bread, but that he is in heaven only, not in earth. Page 764
    • 17. Chap. That the Fathers acknowledge the same participation of the body and blood of the Lord in Baptism, and in the preaching of the word as in the Lords Supper. Page 767
    • 18. Chap. After what manner the Christian Church of the first Ages celebrated the Lords Supper. How the ancient Customes shew evidently that they be­lieved not the real presence. Page 768
    • 19. Chap. Proofs of the customs represented in the chapter before. Page 771
    • 20. Chap. Of the adoration of the Sacrament. Weakness of the Cardinals proofs. How he falsifieth Scripture. Examination of his allegations. Page 776
    • 21. Chap. That in the first ages of the Christian Church the Sacrament was not wor­shipped. The Cardinals allegations and proofs are examined. Page 778
    • 22. Chap. The Cardinals allegations out of the Fathers are examined, beginning at his allegations out of the Catecheses of Gregory of Nyssa. Page 783
    • 23. Chap. Answer to the other allegations of the same chapter. Page 786
    • 24. Chap. Answer to the authorities and reasons brought by Cardinal du Perron in the 14, 15. and 16. chapters. Page 788
    • 25. Chap. How the Cardinal sends the Reader to a larger Book of his of the Eu­charist. That the beginning of that Book sheweth what one should think of the rest. Page 792
  • [Page]Twelfth Controversie.
    • Of the Communion in one kind. And of the power which Cardinal du Perron ascribeth unto the Church, that is, to the Pope, to dispense from the command­ment of Christ. Page 793
  • Thirteenth Controversie. Of private Masses.
    • Chap. 1. OF Private Masses. And the shameful traffick of the same. page 801
    • Chap. 2. That Masses without communicants and assistants, said to the intention of a private man that prayeth for them, are repugnant unto the Word of God. page 803
    • Chap. 3. That the antient Church did not know private or particular Masses, and did not celebrate the holy Sacrament without communicants and assistants, to the intention of a particular person. page 805
  • Fourteenth Controversie. The Antibarbarous. OR, Of unknown Language: Both in the prayers of private persons, and in the publick Service. Where also the principal clauses of the Mass are represented, which might offend the people if they understood them.
    • Chap. 1. THat false Religions love obscurity, but true Religion brings her do­ctrine to light, and keeps nothing hidden. page 810
    • Chap. 2. Two differences between us and the Roman Church about unknown Lan­guage. page 813
    • Chap. 3. Of Prayers of particular persons in a tongue unknown to the very persons that pray. page 814
    • Chap. 4. That in the Ancient Church every man prayed in his own Tongue. page 816
    • Chap. 5. That the publick Service in a Languge not understood, is contrary to the Word of God and to reason. page 817
    • Chap. 6. The same is proved by the example of the Church of the Old Testament. page 822
    • Chap. 7. That the ancient Christian Church over all the World used an intelligible tongue in the publick Service. page 823
    • Chap. 8. Two causes that move the Pope and his Clergy to maintain the celebration of Mass and of the ordinary Service in the Latin tongue. page 828
    • Chap. 9. A third cause why they will not have the Mass to be understood by the peo­ple. Some clauses of the Mass which would offend the people if they were understood. ibid.
    • Chap. 10. Examination of the reasons of our Adversaries; Of Card. Du Perron espe­cially. page 836
    • Chap. 11. Examination of the proofs which the Cardinal brings out of Antiquity for the Service in a strange tongue. page 841
    • Chap. 12. How Latine was brought into the Divine Service in France and Spain. page 843
    • Chap. 13. Of England and Germany, and how the Roman Service and the Latin tongue were received in those Countries. page 846
    • Chap. 14. Of Africa, and how the Service in the Latine Tongue came to it. page 849
    • The Authors Thanksgiving to GOD for the finishing of this Work. page 851.

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

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:

Every Society must have a communion of parts among themselves.

The Church is a Society: Ergo,

The Church must have a communion of parts among themselves.

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

The Church must have communion among her parts.

Now the predestinate have no communion among them: Ergo,

The predestinate are not the Church.

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:

The Church is the body of Christ, by analogy to an organical body.

Now it is the essence of an organical body to have divers organs and offices:

Those offices and organs are in the Church, not by Predestination, but by the outward and visible calling.

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:

All bodies have organs, and several offices.

Now among the Elect there is no such organs and offices: Ergo,

The Elect do not make a body in the Church.

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:

S. Paul saith, that God hath tempered the honour of the members, that there be no schism in the body.

Now the predestinate are not susceptible of schism, as predestinate, but as called: Ergo,

It is not Predestination, but Vocation, that constitutes the body of the Church.

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:

S. Paul saith, that every man is a lyar.

Now the predestinate are not susceptible of a lye, as predestinate, but as men: Ergo,

It is not Predestination, but Humanity, that Constitutes the Body of Man.

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:

The Church is our Mother, Gal. 4.26.

Now the Church doth not beget us by Predestination, but by Vocation. Ergo,

It is Vocation, not Predestination, which constitutes the Church, in the state of a Church, and Mother of the faithful.

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:

One knows his Mother, before he knows his Father.

Now our certainty of being children of the Church, cannot be a means to make us know that we are Gods children: Ergo,

The definition of the Church must consist in the Vocation, not in the Predestina­tion.

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.

I. Of Traditions and the unwritten Word.

IOsephus in the 13. Book of Antiquities, Chap. 18. speaks thus of the Pharisees: [...]. They have given many rules and observations by the succession of Fa­thers, which are not written in the Laws of Moses. Wherefore also Jesus Christ, Matth. 15.3, 9. taxeth them to have transgressed the Commandment of God by their Traditions. Which Traditions for the most part, were not Doctrines di­rectly contrary to the Law, but additions and superstitious observations, and Doctrines not commanded; as to make long their Phylacteries, to fast twice a week, to use many washings, &c.

The old Hereticks have followed them: for where Scripture failed them, they had recourse unto Tradition. Iraeneus chap. 2. of the third Book against Here­sies, shews it:Dicunt quod ex Scri­pturis non potest inveni­ri veritas. Non enim per literas tradi­tam illam sed per vivam vocem. Hereticks say, That the truth cannot be found out of the Scri­ptures, by them that are ignorant of the Tradition, because it was not delivered by letters, but viva voce. There you have the unwritten word. And Eusebius in the last chapter of the third Book of his History, saith, that Papias Bishop of Hie­rapolis, Disciple of St. John, gave himself to unwritten Doctrines, and so brought in strange and fabulous things.

That which is most to be noted, is, that they defended their Traditions and the unwritten Word by the same reasons as the Roman Church in our dayes de­fends unwritten Traditions: For Irenaeus saith in the fore-alleadged place, that those Hereticks fenced themselves with St. Pauls words, 1 Cor. 2.6. We speak wisdom among them that are perfect; Which TextLib. de verbo Dei non scripto. c. 8. §. Acce­dat. Bellarmin likewise useth for the defence of the unwritten Word.

Tertullian in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks, written before he turned Montanist, Chap. 25. saithNon om­nia volunt il­los revelasse; quaedam enim palam & universis, quaedam secreto & paucis demandasse. the Hereticks of his time would affirm, that the Apostles had not revealed all things unto all, but that they had com­manded [Page 39] some things publikely, some privately unto a few persons. But himself being turned Heretick, defends his heresie by the unwritten Tradition in the book of Monogamie, Chap. 2. affirming that Christ sent us back to Tradition, when he saith, I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them yet, And Austin in the 97. Treatise upon St. John. Omnes insipientissi­mi haeretici qui se Christi­anos vocant, audacias fig­mentorum su­orum quas maxime ex­horret sensus humanus, hac occasione Evangelicae sententiae co­lorare solent, Adhuc habeo multa vobis dicere. All the unwise Hereticks that bear themselves for Christians, will colour the boldness of their inventions, which humane sense abhorreth, with the pretence of this sentence of the Gospel, I have many things to say unto you: Which are the same reasons and Texts which Bellar­mine useth to under prop Traditions and the unwritten Word. SeeBellarm lib. de verbo Dei non scri­pto. c. 5. §. Ad primum; & cap. 11. §. hora. Bellarmine in his Book of the unwritten word, Chap. 5. & 11.

Ireneus saith in the 3. Book, chap. 2. ThatCum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem vertuntur ipsa­rum Scripturarum, quasi non posset inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem. the Valentinians and other He­reticks when they are confuted by the Scriptures, will accuse the very Scriptures. And they say that the Truth cannot be found out by such as are ignorant of the Tradition. This is the language of our Adversaries, who being prest by the Scri­ptures, will say, that Scripture is obscure and ambiguous, and contains not all that is necessary to salvation, and so send us to the unwritten word.

II. Of the Images of God.

THe Hereticks called Vadiani or Audiani, would represent God in an humane shape, as Austin Vadiani cogitatio te carnali finge­bant Deum ad similitudinem corruptibilis hominis. attesteth, chap. 50. ad quod vult Deum. Nicephorus speaking of the Armenians and Jacobites in chap. 53. of the 18. Book, saith, They represented the Images of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost, which is a most absurd thing. An Error condemned by Pope Gregory the II. in an Epistle in­serted in Baronius, an. 726. But Baronius notes in the margent, that the Church observeth that rule no more: For the Roman Church chose rather to follow the antient Hereticks, then to obeyDeut. 4.15. & 16. Gods command, who forbids to represent God in the likeness of male or female.

III. Of the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints.

IReneus, Book 1. chap. 24. speaks thus of the Gnosticks,Habent imagines quasdam de­pictas, quas­dam de reli­qua materia fabricatas, di­centes esse formam fa­ctam à Pila­to. They have some painted Images, and some other formed with other matter, saying that they are the figure of Christ, made by Pilate. The like is in the Roman Church where they have Images of Jesus Christ, which they say to have been made by St. Luke. Au­stin in the first book of Heresies, Ad quod vult Deum, saith that Simon Magus Imagi­nesque & su­am & ejus­dem meretri­cis Discipu­lis suis praebebat adorandam. made his Disciples to worship Images, his own and his Harlot's. And in the Chap. 7.Sectae Carpocratis traditur fuisse socia quaedam Marcellina quae colebat imagines Jesu, & Pauli, & Pythagorae, eas adorando incensumque ponendo. Marcellina of the Sect of Carpocrates, served the Images of Jesus, and Paul, and Pythagoras, worshipping them, and giving them Incense. Epiphanius saith the same in the 27. Heresie. And in the first Book of the manners of the Ca­tholick Church, Chap. 34.Novi multos esse Sepulchrorum & Picturarum adoratores. I know many worshippers of Sepulchers and Pictures: I know many that will drink with excess over the dead. And in the first Book of the consent of the Evangelists in the 10. chapter.Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos, non in Sanctis Codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt; nec mirum fi à pingentibus fingentes decepti sunt. So they deserve [Page 39] to fall into errour, that have sought Jesus Christ and the Apostles, not in the holy Scriptures, but in painted wals. Eusebius in the seventh Book of his History, chap. 17. speaking of the Statue of Jesus Christ at Paneas, which is Cesarea Phi­lippi, and of the images of the Apostles, saith, that it was done by some [...], by an heathenish custom, thus to honour those whom they think to be their Saviours. Wherefore the Eliberin Synod, Canon thirty six,Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas esse non debere, ne quod coli­tur aut ado­ratur, in pari­etibus pinga­tur. forbids to to put any image in the Churches, for fear that the thing that is adored be painted on the wals. Saint Epiphanius in great anger tore a vail in the Church of Ana­blata, wherein the Image of Jesus Christ, or some Saint was painted, as himself saith in his Epistle to John of Jerusalem, whichApud Hieron. Tom. 2. Saint Hierom hath trans­lated.

But that which is most to be noted, is, that the Pagans and the makers of ima­ges defended the images of their Gods with the same reasons, as the Roman Church useth for the images of the Saints. Tertullian of the Book of idolatry, chap. 5. saith, that theCur er­go Moses in cremo simula­chrum ex aere fecit? Image-makers alledged the example of Moses, who made the brazen Serpent. Arnobius in the sixt Book against the Gentiles, saith, that the Pagans called images the Books of ideots.

Eusebius in the third Book of Evangelical Preparation, chap. 7. alledgeth Porphyrius the sworn enemy of Jesus Christ, saying, that men have represented divine vertues to the sense by familiar images, [...]. having figured things not ap­pearing by visible works, to them that by statues as by books have learned to know divine doctrine. So spake the mortal enemies of Christ.

Athanasius in his oration against the Gentiles, saith, that they excused them­selves, saying, [...]. the images were unto men like the Scriptures, upon which fixing their sight, they may comprehend something of Gods knowledge. And a little after, [...]. If those images be unto you as Scriptures to contemplate God, as you falsly say, All that is the language of the Roman Church.

Also the excuse of Image-worshippers is borrowed from the Pagans; for Austin makes one of them speaks thus,August. in Psalm. 113. Nec simulacrum, nec daemonium co­lo, sed per effigiem corporalem ejus rei signum intueor quam colere debeo. I serve not the image nor the devil; but in this bodily representation, I see the sign of the thing which I must worship.

IV. Of the Service of Angels, and of their mediation with God.

THe Roman Church serveth Angels contrary to the Apostles prohibition, Col. 2.18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and ser­vice of Angels, &c.

Tertullian in the Book of Prescriptions, chap. 33.Simoni­anae discipli­nae Magia Angelis servi­ens. The Magick of the Si­monian discipline which serveth Angels. Austin ad Quod vult Deum, puts the An­gelicks among the Hereticks, who in Angelorum cultu fuerunt inclinati, bowed themselves in the service of Angels. They have been condemned by the Council of Laodicea, Can. 35. [...], &c. Christians must not leave the Church of God, go away, call upon Angels, and make Assemblies: and if any be found serving to that secret ido­latry, let him be accursed; because he hath left our Lord Jesus Christ.

Of which order and the cause thereof, Theodoret speaks thus in his Comment upon Col. 2. That vice of serving Angels, hath long been used in Phrygia and Pisi­dia: Wherefore the Synod of Laodicea, which is the Mother-City of Phrygia, ex­presly forbids praying to Angels: and yet to this day they have among them Oratories of Saint Michael: which last words are remarkable; for in the Roman Church, there are many Oratories of Saint Michael: Note that he saith expresly, that the [Page 41] Council forbids praying to Angels: And that one may not say, that those ancient Hereticks adored Angels as Gods, and bestowed Divine worship upon them, which the Church of Rome doth not; Theodoret addeth, that they served Angels out of humility, pretending to go to God by the intercession of Angels. They said, that the God of the Ʋniverse is invisible, but that he is accessible by his Angels: And this is the same thing that Saint Paul saith, by humility and service of Angels: Wherefore Cardinal Baronius an. 60. §. 20. is displeased with Theodoret, and taunts him.Ex his videas The­odoretum haud feliciter (ejus pace dictum sit) assecutum esse Pauli verbo­rum sensum. Theodoret (saith he) by his leave, hath not well understood the sense of Saint Pauls words.

The Pagans would alledge the same reason, saying, that they addrest themselves unto Demons and inferior Spirits, that they might present their prayers to the Gods, and help them with their intercession. Austin in the eighth Book of the City of God,Frilstra eis [daemoni­bus] hunc de­tulit hono­rem, ut quo­niam nullus Deus miscetur homini (quod Platonem dixisse perhi­bent) isti ad Deos perse­rant pre­ces nostras. In vain (saith he) Apulenis hath deferred that honour to the Demons, that they should make a report unto the Gods of our prayers, because no God is mingled with man. And in the twenty second chapter, he saith, that they ac­counted them inter Deos & homines internuncios, & beneficiorum impetratores, to be mediators between God and men, and obtainers of benefits. In the twenty sixt chapter, he alledgeth Hermes saying to Aesculapius, thatAvus tuus O Asclepi, medicinae primus inventor, omnia nunc hominibus adjumenta praestans nu­mine suo quae antea solebat medicinae arte praebere. his Grandfather having invented medicine on earth, was esteemed to heal the sick even after his death. In that manner the Roman Church speaks unto the Saints, employing Angels for intercessors, and addressing her self unto certain Saints in certain sicknesses.

And Epiphanius in the heresie of the Simonians, which is the twenty one, re­lates, that Simonians would say, that [...]. by the [Angelical] principalities and powers, sacrifices must be offered to the Father of the Ʋniverse.

V. Of the adoration of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of the title of Queen of Heaven attributed to her in the Roman Church.

IN the forty fourth chapter of Jeremy, v. 17. the Idolaters make profession of wor­shipping the Queen of heaven, saying, We will burn incense to the Queen of heaven. And Apuleius in his eleventh Book cals the MoonApud Miles. 11. Regina coeli, sive tu Ceres. the Queen of hea­ven. That profane name hath been transported to the holy and blessed Virgin Mary, by some old Hereticks named Collyridians, against whom Epiphanius writes in the seventy nine heresie, where after a long discourse, he condemneth the women that worshipped the Virgin Mary, saying, that such an honour be­longs not to a woman, no not to the Angels. He addeth, [...]. Let such women be represt by Jeremiah, and let them trouble the earth no more, and say no more, We honour the Queen of Heaven. He had said a little before, If God will not have the Angels to be adored, much less her that was born of Anna.

[...]
[...]

VI. Of the Adoration of Inanimate things.

THe Pagans worshipped some inanimate, some irrational things; the Sun, the Moon, the Ox, &c. The Roman Church worshippeth the ashes, the bones, and the rags of the dead. The second Council of Nice, which is reckoned as the seventh Universal, in the IV. Action, saith, We worship the ashes, the rags, the blood, and the Sepulchers of Martyrs. Bellarmine by an express Book maintains the adoration of relicks. All the Romanists speak the same language, and it is a common practice. The Jesuite Vasquez in his 2. Book of the Adoration, in the 4. Disputation, and the 4. Chapter, saith thatRes ina­nimata jure naturae ado­rari potest. by right of nature a thing in­animate may be worshipped: Yea he comes so far as to say, thatVasquez lib. 3. de Ado­ratione, Disp. 1. cap. 2. It is lawful to worship the earth, yea to adore a straw.

VII. That the Papists imitate the Pharisees and Jews in many things.

1. THe Pharisees did study to make works of supererogation, and works not commanded, as to fast twice a week, and to give the tithes of all their goods, Luke 18.12.

2. They had Traditions, and an unwritten word, as we shewed before.

3. They boasted of Moses Chair, as the Roman Church of that of St. Peter, and of an imaginary succession.

4. They taught that concupiscence was no sin, as one may see in [...]. Josephus 13. chapter of the 12. Book of Antiquities. And Jesus Christ, Matth. 5.28. re­buketh the Scribes and Pharisees for misinterpreting the Law; holding that he that had lookt upon his neighbours wife with a lustful eye, was not guilty of adul­tery. The Council of Trent in the 5. Session, declareth that the coveting prohi­bited in the Law, which St. Paul speaks of, Rom. 7.7. is no sin, although the Law of God forbid it, and St. Paul call it sin.

5. The Pharisees used vain repetitions in their prayers, and for that were condemned by Jesus Christ, Matth. 6.7. The Roman Church doth the same, repeating the same prayers while they turn their beads, and binding themselves to a certain number of reiterated words.

6. The Priests and Pharisees had brought the traffick and the market into the Temple. Wherefore Jesus Christ, Joh. 2. accuseth them to have turned the House of God, which is a house of prayer, into an house of merchandize. Likewise the Pope and the Clergy of Rome have brought into the Church the traffick of absolutions, dispensations, annates, benefices, &c. Of which the Popes themselves and the Doctors of the Roman Church complain.

7. The Pharisees and Scribes to exempt themselves from giving account of the corruption of the doctrine which they had brought into the Church of the Jews, stopt Christ and his Apostles with questions about their Mission or Voca­tion, saying to the Lord Jesus, With what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? Matth. 21.23. And Act. 4.7. By what power, or by what name have ye done this? The Roman Church followeth that example; and that she may not be obliged to defend her Doctrine against our Objections, stops us about our mission, and asks us reason of our calling.

8. The Pharisees demanded miracles of Jesus Christ, and that he would shew them some sign: The same demand our Adversaries press upon us.

9. The Pharisees were nice in small Observations and Ceremonies, but left the principal, and the Essence of Piety. They washed pots, they tithed mint, annise, and cummin, but left the principal, even judgement and mercy, Mat. 23.23. [Page 43] The Roman Church doth the like, exactly observing distinction of meats, and Rogation weeks, and amusing the people about a thousand petty Ceremonies of Candles, Pilgrimages, Holy dayes, &c. but instructing not the people in the Redemption by Jesus Christ, and justification by Faith, and hiding holy Scripture from them.

10. The Pharisees preacht justification by the works of the Law, and the Jews were forestalled with that Doctrine; which made the Apostle St. Paul so carefully and throughly to confute that Error in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Ga­latians, establishing justification by faith without the works of the Law. This is also one of our principal quarrels against the Roman Church, which takes part with the Pharisees, by teaching justification by works.

11. The Scribes and Pharisees were taxed by Jesus Christ for adorning and beautifying the Sepulchers of the Prophets, while they persecuted those that fol­lowed the Doctrine of the Prophets, Matth. 23.29. The like they do in the Ro­man Church: they reverence the relicks of the Apostles, but persecute them that follow the Doctrine of the Apostles.

12. The Jews did boast of the Temple of God, crying up, The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord, Jer. 7. and in the mean while profaned that Temple by their life. So doth the Roman Church, making a great noise with the title of the Church; a name used for a shelter of Errors, and to set up ty­rannie: For the Pope hath changed the Church, which is a spiritual Kingdom, into a temporal Monarchy.

13. The Jews being enemies of the Prophets, yet boasted that their Pro­phets and Priests could not err, saying, Jer. 18.18. The Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor the counsel from the wise, nor the Word from the Prophet. But God contradicteth that presumption, saying, Ezek. 7.26. The Law shall perish from the Priest, and the counsel from the antient. This is also the boasting of the Roman Church, that the Pope, as Pope, cannot fall into Error, and that the Church of Rome cannot err.

VIII. Of the Fulfilling of the Law, and of the Perfection of Justice.

THe Pelagian Hereticks taught that man can fulfill the Law of God, saying that God should be unjust, if he enjoyned us to do things which we cannot do, and gave us a Law which is above our strength to obey. Austin is diligent in confuting that doctrine, in the Book of Perfection of Righteousness. In the sixth Reason, Celestius a Pelagian argueth thus;Iterum quaerendum est utrum praeceptum homini sit si­ne peccato esse. Aut enim non potest & praeceptum non est; aut quia praecep­tum est potest. Nam cur prae­ciperetur quod fieri om­nino non po­test? It must be asked again, whe­ther it be commanded to man to be without sin: For either man cannot be without sin, and by consequent, that is not commanded; or he can, because it is commanded: For why should an impossible thing be commanded? And in the eleventh reason, In vain should that be forbidden, or commanded, which cannot be avoided, or which cannot be fulfilled. This is directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and the objections of our Adversaries, whereby they go about to make our Doctrine odious; saying, that as much as in us lyeth we make God unrighteous, when we say, that he hath given us Commandments which we cannot fulfil. To which we answer with Austin, August. lib. de cor­ruptione & gratia, cap. 3. O homo in praeceptione cognosce quid debeas agere, in corruptione cognosce tuo te nitio non habere, in oratione cognosce unde accipias quod vis habere. in the same place, That it is no injustice to ask of a man what he oweth, although he be unable to pay, especially when his unableness comes by his fault: And that God requiring of us more then we can do, teacheth us what we must ask of him, and what he will do in us by his grace.

IX. Of Semipelagianism.

IN this the Semipelagians differed from the Pelagians, that they acknowledged Original sin, and distinguished between Nature and Grace. Yet they had a secret Intelligence with the Pelagians, in that they made Grace to be alwayes joyned with Nature, saying that to the end that men may be saved, God giveth to all men an universal and sufficient grace; the use whereof depends from mans free will. This their Doctrine is set down in the Epistle of Prosper to Austin, and in the Epistle of Hilary to the same, inserted in the VII. Tome of St. Austin. It is the Doctrine of the Roman Church of this time. A doctrine confuted by Austin in his Answer to these Epistles, with the same reasons as we use this day.

X. Of the Limbus of little Children.

THe Pelagians put the little children dead without Baptism, in a middle condi­tion between Hell and the Kingdom of Heaven, in which they were ex­empt from pain, as it is attested by Austin in the Book of Heresies, ad quod vult Deum, Chap. 88. An opinion which that holy Doctor opposeth with all his strength in many places, especially in the first Book of the origine of the soul; and in the 107. Epistle, and in the 14. Sermon De verbis Apostoli: Also in the Book of the good of Perseverance, Chap. 10.12. and in many other places, where he stifly maintaineth that between Paradise and Hell there is no third place. Upon that opinion of the Pelagians the Limbus was built, wherein the Ro­man Church shuts up little children dead without Baptism, where they feel no pain, but are excluded from the sight of God, and the Heavenly glory. Only that our Adversaries may seem in something to disagree from the Pelagians, they will not give to the condition of those children the title of beatitude or blessedness.

XI. Of Swearing by the Creatures.

THe Hereticks whom Epiphanius calls Ossenians, did teach to swear by the creatures, as the same Epiphanius witnesseth. They swore by the salt, by the water, by the bread, by the heaven, and by the wind. Austin in the 19. Book against Faustus the Manichean, in the 22. chap. upbraideth the Manicheans, that they swore by the light, and by the flies, and by Manicheus; contrary to the rule of Gods Law, which saith Deut. 10.20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by his Name. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, expounding the Commandment of the Law, which forbiddeth to take the Name of God in vain, teacheth to swear by the cross, by the reliques, and by the Name of God. The Jesuite Vasquez in the third Book of the Adoration, Disp. 1. cap. 2. saith, The unreasonable and the inanimate creature may be the matter of an Oath, which is an Act of Religion. Which none needs to wonder at, since he maintains that one can adore things inanimatte, even a straw, with the cult of Latria. The excuse of those Hereticks was, that by swearing by those creatures, they swore by him that made them, which is the excuse that the same Council of Trent brings: For our Adversaries bind themselves Prentices to the antient Hereticks. Whereas [Page 45] Jesus Christ, Matth. 5.34. forbids us to swear by Heaven, because Heaven is the Throne of God. The Jews swearing by Heaven, could bring the same ex­cuse, and say they intended to swear by him that made Heaven, and hath placed his Throne in it.

XII. Of Perjury.

THe Hereticks calledThey used to say Jura, perjura; secretum pro­dere noli. Priscillianists taught perjury, as Austin saith in the 70. Chap. ad quod vult Deum. The Roman Church also is a School of per­jury; for the Pope dispenseth from the Oaths made unto God, and dispenseth the Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance to a Soveraign PrinceLicet ju­dici compe­tenti de hu­jusmodi per­sonarum erro­ribus inqui­rere, & alias contra eos de­bitè proce­dere, eos­demque puni­re, quantum justitia sua­debit, si suos errores revo­care pertina­citer recusa­verint, etiamsi de salvo conductu consisi ad locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi.. The Council of Constance hath made an express Canon about it, in the XIX. Session, whereby it is declared, that a Prince who hath given a safe conduct to Hereticks, without which they would not have come, may proceed against them, and put them to death, contrary to the Faith given them. The inscription of the ch. Sicut nostris, in the 2. of the Decretals, in the IV. Title, is such, Juramen­tum contra Ecclesiasticam utilitatem praestitum non tenet. The Oath made against the profit of the Church bindeth not. Where by the profit of the Church, they understand the temporal profit and commodity: That Decretal is of Pope In­nocent the III. See the Canon Alius, in the 15. Cause, Quest. 6. and the Gloss upon that Canon, where it is disputed, whether a debtor be obliged to pay a sum due to an Excommunicate person. Hence come the equivocations in justice taught by the Jesuites, whereby a man may with a good conscience deny Christian Religion before an unrighteous Judge, saying, I am no Christian, with this mental reservation, to tell it you, or since three dayes.

XIII. Of Believing without Knowing.

THe Valentinian Hereticks would have their people to believe them without enquiring. Tertullian in the first Book against the Valentinians, chap. 1. saith,Ne discipu­lis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Ha­bent artifici­um quo prius persuadent quam edo­ceant. Veritas autem docen­do persua­det & sua­dendo docet. They discover not [their doctrine] to their own Disciples, before they have made them their own. That Art they have, to perswade before they teach. Now the Truth perswadeth by teaching, and teacheth by counselling. That is the very impli­cite faith of the People of the Roman Church, which believeth without knowing what the Church must believe; and believeth what the Roman Church be­lieveth, not knowing whether that Church teach conformably to the Word of God.

XIV. Of forbidding the people to read Scripture.

HOly Athanasius in his 2. Tome disputeth against some Hereticks that dis­swaded the people from reading the Holy Scripture, pretending that it is too high & difficult for the people; but the real cause why they did so, was, because Scripture was contrary to them.Pag. 241. [...]. They turn the people away (saith he) from the Scriptures, pretending that they dare not undertake [to come neer them] as unacces­sible; but the truth is, that they flie the Scriptures for fear of being convinced by them.

XV. Of Purgatory and Satisfaction after this life.

EPiphanius in the 21. Heresie, relateth that the Simonians taught [...]. the purgation of souls. Austin in his Book of Heresies, ad quod vult Deum, chap. 43. ascribeth the same Error to the Originists, saying, There are also other opinions of the same Origines, which the Catholick Church doth not re­ceive at all; Those especially that concern purgation and deliverance. Such was the opinion of Plato in the Phedon or Dialogue of the Soul, as Eusebius hath observed in the last chapter of the 11. Book of the Evangelical Preparation. [...]. Those (saith he) that have lived indifferently well, come to that lake, and there dwell, and being purged, and having born the pain of their iniquities, they are released. Virgil hath followed him, speaking thus of the souls of Purgatory, Aeneid. 6.

— Aliae panduntur inanes
Suspensae ad ventos, aliis sub gurgite vasto
Infectum eluitur scelus, aut exuritur igni.

Out of that source Purgatory is sprung. As for the purgation of souls at the wind or in the water, Pope Gregory the I. teacheth it, in the 4. Book of his Dia­logues; where there are many apparitions of souls, saying that they are in Pur­gatory, in the wind, or in the water, or in hot Bathes: For the Purgatory in a sub­terranean fire was not yet invented.

XVI. Of Prayer and Service in an Ʋnknown Tongue.

THe Ossenians (as Epiphanius relates in the 19. Heresie) made prayers in an unknown tongue, being unwilling to be understood by the people. Austin chap. 16. ad quod vult Deum, saith the same of the Heracleonites; And Hierome in the Epitaph of Lucinius Andalusian, saith that they amazed the people with a barbarous tone, so that they admired that most which they un­derstood least. Of that the reason is given by Clemens Alexandrinus in the first Book of the Stromates, namely thatPag. 146. [...]. men hold prayers pronounced in an un­known tongue to be most effectual.

That abuse is past into the Roman Church which blindfoldeth the people, and keepeth them in a stupid awe by a service in a barbarous tongue; using Laymen to pray to God, not understanding what they say to him. We shall hear in the progress of this work the Cardinal saying to us,Du Per­ron Book 6. chap. 1. p. 1080. that the me­rit of Faith is there greater, where there is less intelligence. Conformably toBellar­min. lib. 1. de justificatione c. 7. §. judicium. Fides distinguitur contra scientiam, & melius per ignorantiam quam per notiti­am definitur. Bellarmines saying, that Faith is opposite to science, and is better defined by ignorance then by knowledge,

XVII. Of distinction of Meats.

IT cannot be denied but that many antient Christians have abstained from cer­tain meats upon fasting dayes. Yet if the matter be searcht at the spring, it will be found that Hereticks were the first authors of distinction of meats. Ter­tullian who writ two hundred years after the nativity of Christ, was a sectator of the heretick Montanus, of whom Eusebius after Apollinaris speaks thus, in the 17. Chapter of the first Book of his History; [...]. Montanus hath set Laws about fasting. The same Tertullian hath written a Book Contra Psychicos, that is, against the natural men, [to expound the word [...], as our English versi­on translates it, 1 Cor. 2.15.] So he calls the Orthodox in contempt, as men given to please their nature, and serve their belly; because they did not fast enough to his mind. In the 1. chapter, he saith of the Orthodox, thatArguunt nos quod sta­tiones ple­rumque in vesperam producamus, quod etiam xerophagias observemus si [...]cantes ci­bum ab omni carne & om­ni jurulentia. they found fault with the Montanists, because they extended their fast till the Even­ing, ate nothing but dry meats, abstaining from flesh, and all things that had juyce and moisture. Whereupon it will be expedient to see in the following Chapter, how the true Christians of that time disputed against those Hereticks.Lex & Prophetae us­que ad Jo­hannem; Itaque de cae­tero jejunan­dum ex arbitrio, non ex imperio novae disciplinae pro temporibus & edusis uniuscujusque. Sic & Apostolos observass nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum & in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum. The Law and the Prophets (say they) have lasted until John; since that time fast is to be observed indifferently, and according to the will of every one, accord­ing to the time and the causes that every one hath, not according to the Ordinance of this new Discipline. So the Apostles have observed it, having not imposed any yoke of certain fastings, which must be observed by all in common. They add, that Jesus Christ said, that which enters into a man defileth not a man; and that St. Paul hath foretold, that there should come Doctors teaching to abstain from meats, &c.

As that language of the antient Christians is the same, and those very reasons which we use against the Church of Rome: So the answer of Tertullian, in the defence of the Montanists, is the very same which the Roman Church useth in our dayes. The Apostle (saith that Heretick)Praedam­nans jam hae­reti os perpe­tuam absti­nentiam prae­cepturos ad destruenda & despicien­da opera cre­atoris. condemneth before-hand the Hereticks that should impose a perpetual abstinence, to destroy and despise the works of the Creator. And a little after; We abstain from the meats, which [non re­jicimus, sed differimus] we do not reject, but only put off the use of them. And a little after again; The Apostle accuseth certain chastisers, and forbidders of meats, who abstained from them [ex fastidio, non ex officio] out of disdain, not out of office. It was also the excuse of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, who having established many such observations, was condemned in the Council of Gangra. His excuse was, that he had not brought in those abstinences out of pride, but by a pious exercise, and according to God, as Sozomenus saith in the 13. Chapter of the 3. Book.

The Manicheans also were very scrupulous in their Fasts; of them Austin saith in the 13. chap. of the 2. Book of the manners of the Manicheans, that they ate no flesh-meat. To which rules the Monks of St. Benedict bind themselves; as the Carthusians, Celestins, &c. He saith also that among the Manicheans a man was not thought to have violated the rule of Holiness, that should burst his belly with Mushromes, Ryce, and Cakes; but he that should have to his supper a few herbs with a bit of rusty Bacon. The Roman Church following those Hereticks in that distinction of meats, is gone far beyond them; taking it for a violation of fast to eat a bit of flesh, but to stretch ones stomack upon Wine, Fish, and Sweet-meats, breaks no fast with them.

XVIII. Of overthrowing the humane nature of Christ.

THe Valentinians and Marcionites forged an imaginary body unto Jesus Christ, and the Eutychians would clothe the humane nature of Christ with the per­fections of the divine.

The Roman Church doth the same, attributing a body unto Christ, which is in an hundred thousand several places, and upon an hundred thousand several Altars at the same time; A body which is really present both in heaven and in earth, but is not in the space between both, and is by consequent remote from it self; A body which in the Mass hath no distinction of parts, and no diverse situation of Limbs, since all the parts of his body are in the host under one and the same point; A body without place, and taking no room, and therefore more spiritual then the spirits; For a Spirit cannot be in many separated places, nor be far from it self; And that not only since the glorification of Christs body, but also when he was yet mortal and infirm, celebrating the Sacrament with his Disciples. Each of which assertions overthroweth and abolisheth the humane nature of Jesus Christ, and none of them is compatible with an humane body.

XIX. Of Baptism conferred by women.

IN the Roman Church, not only a man of the people, but also a woman may confer Baptism. The Marcionites did the same, as Epiphanius witnesseth in the forty second Heresie: [...]. Marcion indifferently permits, even to women to give Baptism. The same he saith in the seventy ninth Heresie: Where also he main­tains, that it would not have been lawful for the Virgin Mary. Tertullian in the book Of the Virgins that must be vailed, chap. 9. saith,Non permittitur mulieri in Ec­clesia loqui; sed nec tinge­re, nec offerre. It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the Church, nor to baptize, nor to offer. And in the fourty first chapter of the book of the Prescriptions, he saith, thatIpsae mulieres hae­reticae quàm procaces, quae audeant doce­re, forsitan & tingere! heretical women are so impudent, as to offer to teach and to baptize. See Clements constitutions in the third book, chap. 9. whereof the Title is, Quod non oportet mulieres baptizare, impium est enim & a Christi doctrina alienum: That women must not baptize; for it is an impious thing, and remote from the doctrine of Christ. Basil in the Epistle to Amphilochius, rejecteth the Baptism conferred by Laymen.

XX. Of the Baptism of inanimate things.

Pag. 90.THe second Book of Sacred Ceremonies, in the seventh Section relateth, how the Pope baptizeth Agnus Dei's: It is ordinary to baptize bels in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: And they have a Godfather and a Godmother that give them their name. All which is an imitation of the error of the Armenians and Jacobites, of whom Nicephorus writes thus, in the eighteenth book, chap. 53. They will not yield the due honour unto the cross, before they have baptized it, as if it were a man. The Pagans did much the like to that; for before bels were invented, they used trumpets, which they consecrated by washings and purifications; and the day of that Ceremony was called Tubilustri­um, as it may be seen in the fifth book of the Fasti of Ovid, and in Festus.

XXI. Of Transubstantiation.

THe Capernaits Joh. 6.52. did imagine a real manducation of the body of Jesus Christ with the mouth, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? The Eurychians taught the transubstantiation of the bread into the bo­dy of Christ in the Eucharist; using that example to perswade that in the same manner the flesh of Christ by vertue of the union with the Verb [or the essential Word] was become spiritual and divine. In the second Dialogue of Theodoret, entituled, the Inconfuse, the Eutychian Heretick speaks thus: [...]. The signs of the body and blood of Jesus Christ are others before the invocation of the Priest, but after the said invocation they are changed and become others. To that Heretick teaching transubstantiation, the Orthodox answereth in these words; [...]. Thou art taken in the net which thou hast woven; for the mystical signs after the consecra­tion, do not change nature; for they remain in their first substance, figure, and form, &c. For which cause, the Jesuite Gregorius de Valentia, in the book of the Transubstantiation, chap. 7. §. Quod si, blameth Theodoret, saying, that Theodo­ret hath been taxed of other errors in the Council of Ephesus. The Roman Edi­tion of the Greek Dialogues of Theodoret hath pre-fixed this warning in the be­ginning of the book; That Theodoret being carried too far by the desire of de­fending the truth, sometimes hangs too much on the other side. Vigilius in the fourth book against Eutyches, disputes against the Eutychians, in the same man­ner as we do against the Roman Church, in the second book against Eutyches, who said, that the Word and the Flesh of Christ were but one nature.Si verbi & carnis una natura est, quomodo cum ver­bum ubique sit, non ubique invenitur & caro? Nam quando in terra fuit, non erat utique in coelo, & nunc quia in coelo est, non est utique in terra. If (saith Vigilius) the Word and the flesh of Christ have but one nature, how comes it to pass that the Verb being everywhere, the Flesh is not found also everywhere? For when it was in earth, it was not in heaven; and now because it is in heaven, it is not in earth. Which are very remarkable words.

The Marcosian Hereticks (as Epiphanius witnesseth, in the thirty fourth here­sie) would make the world believe, that in the cup the wine was turned into blood. Cardinal du Perron in his book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis, pag. 191. saith, that the Valentinians beleived that in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine became truly the body and blood of Christ.

XXII. Of Communion under one kind.

THe Synod of Constance, in the thirteenth Session, establisheth the Commu­nion under one kind, and takes the cup from the people: Yet in the same Canon, these Venerable Fathers confess, that Jesus Christ instituted this Sacra­ment under the two kinds, and that the ancient Church did so celebrate it.

The same did the Manicheans, and thereby a Manichean was discovered, when he made difficulty to receive the Cup in the Sacrament; as PopeOre in­digno Christi corpus accipi­unt, sangui­nem autem nostrae re­dempti­onis, &c. Leo the I. said in the first Sermon of Lent. Of them, Pope Gelasius speaks in the Canon Comperimus, in the second distinction of the Consecration, We have learned (saith he) that some having taken one portion only of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. And a little after, The division of the same Sacra­ment cannot be done without a great Sacriledge. The ordinary answer is, that Ge­lasius speaks of Priests that abstained from the cup, not of the people. [Page 50] ButNulla ibi de Sacer­dote sacrifi­cante mentio habetur, ut planè quod generalitèr dictum esse apparet, ad Sacerdotes restringi mini­mè debere sa­tis intelligi possit. Cardinal Baronius an. 496. §. 20. confuteth that shift, and with good reason maintaineth (as also the whole Text of the Canon shews it) that he con­demneth those of the people that abstained from the cup, calling that a sacriledge. As indeed in the same Canon, Gelasius decreeth, that such as make difficulty to receive the cup, be no more admitted to the communion of the bread, and be cut off from the whole Sacrament, which cannot be said but of the people pre­senting themselves to the Communion.

XXIII. Of the Titles and Honours which the Pope usurpeth.

THe Pagan Emperors caused themselves to be called Gods. Caligula gave his feet to Pompeius Pennus to kiss, as Seneca testifieth in the twelfth chapter of the book of benefits. Julius Capitolinus saith the same of the yong Maximinus Emperor. Pomponius Laetus saith the same of Dioclesian. The same Emperors made themselves adored, and the Roman Senate had the right of Apotheoses or Canonizations. The Pope having usurped the place of the ancient Emperors of Rome, hath also usurped these honours, and is called by his flatterers,Glossa Extravagan­tes Cum in­ter. Papa vo­catur Domi­nus Deus noster & sae­pe alibi: Concil. La­ter. ult. Sess. 9. Ma­jestatis tuae divine con­spectus. God in earth, and the divine Majesty, giveth his feet to kiss, and causeth himself to be adored: Which is done with an especial solemnity upon theThis ceremony is described in the book of sacred Ceremonies, Sect. 1. chap. 6. The practice of it is to be seen in an Epistle of Cardinal de Joyeuse inserted among those of Cardinal du Perron, where it is related, how after the election they came to the adoration. day of his electi­on: Then is he set upon the Altar by the Cardinals who all one after another come to the adoration. The Senate of Cardinals hath the right of Apotheoses or Ca­nonizations, and to admit whom they please into the list of the Saints of Paradise. The Preface of the second book of the sacred Ceremonies, calleth the Canoniza­tion of Saints of the Papacy, Divorum nostrorum Apotheosis, The Deification, or Apotheose of our Saints: This is foretold by the Spirit of God, Rev. 13. that the second Beast should erect the image of the first Beast: for the Papal Hierachy hath set up an empire after the likeness and imitation of the Roman Empire.

XXIV. Of the dissolution of Marriages.

THe Pope separateth and dissolveth marriages lawfully contracted, upon pre­tence of a greater perfection, and to enter into the Monastical life, against the express prohibition of Jesus Christ, Mat. 19.6. What God hath joyned toge­ther, let no man put asunder; and 1 Cor. 7.5. Defraud you not one the other; and in the verse before, The Husband hath no power of his own body, but the wife. The Priscillianists Hereticks did the same; of whom, Austin to Quod vult Deus, Ch. 70. Disjungunt viros à no­l [...]ntibus faemi­nis. saith, that they separated marriages, and dis-joyned Husbands from their Wives, against their will. If marriage be made a Sacrament by the faith mutually given, or by the blessing in the Church, as they hold in the Roman Church, how dares the Pope dissolve a Sacrament? Or if the Sacrament be not entire nor ful­filled without the consummation of matrimony, doth it not follow that the Priests conferring the Sacrament of matrimony, confer but half a Sacrament?

XXV. Of the Titles and Offices given to the Saints.

THe Pagans or Heathens did give particular Offices to each of their Gods: One governed the Sea, another bore sway in Hell; one had care of the wheat, another over women in child bed, &c. And every Land or Countrey had his Tutelary God. Juno was the Patroness of Carthage, Venus of Paphos, and Pallas of Athens, &c.

The Roman Chuch hath transported these titles to the deceased Saints, and hath given to every one of them their office. Saint Margaret Patroness of child-bed women, did succeed the Goddess Lucina. Saint Nicolas which is called upon by Navigators, did succeed Castor and Pollux. Saint Eustache hath taken the place or room of the hunting Diana; Saint Christopher that of Hercules; and Saint Eloy of Vulcan; and every Town, City, or Kingdom hath its Tutelary Saint. Saint Mark is the Patron and Pro­tector of Venice; Saint James of Spain; and Saint Denis of France, &c. And those offices have been given to those Saints which are in Heaven, by men which are on earth, without knowing whether the Saints did accept of them, or whether God doth approve or allow of such boldness, that Men, Ignorants and sinners, dare distribute or bestow offices to the Saints which are in Heaven.

XXVI. Of the Equipage or setting forth of Saints Images and Adornments.

THe Roman Church hath borrowed from the Pagans, the equipage and or­nament of her images. They gave a key to Janus, as the Church of Rome gives one to Saint Peter. They represented Jupiter Ammon with horns, as Mo­ses is now figured.Ovid. Fastor. The Genii or Houshold Gods had a dog with them, as now Saint Hubert, and Saint Eloy: who also hath an hammer, as Vulcan in old time. Hercules had a Club; and so hath Saint Christopher: Apollo had an harp in his hand, and Saint Genest the Patron of the Fidlers hath a Violon.

Before the Pagans images,Ovid. Epist. Med. Ardet ut ad magnos pinea taeda Deos. Cicero Of­fic. 3. Omni­bus vicis sta­tuae & ad eas thus & cerci. Tertul. Apol. c. 42. Thura non emimus; Si Arabiae quaerantur, sciant Sabaei, &c. wax-lights were lighted, and incense was burnt, which is done still to the images of Saints in the Roman Church; A custom much derided by Tertullian, Arnobius, and Lactantius. Tertullian in his book of Idolatry, chap. 15. Let those (saith he) light Lamps that have no light: And Arnobius asketh, whether the Gods have the sense of smelling: And Lactantius in the sixth book, chap. 2.Num mentis suae compos putandus est qui authori & datori luminis candelarum ac cercorum munus offert pro-munere? Is that man in his right sense, that offereth candles to him that is the author and giver of light?

XXVII. Of Relicts applyed to women with child.

TErtullian in a Book of the soul, chap. 39. saith, that the Pagan women used to gird their belly about with rollers, made before the idols: Much like the custom of women in the Abby of Saint German, in the suburb of Saint German of Paris, girding themselves with the girdle of Saint Margaret. See in the first chapter of Fenestella, [otherwise Andr. Dominicus Floceus] how women would come to the Luperci, who smote the palm of their hands with Goats-skins to make them conceive.

XXVIII. Of Ʋnshod Monks.

PHilastrius Bishop of Bress, who writ about the year of our Lord, 38 [...]. hath made a Catalogue of ancient heresies, among the which he puts the Heresie ofExcalcea­torum est hae­resis quae ex­calceatos am­bulare debere hominos asse­rit, &c. the Ʋnshod, who went barefoot, because God said to Moses, Put off thy shoes from off thy feet; which he cals a vain superstition. Yet many of our Monks have followed it, placing merit in going barefoot. The superstitious Jews had a holy day in which they went barefoot, which Hierom in his first book against Jo­vinian, cals nudipedalia, of which, Juvenal speaks.

Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges.

XXIX. Of Mendicant Fryers.

MEndicity, which before was an affliction, now is a profession, yea a work of supererogation. All is full of begging Fryars, whose idle mendicity is fatter then the plenty of many of the people. The same was among the Pagans, among whom, the Priests of the Syrian Goddess, and those of Cybele, went about begging from Town to Town, bearing sacks, where they put the provision that was given them. This is very exactly described in the eighth book of the Milesia of Apuleius, and in the fourth book of Fasti of Ovid. Tertullian Circuit cauponas re­ligio mendi­cans. in the thirteenth chapter of his Apologeticus, saith of it, The mendicant Religion goeth about the Taverns. The Hereticks Massalians [...]. did forsake the world, clad with sacks, begging about, as Epiphanius describes it in the eightieth heresie.

XXX. Divers customs of Paganism borrowed by the Papism.

HE that would specifie all the ceremonies and customs of the Pagans, which the Roman Church hath borrowed, should undertake an endless task.

The Lacedemonians would whip themselves, as the Penitents at Rome do now. See Tertullian in the end of the Apolegetick, and in the fourth chapter of his book to Martyrs:Apud Lacedaemo­nas solemni­tas maxima est [...]. Upon which, Rhenanus makes this annotation; Istius ve­teris [...] vestigium videas apud Italos in Litaniis: Of that old fashion of whipping ones self, a trace may be seen among the Italians in the Letanies. Thus the Priests of Baal did cut themselves, 1 Kings 18.28. And the Priests of Cy­bele calledSee Ovid. Fast. 4. Curetes.

The PagansOvid. Fast. 5. Mense malum Maio nubere vulgus ait. made difficulty of marrying in March and May, as now our Adversaries in Lent. Ovid. Fast. 2. Festus & Varro de lin­gua Latina. Ashwednesday fals much upon the same time, as the day of Purifications and Propitiations for the dead in the Pagan Rome, which was upon the eighteenth of February.

Rhenanus upon the fifth book of Tertullian against Marcion, acknowledgeth, that Candlemas is an imitation of the Februal ceremonies of the Romans.

The Pagans had sacrifices for the rain, which were called Aquilicia: For the same use as the shrine of Saint Genovefa, is taken down at Paris.

Pliny in the sixteenth book, chap. 44. saith, that the Vestal Virgins hanged their hair at a Tree; for they shaved themselves, as our Nuns do.

The Pagans had their Convents of sacred Virgins, as the Vestals and the Fau­stinian Virgins instituted by Marcus Antoninus Pius, as Julius Capitolinus saith in his life.

They used holy water, wax-lights, and incense.

They clothed their images. The history is known of Dionysius the Tyrant, who eased the images of the gods of their golden heavy cloaks, and gave them other cloaks of cloth, saying, th [...]se of doth were both warmer and lighter.

TheFenestella. c. 2. V [...]ber. Max. lib. 1. Pagans had the great Altar consecrated to Hercules.

Twelftide,The French call it the day of Kings. The Lord of misrule in Christmass is also a trace of the Sa­turnals at that time of the year. Horat. Sat 7. lib. 2. Age li­bertate De­cembri. in which the meanest of the house (if it happen so) is King, is an imitation of the Saturnales, in which the servants were Masters.

The Rogations and Processions about the fields of corn, have succeeded to the Processions called Ambarvalia.

As the Pagans suffered not any male to enter into the Temple of Bona Dea, so there are Chappels in the Roman Church where women enter not, as the Chappel of St. Laurence at Rome out of the wals, as the book of the Roman Indulgences shews it; And the quire of the Lateran Church at Rome.

Pope Boniface the VIII. hath instituted the Jubile every hundreth year, after the imitation of the Roman secular games, As Onuphrius acknowledgeth it, lib. de ludis secularibus.

The spittle used in Baptism by the Roman Church, is derived from the Pagans, who made use of spittle for preservative and expiation. Persius Sat. 2.

Infami digito & lustralibus ante salivis Expiat.

XXXI. Confession of our Adversaries.

OUr Adversaries themselves do not dissemble it, and are not ashamed to boast that they have borrowed many things from Paganism.

Cardinal Baronius upon the year of our Lord 200. §. 5.Consulto introductum videtur ut quae erant Gentilitiae superstitionis officia, eadem veri Dei cul­tui sanctifi­cata in verae Religionis cultum im­penderentur. After that (saith he) it was purposely introduced that the offices of Pagan superstition, being conse­crated to the service of the true God, should be employed to the service of true Religion.

The same Baronius upon the year 58. §. 76. saith that the Agnus Dei's hanged about the neck, have been instituted after the imitation of those brooches called bullae, which the Pagan boyes wore about their necks to avert charms.

On the year 183. §. 11. he saith that the insolencies of Shrove-tyde, come from the Bacchanales. Which is more, on the year 324. he makes no difficulty to say, that the Popes have succeeded in the habits, the apparel, and the priviledges of the Pagan Pontifes.

The Jesuit Cotton, in the second book of his Institution, chap. 57. saith, that as the Temples dedicated unto Idols, were turned into Churches dedicated unto God; So the ceremonies which of themselves are indifferent, have been with good reason trans­ported to Gods service.

The Gloss of the Canon Consecrationem. Dist. 1. de consecratione, speaking of the Pagan customs and ceremonies, saith,Si Genti­les faciebant, multo magis facere debe­mus, &c. If the Pagans did that, we much more ought to do it. And so it is an argument whereby we draw inferences out of the examples of Infidels.

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 2am 2a 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.

The reason why true Faith is called Catholick, or Universal, is not because it is received everywhere; for that never was, and never shall be; but because all without exception must receive it; as Pope Pius II. saith in the Acts of the Council of Basil; Lib. 1. fol. 9. Catho­lica fides, id est, universa­lis fides, non universalis dicitur quod universi eam teneant, sed quod universi eam habere teneantur. Faith is not called Catholick, that is, Ʋniversal, because all receive it, but because all ought to receive it.

That in these two significations the Church is called Catholick, Austin ex­presly saith it in the Book De Genesi ad literam, chap. 1.Ecclesia Catholica di­citur ex eo quia univer­saliter perfe­cta est, & in nullo claudicat. The Church our Mother is called Catholick, both because she is universally perfect, and halteth not in any thing, and because she is spread over all the world.

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

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

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

TheChap. 19. & 61. of M. du Per­rons book. second reason is but and extravagant conceit, of which he is the first inventor. For there is no such thing as an habitual whole, which words are but a Chimera. The branches are no part of the stock in any respect, whether they be joyned to it, or cut from; especially when they are cut off. The stock is not a whole that contains, or can contain the branches, or that can be called an habitu­al or an actual whole. So then a Church from which other Churches were separa­ted, is not a whole, containing in any respect the said separated Churches, especi­ally since she did not contain them before the separation, but only they were joyn­ed with her: much less then doth she contain them, since they were separated from her. How can she have any habit or aptness to contain them again, ha­ving never contained them before?

There is more; For thereby the Cardinal devesteth the Roman Church before he be aware of the title of Catholick or Universal Church. For the Greek Church is the root and the stock from which the Roman is sprung. Christian Religion is past from the Grecians to the Latins. Thus Austin Epist. 170. saithNon con­siderat ab illa radice Orientalium Ecclesiarum se esse prae­cisam, unde Evangelium in Africam venit. that the Eastern Churches are the root of the Church, and that from them the Gospel past into Africa. And in the 178. Epist. which is a Dialogue of Austin with Pascen­tius, he saith, thatGraecia ubi fides orta est. faith was born among the Grecians. For as these words Jesus, Messias, Amen, Allelujah, which the Greek Churches use, testifie that the Gospel past from the Jews to the Grecians; Likewise the words of Christ, Bible, Evangelium, Ecclesia, Baptism, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Letany, Chris­ma, Antiphone, &c. which are Greek words, yea all the most ordinary terms used in the Roman Church, shew that the Romans have received the Religion from the Grecians, and that they have been their Disciples: And therefore, by the Cardi­nals reason, the Greek Church shall be the Catholick Church, as the stock and the origine. And (to speak with him) she shall be the whole, though not actual, yet habitual, containing the Roman Church.

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

To the same purpose the Cardinal, after others of his party, objecteth to us incessantly, the counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis, who writ about the year 450. That Author in his book against profane novelties, to free a mans spirit from all errours, giveth him two directions. The one is, to stick to the holy Scripture, of which he saith, that thePerfe­ctus Scri­pturarum Canon, sibi­què ad om­nia satis superque suf­ficiens. Canon is most perfect, and more then sufficient for all things. The other is, thanDupli­ci modo fidem suam mu­nire debet; Primo scilicet divina legis authoritate, tum deinde Catholicae Ecclesiae traditione. since there is a dissention about the in­terpretation of Scripture, we must hold the tradition of the Catholick Church, and take the Scripture for our Interpreter, Secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sen­sus normam, according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick sense. Then he declareth what he understands by that Catholick sense, namely, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditur: est hoc enim verè proprieque Catholicum. That which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all; for that is truly and properly Catholick.

Sed ne­que semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impug­nandae sunt, sed novitiae recentesque tantummodo, cum primum scilicet exoriuntur. Caeterum dilatae & inveteratae haereses nequaquam hac viâ aggrediendae sunt, &c. Illas anti­quiores nisi aut sola si opus est scripturarum authoritate convincere, aut certe jam antiquitus universalibus sacerdotum Ca­tholicorum Conciliis convictas damnatasque vitare.Nevertheless he adds an exception, that he would not advise one to take that course, or to make use of that Catholick tradition, against heresies deep rooted by a long continuance, and such as are spred and received of old among many, but only against new and springing heresies, which he would stifle in their birth, by opposing that tradition unto them. But as for antient and far spred he­resies, he would make use of the holy Scripture only, and of the authority of Universal Councils.

That Counsel of Vincentius being well considered, not only doth not at all an­noy us, but even cuts the throat of Popery. For since our Adversaries say, that we are infected with antient heresies, and complain, that our heresie is diffused in many countries, and very deep rooted, they cannot practice against us the coun­sel of Vincentius Lirinensis, who will have such heresies convinced with the only Scripture, and by the antient Universal Councils. For indeed restraining our Ad­versaries to Scripture, and to the antient Councils, is compelling them to impos­sibilities: since they maintain, that all the doubts about the faith, cannot be de­cided by Scripture, and send us to an unwritten word; herein opposing Vincen­tius Lirinensis, who saith, that Scripture is more then sufficient to teach us all things; and averting the people from reading the holy Scripture, for fear (say they) that they should fall into heresies. And as for the antient universal Coun­cils, they find nothing in them contray to us, but many Canons contrary to them. They find in the Council of Chalcedone aConcil. Chalced. Can. 28. Canon equalling the Bishop of Con­stantinople, with that of Rome in all things. They find in the Council ofSynod. Laod Can. 58. Lao­dicea, approved by many universal Councils, that the books of Judith, Toby, and Maccabees are not Canonical. They find in the Council of Gangra, approved likewise and inserted in the Codex of the Universal Church,Concil. Gangr. Can. 4. a condemnation of those that despise married Priests. They find in the Canons of the VI. Universal Council, a Canon which expounds these words, This is my body, and This is my blood, with these words,Concil. Trull. Can. 23. [...]. that is, bread and wine mingled with water. They find in the same Council two CanonsConcil. Trull. Can. 13. & Can. 55. which expresly and by name condemn the Roman Church for pohibiting Priests and Deacons to dwell with their wives, and for fasting upon Saturdayes. They find that the Pope did not preside in the Councils of Nice, nor in the first Council of Constantinople, nor in the first Council of Sardica, which M. du Perron puts among the Universals, nor in the Council of Chalcedon. And that he called none of the antient Universal Councils. But that the first Council of Constantinople and that of Chalcedon, did sit against his will, and against his Counsels and humble petitions to the Emperours.

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

Or if the Counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis take place, so that nothing be recei­ved for a Catholick tradition, but that which was alwayes believed, and by all, and at all times; what will become of Monks and Monastaries, of whom no men­tion is found in the first ages, before Paul and Antony the Hermites, who lived in Constantines time? What will become of the images of the Trinity, and the adoration of images, and the Popes power to depose Kings? And how shall the Maccabees subsist among the Canonical books, which5. Book. chap 18. & 1. Book. chap. 50. M. du Perron confess­eth to have been rejected by the Greek Fathers, and by Hierom and Ruffinus, and others that have followed their opinion? Yea I maintain, that of all the Articles of [Page 84] Christian doctrine, scarce two or three shall be found, but were opposed by some hereticks, and of whom one may truly say, that they were believed everywhere, and at all times. But how can women and tradesmen know what articles have been believed alwayes and by all, since so much cannot be known but by the read­ing of Fathers, and Greek and Latine histories, where the people understands no­thing, and the learned themselves have litte knowledge?

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

CHAP. 31. Of holiness in doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

Is it a holy doctrine to set up brothel-houses by publick order, andEmanuel Sa Aphoris­mis, verbo Episcopus. Toletus. lib. 5. Instr. Sacer­dotum. c. 37. Bellar. l. 2. de amiss. gra­tiae. c. 18. § dicet. Tit. 8. de Concess. Praebendarum Can. propu­suit In Glos­sa & dist. 34. Can. Lectur. in Gloss. & Can. Sunt quid. Caus. 25. qu. 1. In Glossa. permit whoredom? Or to set on the people to rebel against their soveraign Prince, pro­mising [Page 85] them the remission of sins for their reward? In the time of the French League, in the year 1588, 1589, and 1590. one might see in the market places, and other places of publike resort, Papal indulgences set forth, granting nine years of pardon to all that would joyn with the League against the King. Re­mission of sins and salvation was propounded to the people as a recompence of rebellion against their King and murther of their fellow-Citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMong the marks of the true Church, they put the succession of Pastors in the same chair, ever since the Apostles: Certainly that succession is a goodly ornament, if with the succession of persons, there may be a succession of Doctrine and conformity of vertue: But there are many chairs in which they that sit, hold a contrary Doctrine to their Predecessors. Thus the Scribes and Pharises were sitting in the chair of Moses, and had the personal succession; ne­vertheless Jesus Christ commandeth his Disciples to beware of the leaven of their Doctrine, and reproacheth them that they had transgressed the Law of God by their tradition, Mat. 15. Thus the Bishops of the Churches of Antioch, and Rome, and Alexandria, boast themselves to be Successors of Saint Peter, and yet are dissenting and separate in Communion. The Bishops of Constantinople, fetch their succession from the Apostle Saint Andrew, as Nicephorus goeth about to prove in the eighth book of his Chronology, chap. 6. Yet these Bishops by the judgement of the Roman Church, are Schismaticks and Hereticks. Whence it appears, that the succession of chairs cannot be a fit mark for the true Church, since it is found in heretical Churches, as Tertullian saith in the thirty second [Page 86] chapter of the book of prescriptions.Ipsa eo­rum Doctri­nacum Apo­stolica com­parata, ex di­versitate & contrarietate sua pronunci­abit neque Apostoli ali­cujus esse ne­que Apostolici. Their Doctrine compared with the Apostolical Doctrine, will make it manifest by its diversity and contrariety, that the Author thereof is neither an Apostle nor an Apostolical man; because as the Apostles have not taught different things among themselves, so they that followed the Apostles, would not have set forth things contrary to the Apostles, excepting only those that have withdrawn themselves from the Apostles, and have taught otherwise. And a little after: Therefore they shall be summoned to answer that form of examination by the Churches; which though they cannot produce any of the Apostles, or any Successor of the Apostles for their Author, as being much later in time, and some of them every day erected; yet agreeing in the same faith, they are not held less Apostolical by rea­son of the consanguinity of their Doctrine [with the Apostles. Ad hanc itaque for­mam provoca­buntur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authorem su­um proserant, ut multo poste­riores, quae de­nique quoti­die instituun­tur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minus A­postolicae re­putantur pro consanguini­tate doctrinae.] And soon after, he saith, that the Heretick Churches are not received to the Communion by the Apostolick Churches, because Hereticks cannot be Apostolick, ob diversitatem Sacramenti, by reason of the diversity of the sacred Doctrine; for so the Fathers take the word Sacrament. And in the twentieth chapter, after he hath said that the Apostles have spread the Doctrine of faith, and that from thence all the Churches have their origine, he addeth, So all the Churches are first Churches, and all are Apostolick, as long as the communication of peace, and the name of brethren, and the mutual mark of hospitality, prove that there is one unity among them all; which rights are ruled by no other reason then the tradition of the same Doctrine. Thus if Tertullian be believed, true succession consisteth in conformity with the Doctrine of the Apostles: which being found in a Church, whether great or small, of old or fresh date, such a Church is truly Apostolical, although for lack of Histories, she cannot shew the line of her succession.

Then to know whether that succession of chairs be good, we must of necessity know before whether the Doctrine agree with that of the Apostles; and to know that, we must be instructed in the true Apostolical Doctrine. Whence it follows, that this succession of chairs cannot be a mark of the Church, since to know her, we have need of another mark which is the truth of the Doctrine,Sic omnes primae & om­nes Apostoli­cae, dum unam omnium pro­bant unitatem communicatio pacis & com­miseratio hospitalitatis, quae jura non alia ratio re­git quam ejusdem Sa­cramenti una traditio. and confor­mity with the Doctrine of the Apostles; and that the succession of persons in the same chair, is no perpetual mark of a true Church, since there are true Churches which cannot prove that continual succession. Where conformity with the Doctrine of the Apostles is evident, to what end should a Church be required to shew by histories the thred of a continual succession, unless it be to tire mens spirits by an infinite length, and keep them from seeking for the conformity in Doctrine, which is easie to be found? What doth it import from how far the water of a brook comes to us, so that the water be quick and good? And if the brook be spoiled, because it past through unwholesom fens, what have I to do to follow the whole course of the stream, when I may drink at the spring?

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

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

Besides, that cannot be a mark of the true Church, which is unknown to the people. For how small is the number of those that have read all the Greek and Latin Histories, where that succession is set down? They give to the people a list [Page 87] of successive Bishops in a picture, but the people know not whether nothing be false and forged in that picture: They know not whether the last entred into the chair by usurpation, or violence, or gifts. They know not whether the last Bishops teach the same as the first, or whether of those that came between, none erred in the faith. Certain it is, that many Popes have been notorious hereticks, as Liberius and Felix who were Arians, Honorius a Monothetite, and John the XXIII. that denied the immortality of the soul. In the Papal See, several Schisms have been, and divers times many Popes together, excommunicating one another, and reciprocally calling one another Antichrist; and of those Anti­christs, the worst commonly overcame. So according to the very Canons of the Roman Church, factions and corruptions in the creation of the Popes, have se­veral times made their election void, and therefore have broken the thred of that succession

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

Consider also that these Fathers alledging unto Hereticks the succession of Bishops, spake unto Hereticks that rejected the Scriptures, either whole or in part; against which they had nec [...] to use probable reasons without the Scripture. But we have to do with men that make a shew of the succession of persons, with­out speaking of conformity and succession in the Doctrine. Upon that the words of Irenaeus are pregnant,Ire­naeus, lib. 4. chap. 43. Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedire opor­tet; his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episco­patus succes­sione charissi­mae veritatis certum donum secundum placitum Pa­tris accepe­runt. We must obey those that are Priests in the Church, that have succession from the Apostles, and with the most dear succession of Episcopacy, have received the certain gift of the truth, according to the Fathers will. And Tertullian in the thirty seventh chapter of Prescriptions, summoning the Hereticks to produce the succession of their chairs, sheweth, that in the Church where he was, they had a true succession, because since the Apostles time they had always retained the same Doctrine.Ego sum haeres Aposto­lorum; si­cut caverunt testamento, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adjuraverunt, ita teneo. Vos certe exhaeredaverunt semper & abdicaverunt, ut extra­neos & inimicos. Ʋnde autem extranei & inimici Apostolis haeretici nisi ex diversitate Doctrinae? I am (saith he) an heir of the Apostles: That which they have ordained by their Testament, that which they have comitted to our faith, that which they have sworn us unto, that I hold: But certainly they have al­ways dis-inherited you, and disallowed you as strangers and enemies. Now how come Hereticks to be strangers and enemies to the Apostles, but by the diversity of Doctrine, which every one of them hath set forth, or received according to their own fancy against the Apostles? For a succession of chairs without truth, is either a continuation of error, or a corruption of the truth: which succession, the longer it is, the more pernicious, because it hath deeper roots; as Gregory Nazianzen saith, in his orati­on concerning Athanasius, [...]. Where there is the same Doctrine, there is the same See; but where there is contrariety of opinions, there is also contrariety of Sees, [or chairs] The one hath the name, the other hath the truth of succession. He addeth, that he that corrupts the Doctrine is no successor, unless it be as sickness succeedeth health, and darkness light. Athanasius speaks the same lan­guage; [Page 88] Athanas. in Decret. Synodi Ni­ceae contra Arianos. [...]. Behold (saith he) we shew the succession of our Doctrine from Fa­thers to Fathers. And Ambrose Ambr. lib. 1. de poenitentia, cap. 6. Non habet Petri haereditatem, qui fidem Petri non habet., That man hath not the succession of Peter, that hath not the faith of Peter. And Irenaeus, in the 4. Book. 43, & 44. chap. calls succession in the true Doctrine, theAb omnibus absistendum qui absistunt à principali suc­cessione. principal succession; for having said that those must be held for suspect that depart from the principal succession, he addeth, that such are fallen from the Truth.

Wherefore we detest the beastial impiety of the Canon Non nos, which in the 40. Distinction of the Roman Decree, pins the holiness of the Popes to their Chairs, saying,Quis sanctum du­bitet esse quem apex tantae digni­tatis extol­lit? In quo si desint bona acquisita per meritum, sufficiunt quae à loci praedecessore praestantur. Who makes a doubt of that mans holiness who is raised to such a high dignity, who if he have no good acquired by his merit, he hath good enough afforded to him by his predecessor in that place? It is not the Chair that sanctifi­eth the Pastor, but it is the holiness of the Pastor and his preaching that sancti­fieth the Chair; which the older it is, one may think that there is the more to mend in it; and the higher it is, and exalted to honour, the more pernicious, when the authority thereof is imployed to authorize Error and oppose the Truth. It is the complaint that Bernard made of the Church of his time;Bernard. de conversi­sione Paul, Serm. 1. Domine, Je­su! quia sunt in perse­cutione tua primi, qui vi­dentur in Ec­clesia prima­tum diligere, gerere princi­patum. Alas, alas, Lord Jesus, Those are the first in persecuting thee, that love pri­macy in thy Church, and hold the principality of the same. Then he addeth, Multi sunt nostris temporibus Antichristi; There are many Antichrists in our dayes. And soon after;Dissi­mulemus nos quoque neces­se est & sile­amus inte­rim, maxime (que) de Praelatis nostris, Magi­stris Ecclesia­rum. This we must dissemble, and hold our peace, especially about our Prelates and Masters of Churches. And in the same place,Iniqui­tas progressa est a seniori­bus judicibus, Vicariis tuis. Iniquity pro­ceeded from the old Judges, thy Vicars, which seemed to govern thy people. And in the 33. Sermon, speaking of the Papal Court;Ministri Christi sunt & serviunt Antichristo; Honorati in­cedunt de bo­nis Domini qui Domino honorem non deferunt. They are Ministers of Christ, and serve the Antichrist. They that honour not the Lord, march honoured with the Lords goods. Whereupon after he hath bewailed the corruption of the Church, proceeding from them that govern her, he saith, that it remains no more, but that the Antichrist should be revealed, even that Antichrist, saith he, who shall lift up himself above all that is called God. And in the 77. Sermon, speaking of that succession of Chairs, he saith,Successores omnes cupiunt esse, imitatores pauci. They will all be Successors, but few will be imitators, &c.Parum est nostris vigilibus quod non servant nos, nisi & perdant. Superest ut reveletur homo peccati, Filius perditionis. It is a small thing to say that our watches do not keep us, but they even destroy us. And in the fourth Book De Conside­ratione, speaking of the Roman Court;De consider. ad Eugen. l. 4. Si auderem dicere, daemonum magis quam ovium pascua haec, &c. Petrus hic est qui nescitur processisse aliquando vel gemmis ornatus vel serico, &c. In his successisti non Petro, sed Constantino. If I durst speak it, These are ra­ther pastures of Devils then of Sheep. And speaking directly to Pope Eugenius, who boasted of the succession of Peter; We find not that ever St. Peter marched adorned with Jewels, or clad in Silk, or covered with Gold, or riding on a white Horse, or attended with guards, or with a multitude of servants making a noise about him. He beleived that without these things one might fulfil that salutary command, Feed my sheep. In these things thou hast succeeded not Peter, but the Emperour Constantine. That good man, who felt the Truth in a dark age, would have spoken far more plainly, if he had lived in an age enlightned with the Sun-shine of the Gospel: For in the fervency of his zeal seeing two Popes excommunicating one another, and mutually calling one another Antichrist, he goeth so far as to say,Epist. 125. Bestia illa de Apocalypsi cui da­tum est os loquens blasphemiam, & bellum gerere cum sanctis, Petri Cathedram occupat tanquam leo paratus ad praedam. That Beast of the Revelation to whom a mouth was given, speaking blasphemies, and [power] to make war against the Saints, holds St. Peters Chair like a Lion prepared for the prey. And the other Beast is hissing neer you, like a wild beasts cub lurking in a close place. He useth the two Anti-Popes alike, leaving to us to judge on which side the right of the suc­cession was.

Above 500 years before him, Pope Gregory the I. seemeth to have prophecied after the example of Caiaphas: For so he speaks in the 38. Epistle of the 4. Book;Omnia quae praedicta sunt fiunt. Rex superbiae prope est, & (quod dici nefas est) sa­cerdotum est praeparatus exercitus. All that is foretold is now a doing. The King of pride is at hand; and (that which is shameful to say) an Army of Priests is prepared for him: foretelling that the Antichrist will be upheld by a multitude of Priests, and therefore by them that shall hold the chairs, and boast themselves of the ordinary suc­cession.

We will shut up this discourse with a sentence of Austin in his 46. Treatise upon John. Sedendo super Cathe­dram Moysis legem Dei docent, ergo per illos Deus docet. Sua vero si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere. If sitting in Moses chair, they teach the Law of God, God teach­eth by them; But if they will teach that which is of their own, (that is, their own inventions) hearken not unto them, and do not what they say.

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

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

Now it happened in our Fathers time, that some Priests, Doctors, and Bishops of the Roman Church, having acknowledged by the Word of God the abuses of Popery, would fulfil their Oath, and in the same Chair began to change language, and teach the Truth, to bring their Office to the right use again, and to the first institution; for an Idolatrous and heretical Church can confer a good calling, and admit a Pastor to his charge by such express forms and promises, that there­by he shall be obliged to discharge the office of a Pastor aright: For although a Church be heretical, yet the Office of Pastor in the same is (of its nature and first institution, and by the expectation of the people) destined to preach the true Doctrine of Salvation: and every Oath about a thing good and just, into which a man hath not intruded himself, must be inviolably kept. If in an Arian, or Ne­storian Church, a Pastor came to be converted to the true Doctrine, the nature of his charge and his promise in his reception authorize him sufficiently, yea and oblige him to change language in the same Chair, and to teach the Truth. Where­fore also theCodex Canonum Ec­clesiae Afri­canae, Can. 69. Hieron. Dialogo ad­versus Luci­feranos. Syn. Nicena, Can. 8. de Catha­ris & Cleri­cis conversis ad fidem. [...]. antient Church allowed the Office of heretical Bishops, when they converted themselves to the true Faith; neither did they confer a new Ordi­nation [Page 90] upon them. The Imposition of hands which they bestowed upon them, was not a new ordination, but only a blessing, asBalsa­mon ad mar­ginem Cano­nis Niceni 8. ex Tharasio qui Nicenae secundae Sy­nodo praese­dit. Balsamon teacheth. I say then, that the first Reformers of Popery had the ordinary calling and succession re­ceived in their Countrey, and had besides that an extraordinary Commission to preach against the intention of their Ordinator, for the due accomplishing of their charge, and to keep the Oath taken in their reception.

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

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

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

ALthough in the age that we live in, it is expedient that none be admitted to the holy Ministery, but such as are duly called, and (as much as it is possi­ble) establisht by the ordinary forms and wayes; yet the Christian Church in her beginnings did not tye her self to that rule. The Christians of that time embraced with so much fervour the truth of the Doctrine, that they enquired not with what forms those that taught them the truth had been received into that Office. Doing the clean contrary to that which is done in the Roman Church, where the people is kept from the examination of the Doctrine by hiding from them the holy Scripture, and celebrating Divine Service in a languge which they understand not. They are instructed only to look to Chairs and Succession, and to pick a quarrel with our Vocation; following the example of the Pharisees, who eluded Christs reprehensions of their false Doctrine,Mat. 21.23. asking him, By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? and asking the Apostles when they preacht Christ,Act. 4.7. By what power, and by what Name have ye done this?

That in old time many preacht the Gospel without charge or ordinary calling, it is evident by many examples. Our Lord Jesus, Luke 4. teacheth in the Syna­gogue of Nazareth, and expoundeth the Prophet Isaiah, although he was nei­ther [Page 91] Scribe nor Doctor, nor Levite, but of the Tribe of Judah; brought up, not un­der the Discipline of the Pharisees, but in a Carpenters shop.

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

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

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

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

Origen Hom. 11. upon the 18. chapter of Numbers. Sicut in aliqua (verbi gratia) civi­tate ubi non­dum Christi­ani nati sunt, si accedat ali­quis & doce­re in ipiat, laboret, in­struat, addu­cat ad fidem, & ipse postmodum iis quos docuit Princeps & Episcopus fiat, &c. If (saith he) in any City where no Christian is yet born, some one come and begin to teach, and labour, and instruct, and bring to the Faith; and after that become Prince and Bishop of those whom he hath instructed, &c.

Ambrose upon Ephes. 4.ut ergo cresceret plebs & multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est & Evangelizare & baptizare, & Scripturas in Ecclesia. explanare. That then the people might increase and multiply, it was permitted to all in the beginning, to preach the Gospel and baptize, and ex­pound the Scriptures in the Church: But he addeth that this was setled by an order since.

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

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

Yea out of the case of necessity the Antient Christians permitted Lay-men to expound the holy Scriptures, although there were ordinary Pastors in the same place. Of which we have a very express testimony in the 20. chapter of the 6. Book of the History of Eusebius, who relates that at the request of the Bishop of Cesarea, Origen being not a Priest, yet began to expound the holy Scriptures in the Church. At which one Demetrius complaining, as of a [Page 92] thing being contrary to custom, and unheard of before, Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea, taxe him of ignorance, and tell him, [...]. Thou saiest openly an untruth; for where persons fit and capable are found, which may edifie their brethren, the holy Bishops desire them to instruct the people in the Word; as at Laranda Euelpis was desired by Neon, and at Iconium Paulinus was desired by Celsus, &c.

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

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

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

Of these two questions, the one, Whether the charge be good of its nature? the other, Whether one be entred by good means? the first is much more impor­tant then the second; for it is necessary for salvation unto every Christian, but the other is not. It is necessary for the people, to know whether the offices of the Pope and of Sacrificer of the body of Christ, be good and lawfull, and instituted by Christ, lest they be subjected to an unjust domination, and thinking to serve Christ, they serve Antichrist: Lest also that being partakers of a Sacrifice in­vented by men, they be guilty of vacating or wronging the only Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of defiling themselves with idolatry. But as for the suc­cession of persons, and the forms of entering into the Office of Pastor, it is in­deed necessary to a Pastor of the Church, not to usurp the holy Ministry; and he must be very certain in his conscience, that he hath followed the lawfull wayes, and hath not intruded himself; For of that he is to answer in Gods Judgement, who will not leave an usurper unpunisht, but will call him to account, for making the holy Ministry a prey, and constraining God (as far as in him lyeth) to make use of his service, by doing him that service to which God called him not; and [Page 93] for bringing the traffick into the Temple, and purchasing by faction and bribery that holy charge, which teacheth humility and innocence.

But it is not necessary for the people to know the vocation of their Pastors, and to have an exact knowledge by what wayes every one of them is come to the holy Ministry; For I find not any text in the Word of God, that obliges the peo­ple to that examination, or saith that the people must give account unto God of the calling of their Pastors. If a man crept into the Ministry by fraud and un­lawful wayes, yet preach the Gospel purely, and administer the Sacraments as Jesus Christ did institute them, the people believing his preaching, shall be saved nothing the less; for the sentence of Jesus Christ is without exception, that who so believeth on him shall have everlasting life: The Word of God loseth not its vertue in the mouth of a Pastor admitted against the forms, as good seed doth not change nature, and bears not the less fruit for being sown by a thief. As one may wear a suit of clothes, without knowing whether the workman be admitted of Taylors Hall; So one may profit at a mans preaching, without knowing whe­ther the man got into the Office of Pastor by good forms and lawfull wayes. The people is not accountable unto God for the calling of his Pastors, but for adher­ing unto false doctrines, and partaking with a Sacrifice which God hath not com­manded. Truly if the people that they may be saved, must exactly know, what and how long the succession of their Pastors is, and whether it be desended from the Apostles by a successive line of persons in the same chair, they are excluded from all hope of salvation; since that cannot be known but by the reading of Fa­thers, and Greek and Latin histories, where the people understand nothing; And if they understood them, yet should they find a discord between historians, and inter­vals, and interruptions, where the readers are at a loss. ThereforeActs 16.14. Lydia the Purple-seller, and the people ofActs 17.11. Berea, and theActs 2.41. three thousand Jews con­verted at Peters preaching, enquired not about Peters or Pauls calling; Nor the Eunuch of Queen Candace, of the vocation and succession of Philip: But be­lieved their preaching, because they proved what they said by Scripture, al­though they had neither succession nor ordinary calling. So much was enough for them to be saved.

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

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

But we disputing against the Roman Church, bring heavier accusations against [Page 94] them, and stand upon far higher terms; For not only we accuse Popes, Cardi­nals, Bishops, Priests, and Abbots, of usurpation, and of getting their Office by sinister wayes, and of want of lawfull succession; but we question them about the prime and principal point, necessary to salvation, which is the validity of their charges; For we find not in the Word of God, that ever he instituted Popes, or any successors of St. Peter in the Office of Head of the Universal Church: And we say, that every living head must have a body: Whence it follows, that if the Pope be head of the Church, we must say, that the church is the body of the Pope.Eph. 1. Now Scripture calls the Church the body of Christ, not the body of the Pope. But that question shall be agitated hereafter.

Neither do we find in Scripture any mention of Cardinals. The first Author that speaks of them, is Pope Gregory the I. who writ in the year 596. For the Ro­man Council where that word is found, is false and supposititious, as we shall shew in the proper place. But in the time of that Gregory, to be Cardinal Priest, was nothing else but to be Parson or Rector of a principal Parish.See Conci­lium Melden­se. cap. 54. Other Archiepis­copal towns as Ravenna and Millan, had their Cardinals as well as Rome. And Popes were elected, not by a Colledge of Cardinals, but by the suffrages of the people and Clergy. At this time they are Princes of the Universal Papal Church, and have the right of making Apotheoses or Canonizations, and to elect a Pope, which a few ages since is taken only out of their body. In a word, there is no­thing in that Court but of humane invention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if there had been need of a successor to St. Peter in that primacy, which they say, he had over the Universal Church, no doubt but that dignity did belong to some of the Apostles that outlived him; to St. John especially, that excellent Apostle, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who remained in the world thirty years after Peter? Is it credible, that Linus or Clement were preferred before him? the first a man, whose name hardly remains, And of the other we have but some sup­positious Constitutions, and some Epistles ascribed to him, where there are orders about mice dung, and where he commendeth Plato for banishing the words meum & tuum out of his Commonwealth, andCausa 12. qu. 1. Can. Dile­ctissimis. Communis usus omnium quae sunt in hoc mundo esse debuit; sed per ini­quitatem ali­us hoc dixit esse suum & alius istud, & sic inter mortales facta est divi­sio. Denique quidam Gra [...] corum sapien­tissimus haec ita sciens esse communia debere, ait amicorum communia esse omnia. In omnibus autem sine dubio sunt conjuges. for instituting community of goods and of women.

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

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

Yet suppose that Christ had instituted a successor to St. Peter in that imaginary primacy; doth it follow therefore that this successor must be the Bishop of Rome? and why rather he then James Bishop of Jerusalem, who by Clement himself Bi­shop of Rome is called Episcopus Episcoporum, the Bishop of Bishops, ruling the [Page 96] Churches of all the world? For this is the inscription of the first Epistle, which he writes unto James, Clemens Jacobo fratri Domini, Epis­copo Episco­porum, re­genti Hebrae­orum sanctam Ecclesiam quae est Ierosoly­mis, sed & omnes Ecclesi­as quae ubique Dei provi­dentiā funda­tae sunt. Clement to James Brother of the Lord, Bishop of Bishops, governing the holy Church of the Hebrews, which is in Jerusalem, yea and all the Churches which are founded anywhere by the providence of God.

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

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

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

Here I call upon the consciences of all lovers of truth (for here the spring of the error is laid open) to see with what spirit of stumbling God hath smitten the Adversaries. Cardinal Bellarmin in his preface to the Books de Pontifice Romano, speaks thus; What thing is in question when we treat of the Primacy of the Pope?Etenim de qua re agitur cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Brevissimè dicam, de summa rei Christianae. Id enim quaeritur, Debeatne Ecclesia di­utius consistere, an vero dissolvi & concidere? Quid enim aliud est quaerere an oporteat ab aedificio fundamentum removere? &c. To speak in few words, it is then the question of the summ [or the main substance] of Christianity. For the question is, whether the Church must subsist any [Page 97] longer, or be dissolved and perish? For what is it else but to ask Whether the foun­dation must be taken away from the building? It is no wonder that he speaks so, since the Roman Church holds the Pope to be the foundation of the Church, and the soveraign and infallible judge of matters of faith, whose authority is above the Scriptures, which receive from him (belike) all the authority they have. So that by this account, the Popes authority being overthrown, down fals the Church, and the authority of Scripture, and the whole Doctrine of salvation va­nisheth away.

Since then from the Popes succession in the primacy of Saint Peter, the whole Christian Religion doth depend, reason did require, that this succession should be instituted by God and grounded on his Word. But that Cardinal himself ac­knowledgeth, that God hath taken no order about it in his word, and that this point is not a matter of divine right, as in effect our Adversaries alledge no di­vine testimony, nor one single word of Scripture to prove that succession. These be the very words of that same Cardinal Jesuite, in his second book de Pontifice, in the twelfth chapter,Obser­vandum est, licet sorte non sit de jure di­vino Roma­num Pontifi­cem, ut Ro­manum. Pon­tificem, Petro succedere; ta­men id ad fi­dem Catholi­cam pertinere. Non enim est idem aliquid esse de fide & de juredivino. Nec enim de jure divino fuit ut Paulus habe­ret penulam; est tamen hoc ipsum de fide Paulum ha­buisse penu­lam. Et si au­tem Roma­num Pontifi­cum succedere Petio non ha­beatur expres­sè in Scriptu­ris, &c. We must observe (saith he) that although perhaps it is not a point of divine right, that the Roman Pope, as Roman Pope, be a successor of Peter; yet that belongs to the Catholick faith: For to be of the faith, and to be of divine right, are not all one. It is not a thing of divine right, that Paul had a cloak; yet it is a point of faith, that Paul had a cloak. Then he doth ingenuously confess, That it is not found in Scripture, that the Roman Pope is successor of Peter; tacitly acknowledging, that Saint Pauls cloak is far more certain then the Popes succes­sion, since Scripture speaks of that cloak, but of that succession not one word.

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

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

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

Since the Pope claims the succession of Saint Peter, it will be to good purpose to compare them together. Peter going to preach from Town to Town, on foot, without money or provision for his journey, paying tribute unto Cesar, teaching chastity, fidelity and innocence, dispencing not unto the other Apostles the free and entire use of the keys; The Pope not preaching the Gospel, riding upon [Page 98] mens shoulders, wearing a triple Crown sparkling with Diamonds, giving his pantable unto Kings to kiss,The Emperour the day that he receiveth the Crown from the Popes hand, layeth a mass of gold at the Popes feet. That ceremony is described in the first Book of the Sacred Ce­remonies in the 5. Secti­on, ch. 3. Caesar Ponti­ficis pedes in reverentiam Salvatoris devotè oscu­latur. And a little after, Caesar iterum genu fleetens auri massam ad Pedes Pontificis of­fert, habetque vèrba ad Pontificem, gratias agens pro honorè suscepto. making Caesar to pay tribute to him; suffering himself to be called God, and the Divine Majesty, causing himself to be adored; Ca­nonizing Saints; fetching souls out of Purgatory; deposing Kings; giving and taking away Crowns; bestowing pardons of an hundred thousand years; putting Kingdoms and States in Interdict, and exposing them as a prey to the first Con­querour; dispensing men from keeping their vows, and the Oath made unto God, and the obedience sworn to their Soveraign Prince; dissolving marri­ages; exempting children from the subjection due to their Parents; setting up Brothel-houses, permitting whoredom, and forbidding marriage; robbing other Bishops of part of the use of the Keyes, reserving certain cases to himself, from which none but he can absolve; prohibiting the reading of the holy Scripture, and giving in stead of the Scripture Images, and a service in an unknown lan­guage. Whosoever will make this comparison, will easily acknowledge that the Pope cannot be a successor of St. Peter; but as night suceeeds the day, and sick­ness health; and that the name and succession of St. Peter is set forth by the Popes slaves, rather to mock the world, then out of any opinion that the Pope is a successor of that Apostle. For is it possible that it should be the same charge, when the Functions are so contrary, seeing that St. Peter hath done nothing at all of all that the Pope doth, and the Pope doth nothing at all of all that St. Peter hath done? It is not then without cause, (and there is some mysterie in it) that the Popes renouncing the name of their Baptism when they become Popes, and taking another name, never take the name of Peter, as not convenient for them. Yea if any before he was Pope was named Peter, he leaveth that name assoon as he is Pope to take another. So did Peter de Luna, who having ob­tained the Popedom of Avignon, took the name of Benedict the XIII. but Gregory the XIII. his Anti-Pope called him Peter, to reproach him, and anger him. Before him Peter Bishop of Pavia, being created Pope in the year 984. would be called John the XIV.

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

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

In that succession of place, the lower we go, the worser things do we find.Bellar. de noris Ec­clesiae, c. 8. §. Addo ulti­mo, quod Ecclesiae illae Patriarchales per longa tempora ha­buerint Epi­scopos mani­festos baereti­cos, unde interrupta est successio ve­terum Pasto­rum. Our Adversaries hold that Heresie breaketh the succession in Episcopacy: Now the Chair of the Bishop of Rome was stained with many Heresies, which the very Roman Church doth condemn. Athanasius in his Epistle to the Soli­taries, saith, that [...]. Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed to Arianism; and Hilary in his Fragments, very often doth anathematize him, because he had sub­scribed the Confession of the Arians formed at Syrmium. Hieron. in Fortunatiano. Hierome saith the same in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers.

Viglius Bishop of Rome, hath approved by Letters the Eutychian Heresie. His whole Letters are set down by Liberat Deacon of Carthage, in the 22. chap. of his Breviary, where he openly declareth that he doth not acknowledge two Natures in Christ; for whichBaron, an. 537. §. 14. Leo 2. Epist. ad Constantin. Imp. Baronius taunts him.Oper. 55. capi­tum, c. 48. pag. 308. Hinckmarus saith that Vi­gilius, [Page 99] from an Apostolical Pope is become an Heretick, and that after many horrible Oaths, when he was detained at Constantinople. Cardinal du Perron calls that Vigilius Simoniacal, Heretick, false Pope, and a favourer of Hereticks, whilst his Anti-Pope Sylverius lived; but that he became a true Pope after the death of Sylverius, whom he cruelly put to death in Prison. Thus that Vigilius from a false and heretical Pope, and an Usurper, is become a holy and a lawful one by the murther of the lawful Pope. Being propped with the power of Beli­sarius who had sold him the Popedom for ready money, he could do what he would with the Roman Clergy. But though the Clergy approved him, yet was he a Symoniacal man, and a murtherer of his Predecessor, and he never re­voked his Heretical Epistles. Neither did his instalment hinder Reparatus Bi­shop of Carthage, from gathering a Council of African Bishops in the year 549. where Anathema was pronounced against that Vigilius, as Victor Tunensis relates in his Chronicle.

Honorius the I. Bishop of Rome, is condemned as an Heretick Monothelite by three Universal Councils, the sixth, the seventh, and the eight. And Leo II. Bi­shop of Rome, successor to that Honorius, doth detest him as one that had defiled the Roman See by his heresie.Ep. 93. inter Episto­las Augusti­ni, & Au­gust. lib. 1. in Julianum. Innocent the I. hath taught that the parti­cipation of the Eucharist was necessary to little children to be saved. This Do­ctrine is condemned with Anathema by the Council of Trent, Sess. XXI.

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

The Antient Canons declare him that hath bought the Episcopacy with money, to be no lawful Bishop. The 29. Canon of the Apostles is such. [...]. If any Bishop or Priest, or Deacon is entred into possession of that dignity with money, let him be deposed, both himself, and he that ordained him. And that Canon is repeat­ed in the second Council of Nice in the 5. Canon. The second Canon of the Council of Chalcedon saith, If any Bishop giveth ordination for money, and puts to sale such a grace wich is not saleable, let him be endangered to lose his own degree; and let not him that is so ordained receive any benefit by his ordina­tion or promotion, but let him be expelled from that dignity and charge which he hath obtained with money. SeeLiberati Breviarium, c. 22. in the Roman Decree in the first question of the first cause many the like Canons, and many places of the Fathers. Against that rule Vigilius obtained the Popedom, having bought it of Belisarius Leiute­nant to the Emperour Justinian in Italy, for two hundred marks of Gold, the which nevertheless he refused since to pay, and cosened Belisarius. The time in which the Harlots Marozia and Theodora reigned at Rome, is full of such ex­amples. And yet at this time Kings and Princes give Pensions to Cardinals re­siding at Rome, and buy their suffrages very dear to have a Pope of their party. The factions made for that are shameful. This reproach Bernard makes to Pope Eugenius in the 4. Book De Consideratione; Quem dabis mihi de tota maxima urbe qui te in Papam recepe­rit, pretio seu spepretii non intervenien­te? Canst thou give me any in this great City that hath received thee Pope without reward, and without some hope of gain intervening? See then what their succession is; It is a meer traffick: So that a Simoniacal Pope succeeds another bought Pope. But yet they will have us to presume that such a Pope who sets up the bank in Gods Temple, is presently fil­led with the Holy Ghost, and cannot err in the Faith.

In the year 882. Marin, or Martin, attained to the Papal dignity, of whom Platina saith, that heMalis artibus Pon­tificatum a­deptus est. came to the Popedom by ill wayes. There was then one Formosus Bishop of Porto, who by the will of Pope John the IX. had been ob­liged by Oath never to receive Episcopacy, though it were presented unto him. But that Marin delivered him from that Oath by a dispensation, giving him leave to be forsworn with a good conscience. At that time the Counts of Tusculum had such a power at Rome, that they made Popes such as they listed. Marin being [Page 100] dead, they promoted Adrian the III. to the Popedom, and after him Stephen the VII.Plati­na, Stella, Si­gonius de regno Italiae, lib. 6. Baron. An. 897. §. 2. to whom Formosus succeeded, who made no difficulty to receive the Popedom against his Oath. This Formosus had but a short reign; he had Bonifacius the VII. for his successor, whom Steven the VIII. succeeded, who un­buryed the body of Formosus, and having arrayed him with his Priestly Robes, put him in full Synod upon the Popes Seat; then having cut his fingers where­with he gave the blessing, caused him to be dragged and cast into the Tiber, declaring him a perjured man, and an unlawful Pope. That Steven for his tyran­nies was taken by the Roman people, and strangled in prison.

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

It is a particular stain to that age, that in it the Pope began to authorize perjury, and to dispense from Oaths. A power which the Popes have often used since: See the 6. question of the 15. Cause of the Decree, which is full of such examples. Now the Word of God forbids nothing more expresly then perjury;Levit. 19.22. Psal. 15. and calls it a profanation of Gods Name, praising the man that sweareth to his own hurt, and disappointeth not. Joshua deceived by the Gibeonites, yet preserved their lives rather then violate his faith.1 Sam. 14.44. King Saul resolveth rather to kill his son, then to go against his Oath; ForHeb. 6.10. an oath is that which decideth all differences among men: And whosoever brings in the licence of for swearing, breaks all bonds of Society among men. Wherefore the Mahumetans, who are very religious in keeping their Oath, fear to contract with a Christian, because they know that the Pope dispenseth from oaths. This truly is exalting ones self above God: for who so dispenseth a servant from obeying his Master, is greater then that Master. Bellarmine daubeth this with a slie, yet a slight excuse, in the 21. chapter of his Book against Barklay; saying, that the Pope by that dispen­sation hinders not a man to be faithful to God, but only declareth that God will not have him in this or that matter to keep his Oath: For he will have us to believe, that the Pope knoweth Gods intent about it, and that God hath revealed it unto him. A thing which none will believe but such as will be deceived.

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

The same Baronius on the year 897. saith,Hos Roma­na Eccle­sia passa est Tyrannos Thusciae Principes, Dominantes sive pecuniis sive armis po­pulo cleroque Romano; per quos intrusi in Cathedram Petri solium Christi sunt homines monstruousi, vitae turpissimae. that the Princes of Tuscany domineering over the people and Clergy of Rome, have intruded by arms and money into St. Peters Chair, which is the Throne of Christ, monstrous men of a most impure life, whom he acknowledgeth not for lawful Popes. Which dis­order having continued at Rome above one hundred and fifty years; I do not see where that succession from St. Peter can be found; or how the thread of that succession so many times broken could ever be knit again: For in that ninth and tenth age, well nigh fifty Popes will be found who came to the See either [Page 101] by the power of the Counts of Tuscany, or by the faction and credit of Theodora an infamous harlot, and of her two daughters Marosta and Theodora, who reign­ed at Rome many years, and made and unmade Popes. Of which disorder Cardi­nal Bellarmin speaks thusQuae tunc facies Ecclesiae Romanae? quam foedis­sima, cum Ro­mae domina­rentur poten­tissimae aeque ac sordidissimae meretrices, quarum ar­bitrio muta­rentur sedes, darentur Episcopi, & quod auditu horrendum & infandum est, intrude­rentur in se­dem Petri ea­rum amasii pseudoponti­fices qui non sunt nisi ad confignanda tanta tempo­ra in Cata­logo Roma­norum Ponti­ficum scripti! What was then the face of the Roman Church and how ugly, when most powerfull and most filthy whores bore the rule at Rome? at whose pleasure Popes were changed, and Bishopricks were given: and that which is the most horrible to hear, and not fit to speak, their ruffians false Popes were thrust into Peters See. Wherefore the same Cardinal acknowledging such Popes to have been unlawfull, saith that the history mentioneth those Popes only to mark the years of so long a time: Thereby acknowledging, that for a long time the Roman Church hath been without Popes. And that one may know how great that interval is, and how long that disorder continued in the Church of Rome, hear Genebrard speaking, who was a flatterer of the Popes in the highest degree. So he speaks in the year 901. of his Chronicle.Hoc uno hoc saeculum infelix, quod per annos fere 150. Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute ma­jorum pror­sus defece­runt; Apo­tactici Apo­stacique po­tius quàm Apostolici. In this thing only this age was unfortunate, that for the space of well nigh a hundred and fifty years, above fifty Popes did altoge­ther degenerate from the vertue of their ancestors, being rather Apotactick or Apo­statick then Apostolick. Sigonius makes that space of two hundred years.

In the year 912. John the X. before Archbishop of Ravenna, was chosen Pope. He bestowed the Archbishopick of Rhemes upon a Child of five years old, as Frodoard relates in the 19. chap. of the 4. Book of his history. Whereby it is evident, that it is not of late years that the calling is corrupted in the Roman Church, and the Office shamefully prostituted. Of this Baronius himself is asham­ed, andAn. 925. §. 9, 10, & 11. Vidisti Lector, cujus autho­ritate Ponti­ficis (si tamen ille Pontifex dicendus) id primum fuerat intro­ductum in Ecclesiam Dei. Johann. X. quo tur­pior nullus, cujus sicut ingressus in cathedram Petri infamissimus, itá & exitus nesandissimus. saith, that is a prodigious thing, unheard of before in the Christian world, and never entered into mans mind, that a child who scarce was learning his letters under the rod, should be elected Archbishop of Rhemes. Of this Pope John the X. Baronius saith, that his entry into the Popedom was most infamous, and his end most wicked. And on the year 908. §. 7. he saith, that then God had for­gotten his Church.

In the year of the Lord 931. John the XI. came to the Popedom. He was a bastard, son to Pope Sergius, by the whore Morozia. Upon which Baronius Baron. an. 931. §. 1. saith, The holy Church of God, that is the Roman, suffered her self to be shame­fully trodden under by such a monster.

After him came many Popes creatures of the forenamed harlots, until John the XII. son to a Roman Consul, who was created Pope by his fathers faction, being but eighteen years old, as Baronius relateth,Baro­nius. an. 935. §. 4. who detesteth that John as an execrable monster. The Emperor Otho called a Council where he was de­posed, and Leo the VIII. set in his room An. 963. That Pope renewed the con­stitution of Adrian I. whereby it is ordained, that the Pope be thenceforth elected by the Emperor. But as soon as the Emperor was gone out of Italy, Pope John returned to Rome, expelled Leo and degraded him, having called a Council against him. Soon after being taken in adultery, he was so beaten that he dyed of it. Luitprandus in the 6. Book, chap. 11. and Fasciculus temporum, say, that t