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 ... ; translated out of the French by the authors eldest son Peter Du Moulin ...

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. (Book 1)

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 hin∣drances, 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 Con∣cord, 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 So∣veraign Judge of doubts concerning the Faith, from whose Authority the Au∣thority of Scripture is made to depend, the Assembly of the Faithful is not un∣derstood, 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 Au∣thority 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 contra∣ry 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 interpre∣tation. And though the labour were long, yet in a thing so important, the diffi∣culty 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 know∣ing 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 questi∣on 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 Do∣ctrine 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 ve∣ry 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 adversa∣ries 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 Religi∣on. 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 com∣munion 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 corrupti∣on 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 adora∣tion 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 suc∣cession 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 alle∣gations 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 in∣structed 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 mat∣ter, which the malice of men hath so intangled and beset with thorns; and as oc∣casion 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 incul∣cates 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 extrava∣gant manner of speaking, when by the Church the Pope alone is understood; as

doth Pope Innocent the III.* 1.1 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,* 1.2 chap. 19. The Pope must tell it unto the Church, that is, unto himself. Al∣so 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 se∣cond 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 be∣tween 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,* 1.3 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 Apo∣stle, 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 pre∣destinated 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,* 1.4 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 be∣cause 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; ne∣vertheless, 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 ho∣ly 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 Re∣mission of sins is attributed, and life everlasting, which are graces belonging on∣ly 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 So∣ciety of the Christian Churches which are Orthodox, sound in the faith, and united together in Communion, opposing that Church to the Heretical and Schis∣matical 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 salva∣tion 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 re∣cedeth 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 on∣ly, sometimes we extend it to the whole multitude of those that profess Christi∣anity, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, at∣tributing 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 pro∣phane 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 immacu∣late 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 un∣to the end.

John 10. The Church of Christ is compared unto a sheepfold, and the faith∣ful 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,(a) 1.5 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.(b) 1.6 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.(c) 1.7 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,(d) 1.8 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 pos∣sess the Kingdom of Heaven. And in the second Book against Cresconius, in Chap. 21.(e) 1.9 They are not of the body of Christ, which is the Church, because Christ cannot

have damned members. Wherefore in Chap. 9. of his Manuale ad Laurentium,(a) 1.10 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 Re∣tractations. 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 per∣fection 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.(b) 1.11 The Church is elected from all the world, and mortified from the earthly life: He maketh then a Church of the Elect.

(c) 1.12Jerome 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 glori∣fied Saints(d) 1.13; thereby acknowledging another Spouse of Christ then the Ro∣man 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, that(e) 1.14 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 ra∣ther chusing to joyn such contrary things in a body, then to make them two se∣veral 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 dig∣nity 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 Hierarchi∣cal 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,(a) 1.15 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,(b) 1.16 That the Church of the Elect is gathered from the Nations. And so upon the fifth penitential Psalm, chap. 6. he saith,

(a) 1.17 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,(b) 1.18 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 of(c) 1.19 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:(d) 1.20 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 re∣jecting 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. Nei∣ther 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 acknow∣ledge 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 rea∣soning 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 pre∣destinate 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.* 1.21 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 Predesti∣nate 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 Rege∣neration, Faith and Adoption in Jesus Christ: Since then they are all predesti∣nated 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 Divi∣nity 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 pro∣mise: and Ephes. 4.30. Grieve not the holy Spirit of God,* 1.22 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 fore∣head: 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 designa∣tion in God, as the Cardinal speaketh. Yet herein his ingenuity is commendable,

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 in∣tended 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 with∣out 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 neces∣sary.

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 cal∣ling. 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 cohe∣rence, 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.

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 no∣thing 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 Predestina∣tion.

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 cor∣rupted 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

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 Scri∣pture 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 writ∣ten 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 in∣visible. 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 up∣on 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 Chri∣stians, must be called Churches. Answer to the Cardinal.

THe Question is, Whether the Societies of Idolatrous, or Heretick, or Schis∣matical Christians, ought to be called Churches? and, Whether when by He∣resies 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 Con∣troversies. 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 under∣stand

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 Sa∣craments 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,* 1.23 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 As∣sembly 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 uni∣ted 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 excommunica∣ted 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 un∣righteously, 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 coun∣trey where there is no Christians, will come by reading, or conference, or inspi∣ration 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 Com∣munion of the Church, I make no doubt but that he may be saved, believing in

Jesus Christ, though he never did aggregate himself to the Communion of the Church. For our 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 sensu∣al 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 dis∣sention 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 fur∣thest 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 se∣parated 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 Or∣thodox Church of Africa for the ordination of Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, pretending that he had been created Bishop by Bishops that had delivered the ho∣ly 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, re∣membring the sentence of Jesus Christ,* 1.24 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 judge∣ment of the salvation of others. For no doubt but that such separations com∣monly happen by the ambition of the Pastors that lead the people, who groan un∣der that yoke, and desire concord, grieving for the separation. Yea it may hap∣pen 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, ex∣communicate Hereticks and Schismaticks, and assign their quarter in hell; where∣as they should have a tender care to take heed to make up the least breach, by

bearing with the weak. I would then put a great difference between the Au∣thors 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 igno∣rant 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,* 1.25 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 con∣demneth 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 Dona∣tists that came since, and have followed them in that point: For which cause Steven Bishop of Rome called Cyprian (who was far better then he)(a) 1.26 a false Christ, a false Prophet, and a deceitful workman. As on the other side, Cy∣prian Epist. 74. calls Steven proud, ignorant, lover of Hereticks, Enemy to Christians.

M. du Perron beats incessantly upon the necessity of Communion with the Ro∣man 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 remote∣ness 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 Bellar∣mine, 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,* 1.27 though

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 be∣ing 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 al∣wayes 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 for∣sake 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 Baby∣lon, 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 neigh∣bouring Nations, yet she was not visible to the Chinesi, Americans, Sar∣mates, &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 Sy∣nagogue; 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 fol∣lows 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 corrup∣tible, that under the third it must be so too. But he is mistaken in his Philo∣sophy: 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 perpe∣tuity 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 com∣eth he shall find faith in the Earth? The Roman Church that investeth her∣self 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 emi∣nent and visible unto the Infidels? Do not our Adversaries say, that the Antichrist shall abolish the continual Sacrifice, that is, (as they understand it) the Mass?

At that time then the Roman Church shall be no more: For they hold that a Church cannot be without a Sacrifice; at least at that time she shall have no visi∣ble and no eminent state.

And since God commandeth his Church, Revel. 18. to come out of Ba∣bylon, 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 fa∣vour his cause against the Donatists, will have the true Church alwayes emi∣nent in multitude and splendor, in some other places is speaking otherwise. In the 80. Epistle to Hosychius speaking of the last times,(a) 1.28 The Church (saith he) shall not then appear, the impious persecutors exercising their violence beyond measure. And in the 45. Epistle to Vincentius,(b) 1.29 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 in∣deed 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.(c) 1.30 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,(d) 1.31 The Church looks obscure in the time of her Peregri∣nation.

Ambrose in the 4. of the Hexameron, Chap. 2.(e) 1.32 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.(f) 1.33 Where three are, though they be Laymen, there the Church is; for every one liveth by his faith.

Hilary in his Book against Auxentius,(g) 1.34 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

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 Jeru∣salem 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 City(a) 1.35 Austin understands the Church. Basil in his abridged definitions in the 277. Interrogation holds that thereby good works must be understood, be∣cause 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 re∣moved 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 un∣to 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 Uni∣versal, 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 ap∣pease the universal Church is not convocated. Besides, they that are command∣ed 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 que∣stion 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 taber∣nacle 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.* 1.36 In them (that is in the heavens) he hath set a tabernacle for the Sun. A man that hath re∣course 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Chry∣sostom signifieth to be, put out and utterly abolisht, not to be obscured. This falsificati∣on is notorious.

Out of the same Chrysostom, in the same place he alledgeth this, The Sun is not so manifest, nor his light, as the actions of the Church. Yea to them that are of the Church, and have eyes to see. But as for them that are out of the Church, and

are blind in their understanding, M. du Perron hath 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 Adversa∣ries: 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 can∣not aggregate themselves unto the Church, since they do not see her. That Ob∣jection 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 be∣fore Luther, remounting from Luther to the Apostles?

OUr ears are even tired with that stale Objection: Shew us where your Reli∣gion 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 them∣selves.

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 re∣quire 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 be∣fore 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 Bi∣shops 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 presup∣poseth that the Orthodox Church must be visible to us in all ages. Now we have

proved that the Church sometimes seems to be extinct, and hath not alwayes a vi∣sible eminency.

And to make the injustice of their dealing superlative, they present that que∣stion 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 fol∣lowing 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 Hi∣story 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; Whe∣ther 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; dispen∣sing 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 reject∣ing those Traditions, keeps her self to Scripture only, be the Church conform∣able 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 constitu∣ted, 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 Ger∣many, 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 Pro∣vinces, agreeth with us in the Fundamental points of the Faith, although she ob∣serve many small superstitions: For she is not subject unto the Pope, knoweth neither his Indulgences, for his Laws; believeth neither Purgatory nor Tran∣substantiation, maketh no Adoration of the Host in the Holy Communion, nor

any elevation for worship: Celebrates the divine Service in the native language; Communicates under both kinds; worshippeth no Images: Hath no private Communion; hath but one Table or Altar in every Church; hath married Priests; Baptizeth men-children forty 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 Per∣rons 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 Euty∣chian, 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 fol∣lowing ages. Wherefore whensoever our Adversaries ask us where our Religion was before Luther?* 1.37 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:* 1.38 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 Pro∣phet, or the Antient.

Against that Doctrine of pride, Scripture doth furnish us with many exam∣ples. 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?* 1.39 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 Sa∣crifices 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 un∣derstood 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,* 1.40 were ene∣mies 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 pro∣nounced 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 con∣trary Churches, any of those Churches ought to presume that she can ne∣ver err?

Yet our Adversaries defend that arrogant Doctrine with some Texts of Scri∣pture, which they oppose unto experience, and to the examples attested by Scri∣pture, 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* 1.41 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 de∣parted 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 al∣wayes 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. ac∣cuseth 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 conform∣ably 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 Pro∣phesie 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* 1.42 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 re∣paration 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 presup∣position 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,* 1.43 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 fol∣lows 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,

which at this present is pure, it may not happen hereafter to fall into some er∣rour?

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 infal∣libility 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 de∣part 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 ab∣stinence 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 him∣self 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 prehemi∣nences, and the Church had many Diotrephes. Already they said, I am of Ce∣phas, 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 Ha∣bak. 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 se∣duced 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 represent∣ing 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

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 can∣not err, since they oppose with so much violence the first Council of Constanti∣nople, 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 Car∣dinal 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 that(a) 1.44 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.(b) 1.45 de∣clares 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 Car∣thage, saith,(c) 1.46 The Apostolical See alone makes void that which a Synodal As∣sembly would usurp against the order. Finally, Doctor Andradius, who was pre∣sent at the Council of Trent, declareth that(d) 1.47 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 appro∣bation; 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 in∣fallibility, 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 a(a) 1.48 book pur∣posely 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 stag∣gereth, and is doubtful about the adoration of the venerable images, this holy and ve∣nerable Synod doth anathematize him.

2. In the fourth Action of the same Synod these words are found: Images are

of equal worth with the Gospels and the venerable Cross. And in the same place, Major est imago quam oratio, The image is greater then the word, or the prayer.

3. In the fifth Action there is a manifest error, whereby (that there may be a ground for making images of Angels) the Council declareth that Angels are cor∣poral. 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 chap∣ter 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 Hit∣tites, 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 in∣fer 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 Coun∣cil; In the fourth Action those are condemned, which said that images must on∣ly 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 Adversa∣ries 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:† 1.49 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* 1.50 convenient by reason of the honour which is referred unto principal things, that derivative images be ho∣noured and adored as the Book of the holy Gospels, and the figure of the precious Cross.

6. In the year of our Lord, 891.* 1.51 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 dispen∣sed 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 For∣mosus, 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 to∣gether. 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 decla∣ring that a man is not bound to be faithful unto God.

7. In the year of our Lord, 1059. Pope Nicolas the II.* 1.52 assembled a Council against Berengarius, where it was declared and pronounced, that the bread and wine which is put upon the altar after the consecration, is not only the Sacrament, but

also the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that not only the Sacrament, but the body of the Lord is* 1.53 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 conse∣cration, be the body of Christ.

* 1.548. 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 au∣thentical long before the Apostles.

Of the third, the pride is detestable; for it attributes unto the Pope an ho∣nour 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 be∣fore 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 Pre∣late, that from that time he declare his subjects absolved from his subjection, and ex∣pose his country to be seized upon by Catholicks, that they may extermine here∣ticks.

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 un∣to 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 allegi∣ance, 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 Nati∣ons:

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 Go∣spel; 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 Command∣ment, 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 hu∣mility?

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 neigh∣bouring places have a great advantage above others; for they have the full remis∣sion 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 ad∣ded; as those of Saints and Monks, to satisfie the justice of God for the pain due

to our sins. By this means they will have God to take two payments for one debt. What need of a second payment when the first is sufficient? But their second pay∣ment 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. Be∣sides, 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 sa∣tisfied. 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 me∣rits, 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 sa∣tisfactions 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,* 1.55 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 suf∣fered 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 de∣serveth 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 Majo∣ritate & 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 un∣to 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 can∣not 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 neces∣sity 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 begin∣ing made Heaven and Earth. These are Laws and Papal Ordinances, pro∣nounced with all the forms, and inserted into the body of the Pontificial decrees; Which to excuse from Error, one must want both conscience and com∣mon sense.

14. In the year of Lord 1414. a Council was held at Constance to reform

the Church in capite & membris, as it was agreed in the precedent Council of Pisa. In that Council, convocated by the authority of Pope John XXIII. three contending Popes were deposed, this John XXIII. for one,* 1.56 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 Em∣perour 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 Er∣rors, 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 re∣fuse 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 con∣duct was granted to these two men by the advice of the Council.

Here is perjury and disloyalty authorized by an Article of a Council; con∣formably to the Decretal of Pope Innocent the III. in the second Book of the De∣cretals, Titulo chap. 24. Sicut nostris, the Inscription whereof is,* 1.57 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 Er∣rors 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.* 1.58 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 Au∣stria 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 pernici∣ous 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 in∣stitute the Sacrament under the two kinds, yet the custom of giving to the peo∣ple 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

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 pro∣posed 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,* 1.59 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,* 1.60 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 Flo∣rence assembled by the authority of Pope Eugenius the IV. defineth and de∣clareth 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 carry∣eth the primacy for impiety, above all other Councils of the Roman Church, yea above all Assemblies that ever were.

* 1.61In the first Session, the Popes Officers take the Oath of allegiance and fide∣lity 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 Ses∣sion 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 ex∣ample, 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 Cham∣ber, 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 Vi∣car of Christ, and of God, this sentence of the Prophet ought to be fulfilled again: All the Kings of the Earth shall worship him,* 1.62 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 Uni∣versal Church is personated, thus speaking unto the Pope; Am I not, O my sweetest Bridegroom, thine only and well-beloved, which now may exclaim, Look not upon me, because I am black! Cant. 1.6.

If these impieties were in some Decrees or Epistles of the Popes, one might bring the ordinary excuse, that Popes may err as men, but not as Popes: But

being pronounced in a Council, which our Adversaries call Universal, the Acts whereof have been carefully reveiwed by persons appointed thereunto, and ap∣proved 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.* 1.63 the King∣dom 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 impie∣ty 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 conse∣quent 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 per∣sons 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 in∣vasion 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. Where∣fore the Clergy of France opposed the judgement of the Pope and the Universal Council. And the good King, Lewis the XII.* 1.64 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:* 1.65 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,* 1.66 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 Ar∣ticles 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 Traditi∣ons 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,

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 Scri∣ptures.

* 1.6727. The same Council cannot be excused of error, for declaring and pronoun∣cing in the fifth Session, that the concupiscence forbidden in the Law is no sin, al∣though 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 autho∣rizing 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,* 1.68 who speaks thus; Our vulgar Edition, which is said to be of Saint Hi∣erom, 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 Adversa∣ries.

* 1.69Isidorus Clarius, a Monk of Montcassin hath revised that Vulgar version ap∣proved 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 of∣fending 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 addeth† 1.70 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 em∣brace 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 in∣to it. And he wisheth that a sedulous care may be taken about it; Which neverthe∣less was not done.

29. Who can excuse that version which to establish the adoration of the crea∣tures, 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

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,* 1.71 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 Coun∣cil 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 adora∣tion 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 autho∣rized, 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;* 1.72 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:* 1.73 For of that prohibition there is no menti∣on in the Council: But in that Council, some Prelates and Doctors in good num∣ber 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.* 1.74 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 dispensa∣tions 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 Cler∣gy-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 Aposto∣lical letters, costs seventeen or eighteen groats. And these absolutions extend even to the dead. In the thirty seventh leaf, For a dead man excommunicated, for whom his kindred supplicate, the letter of absolution is sold for one ducat nine pence: These are the ancient taxes, but now they are grown a hundred times dearer.

In the twenty third leaf these words are found, The dispensation of contracting

[marriage] in the spiritual kindred, costs 60. Groats. Nevertheless (saith the Datary) I have expedited one for 30 Groats, but by 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, ac∣cording to the quality of the persons.* 1.75 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.(a) 1.76 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 fi∣gure, 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 permit∣eth 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 fetch∣eth 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 con∣sequent 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 under∣standing, — then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. All that against the ordinary practice of the Roman Church.

42.* 1.77The 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 Ex∣communicates

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 parri∣cide. 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 He∣reticks; 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 Go∣spel; 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; pro∣miseth 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 assi∣stants; 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 no∣thing 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 com∣prehended and inwrapt in one; namely in that impiety whereby our Adversa∣ries maintain that the Pope can dispense against the Apostle, and alter the Com∣mandments of God contained in the Scriptures: Of which we have already pro∣duced 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 Do∣ctrine 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:(a) 1.78 They have given many rules and observations by the succession of Fa∣thers, 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 di∣rectly 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 Here∣sies, shews it:(b) 1.79 Hereticks say, That the truth cannot be found out of the Scri∣ptures, 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 Hie∣rapolis, 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 de∣fends 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 Text(c) 1.80 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. saith(d) 1.81 the Hereticks of his time would affirm, that the Apostles had not revealed all things unto all, but that they had com∣manded

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.(e) 1.82 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 Bellar∣mine useth to under prop Traditions and the unwritten Word. See(f) 1.83 Bellarmine in his Book of the unwritten word, Chap. 5. & 11.

Ireneus saith in the 3. Book, chap. 2. That(g) 1.84 the Valentinians and other He∣reticks 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 Scri∣ptures, 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(a) 1.85 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 in∣serted 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 obey(b) 1.86 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,(a) 1.87 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. Au∣stin in the first book of Heresies, Ad quod vult Deum, saith that Simon Magus(b) 1.88 made his Disciples to worship Images, his own and his Harlot's. And in the Chap. 7.(c) 1.89 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 Ca∣tholick Church, Chap. 34.(d) 1.90 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.(e) 1.91 So they deserve

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 Phi∣lippi, and of the images of the Apostles, saith, that it was done by some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by an heathenish custom, thus to honour those whom they think to be their Saviours. Wherefore the Eliberin Synod, Canon thirty six,(f) 1.92 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 Ana∣blata, wherein the Image of Jesus Christ, or some Saint was painted, as himself saith in his Epistle to John of Jerusalem, which(g) 1.93 Saint Hierom hath trans∣lated.

But that which is most to be noted, is, that the Pagans and the makers of ima∣ges 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 the(h) 1.94 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,(i) 1.95 having figured things not ap∣pearing 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 them∣selves, saying,(k) 1.96 the images were unto men like the Scriptures, upon which fixing their sight, they may comprehend something of Gods knowledge. And a little after,(l) 1.97 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,(m) 1.98 Nec simulacrum, nec daemonium co∣lo, 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 ser∣vice of Angels, &c.

Tertullian in the Book of Prescriptions, chap. 33.(a) 1.99 The Magick of the Si∣monian discipline which serveth Angels. Austin ad Quod vult Deum, puts the An∣gelicks 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.(b) 1.100 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 ido∣latry, 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 Pisi∣dia: Wherefore the Synod of Laodicea, which is the Mother-City of Phrygia, ex∣presly 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

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.(c) 1.101 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,(d) 1.102 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 ac∣counted 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, that(e) 1.103 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, re∣lates, that Simonians would say, that(f) 1.104 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 wor∣shipping the Queen of heaven, saying, We will burn incense to the Queen of heaven. And Apuleius in his eleventh Book cals the Moon(a) 1.105 the Queen of hea∣ven. 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 be∣longs not to a woman, no not to the Angels. He addeth,(b) 1.106 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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 that(a) 1.107 by right of nature a thing in∣animate may be worshipped: Yea he comes so far as to say, that(b) 1.108 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(a) 1.109 Josephus 13. chapter of the 12. Book of Antiquities. And Jesus Christ, Matth. 5.28. re∣buketh 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 adul∣tery. The Council of Trent in the 5. Session, declareth that the coveting prohi∣bited 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 Voca∣tion, 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.

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 Ga∣latians, 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 fol∣lowed the Doctrine of the Prophets, Matth. 23.29. The like they do in the Ro∣man 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 ty∣rannie: 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 Pro∣phets 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;(a) 1.110 It must be asked again, whe∣ther 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,(b) 1.111 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 condi∣tion between Hell and the Kingdom of Heaven, in which they were ex∣empt 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 Ro∣man 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

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 ex∣cuse, and say they intended to swear by him that made Heaven, and hath placed his Throne in it.

XII. Of Perjury.

THe Hereticks called(a) 1.112 Priscillianists taught perjury, as Austin saith in the 70. Chap. ad quod vult Deum. The Roman Church also is a School of per∣jury; for the Pope dispenseth from the Oaths made unto God, and dispenseth the Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance to a Soveraign Prince(b) 1.113. 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, Juramen∣tum 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 In∣nocent 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,* 1.114 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 impli∣cite faith of the People of the Roman Church, which believeth without knowing what the Church must believe; and believeth what the Roman Church be∣lieveth, 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 dis∣swaded 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.(a) 1.115 They turn the people away (saith he) from the Scriptures, pretending that they dare not undertake [to come neer them] as unacces∣sible; 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(a) 1.116 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 re∣ceive 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.* 1.117 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 Dia∣logues; where there are many apparitions of souls, saying that they are in Pur∣gatory, in the wind, or in the water, or in hot Bathes: For the Purgatory in a sub∣terranean 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 un∣derstood least. Of that the reason is given by Clemens Alexandrinus in the first Book of the Stromates, namely that(a) 1.118 men hold prayers pronounced in an un∣known 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,(b) 1.119 that the me∣rit of Faith is there greater, where there is less intelligence. Conformably to(c) 1.120 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 cer∣tain 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. Ter∣tullian 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;(a) 1.121 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as our English versi∣on 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, that(b) 1.122 they found fault with the Montanists, because they extended their fast till the Even∣ing, 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.(c) 1.123 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, accord∣ing 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)(d) 1.124 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 re∣jicimus, 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 per∣fections 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:(a) 1.125 Marcion indifferently permits, even to women to give Baptism. The same he saith in the seventy ninth Heresie: Where also he main∣tains, 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,(b) 1.126 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, that(c) 1.127 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.

* 1.128THe 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 Tubilustri∣um, 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 bo∣dy 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:(a) 1.129 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;(b) 1.130 Thou art taken in the net which thou hast woven; for the mystical signs after the consecra∣tion, 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 Theodo∣ret hath been taxed of other errors in the Council of Ephesus. The Roman Edi∣tion of the Greek Dialogues of Theodoret hath pre-fixed this warning in the be∣ginning of the book; That Theodoret being carried too far by the desire of de∣fending the truth, sometimes hangs too much on the other side. Vigilius in the fourth book against Eutyches, disputes against the Eutychians, in the same man∣ner 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.(c) 1.131 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 here∣sie) 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 Commu∣nion under one kind, and takes the cup from the people: Yet in the same Canon, these Venerable Fathers confess, that Jesus Christ instituted this Sacra∣ment 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 Pope(a) 1.132 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 Sacra∣ment cannot be done without a great Sacriledge. The ordinary answer is, that Ge∣lasius speaks of Priests that abstained from the cup, not of the people.

But(b) 1.133 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 con∣demneth 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 pre∣senting 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,(a) 1.134 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 the(b) 1.135 day of his electi∣on: 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 Ca∣nonizations, 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 Canoniza∣tion 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 pre∣tence 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 toge∣ther, 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,(a) 1.136 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 ful∣filled 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 Pro∣tector 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 or∣nament 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 Mo∣ses is now figured.(a) 1.137 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,(b) 1.138 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.(c) 1.139 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 of† 1.140 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 Jo∣vinian, 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(a) 1.141 in the thirteenth chapter of his Apologeticus, saith of it, The mendicant Religion goeth about the Taverns. The Hereticks Massalians(b) 1.142 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:(a) 1.143 Upon which, Rhenanus makes this annotation; Istius ve∣teris 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Cy∣bele called(b) 1.144 Curetes.

The Pagans(c) 1.145 made difficulty of marrying in March and May, as now our Adversaries in Lent.(d) 1.146 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 Fau∣stinian 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.

The† 1.147 Pagans had the great Altar consecrated to Hercules.

Twelftide,* 1.148 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.(a) 1.149 After that (saith he) it was purposely introduced that the offices of Pagan superstition, being conse∣crated 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 trans∣ported to Gods service.

The Gloss of the Canon Consecrationem. Dist. 1. de consecratione, speaking of the Pagan customs and ceremonies, saith,(b) 1.150 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 Bri∣taine, he makes very little use of Gods Word, as of a tool which doth not fit his hand. But he(a) 1.151 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, Ar∣nobius, Lactantius; To which I adde Eusebius and Athanasius, who were pre∣sent at the first Council. From whose writings we may learn, what was the be∣lief 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 ma∣ny 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 Fa∣thers 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.* 1.152 For these are his words, The King with the Anglican Church ad∣mitting 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, reckon∣ing 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 men∣tion 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 ex∣amples are found of that invocation? Yet to that the Cardinal, in the fore-alledg∣ed 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 do∣ctrines, 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 peo∣ple from the cup, the service of images, the invocation of Saints, the fire of Pur∣gatory immediately after death, the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, and

over their crowns, praying to God when one understands not himself, and many other things.

Besides, to 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 Ro∣man Church, and the power of the Pope, are inclosed within the compass of the Ro∣man 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 Bi∣shop of Rome had no communication, neither did he for many ages pretend any pre∣heminence 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 blas∣phemy, which before did but whisper in corners, hath made bold to get in∣to the pulpit, and set forth his impiety in publick. For who so shall look neer∣hand into the nature of that question, whether the Church must have more au∣thority 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 that(a) 1.153 Scripture cannot be Judge of the doubts about faith, that the Church giveth authority to Scripture, and that Scripture hath neither strength nor au∣thority, 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 testimo∣nies, 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 ne∣cessary to salvation is not contained therein; and thereupon setting up another [but unwritten] Word of God, which is found in the mouth of the Church, that is, in their own mouth.

They call the Church a speaking Judge, but the Scripture a(b) 1.154 dumb rule; and yet not a whole rule, but a piece and a part of one. They accuse Scripture of ob∣scurity, and wish that it were more obscure yet, that it might have less strength to condemn them. Whereupon they bear themselves as infallible Interpre∣ters of Scripture, thereby making themselves Law-givers under the title of Interpreters.

The Cardinal in the seventh Chapter of the second observation of the second Book, maintains, that one must not have recourse to the age of the Apostles,

that is, to the example and doctrine of the Apostles to repurge the Church. Bellar∣min(c) 1.155 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 Scri∣pture, 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 al∣wayes 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 re∣sideth. 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 ac∣cording to the Word of God, and receive with respect those that speak in Gods name; Of whom the Lord Jesus saith,(d) 1.156 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 do∣ctrines, 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 re∣tains 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 at∣tributes 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 Scri∣pture, 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 under∣stand 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 be∣lieve not, or that others among them speake with more respect of Scripture then

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.(e) 1.157 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.(f) 1.158 The Church hath not been limited to the Scriptures by the will of God, but to the living and perpetual testimony of the Holy Ghost.

The Jesuit Costerus, in the first Chapter of his Manual(g) 1.159 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 Scri∣pture exceeds much the holy Scriptures which the Apostles have left us in parchment.

Salmeron in the first Prolegomen,(i) 1.160 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 au∣thority 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,(k) 1.161 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 sub∣ject unto men.

The Jesuit Serarius in the tenth Prolegomen. qu. 2.(h) 1.162 (l) 1.163 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.(n) 1.164 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.(m) 1.165

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 Scri∣pture, as M. du Perron will tell us hereafter.

By the way observe how little these men understand what they say. For Bel∣larmin 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 be∣fore, 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 Scri∣pture 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 ad∣versaries go about to prove the authority of the Roman Church by texts of Scri∣pture; 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 Pro∣phets 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 Apo∣stles 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 under∣stood, then that proposition is false in respect of the Pastors.

IX. Every Judge between two parties, must be acknowledged by both the par∣ties. Now Scripture is acknowledged both by us and by our Adversaries to be the true word of God; But we acknowledge not the Roman Church to be the true Church. Wherefore the Roman Church cannot be Judge of our controversies:

Otherwise she should be both Judge and Party, and should be Judge in her own cause.

X. There is but one holy Scripture, but there be many dissenting Churches, which should be made friends before we can know which must judge us, if so be that the Church must be our Judge: For the Greek and the Syrian will pretend to be Judges as well as the Roman, as being more 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 au∣thority 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 Scri∣pture 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 authen∣tical, 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 con∣trary 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 au∣thority 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 do∣ctrine. Now one cannot know whether a Church have the true doctrine conform∣able 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 authori∣ty to the Church.

St. Austin is very express upon that question. In the XI. Book against Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5.(a) 1.166 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.(b) 1.167 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 Ora∣cles. 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

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,(c) 1.168 Let the divinely inspired Scripture judge us. Clemens Alexan∣drinus in the third of the Stromates,(d) 1.169 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 Cano∣nical; 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 di∣rectly, 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 Scri∣pture, it appeareth, because heretical Churches make the same Declaration, and bear the like testimony unto Scripture: Yea it may happen that he who hath re∣ceived 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 read∣ing 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

grounded upon the only testimony of men. It is by Faith that we believe Scri∣pture: 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 in∣structed 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 Testa∣ment alleadgeth the Old, and the Old foretels the New. Moses and Elias ap∣pear 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 de∣claration 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 Scri∣pture, 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 Cano∣nical, 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 au∣thority.

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 Pro∣positions are false: It is false, that whatsoever is more antient, hath more autho∣rity: 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 Scri∣pture, 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 Ele∣ction 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 Jesuite(a) 1.170 Ar∣noux. Then there is need of a speaking Judge, and that Judge is the Church, that is, the Pope and his Prelates. The Jesuite(b) 1.171 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 con∣ceived 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 writ∣ten 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 Testi∣mony, 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,(c) 1.172 an exact ballance, a square and a rule of all things. But that doth not suit with our Adversaries humor; for(d) 1.173 Bellarmine saith, that the proper and principal end of Scripture was not to be the Rule of Faith. And Stapleton;(e) 1.174 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 whe∣ther 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 au∣thorize.

One of the ordinariest reasons which our Adversaries use, to depress the dig∣nity 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 Scri∣pture is given by inspiration of God. Now the Inspiration of God is stronger then a

Commandment; for Commandments strike the cars, but Inspiration changeth the heart: Many disobey the Commandment of God; but one cannot have a will to resist his Inspiration when it is once come. When God inspires one to speak and to write, not only he commands him to speak or to write, but also he speaks and writes by him: His Inspirations are not only imperative, but ope∣rative. Wherefore Austin in the first Book of the consent of Evangelists in the 7. chap. saith, that(f) 1.175 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 Scri∣pture. 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 man∣ner) 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 Here∣ticks 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 in∣deed, 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 Reader(a) 1.176 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 di∣vided,

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 au∣thority 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 him∣self: 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 by(b) 1.177 Gerson, Evangelio non crederem nisi me authoritas Ecclesiae com∣movisset. 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 que∣stions 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 infal∣lible 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† 1.178 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

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 discern∣ing, 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 interpreta∣tions 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 unwrit∣ten 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 fol∣low the words of Scripture, but is subjected unto the interpretation of the Ro∣man 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 Uni∣versal Church: Only divers Comments and Sermons are found of Authors, some old, some late, that dissent in their Interpretations; upon none of which the Ro∣man 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 be∣fore 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, That(a) 1.179 the Pope dispen∣seth 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,(b) 1.180 There are things so clear in Scri∣pture, 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 Na∣tions 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 In∣terpreter, &c.(c) 1.181 As these words, Let both grow until the harvest, need no Inter∣preter, because when they needed interpretation, Christ himself did interpret them. And if some hard Text be found in Scripture, it is better to be ignorant of the

sense of it, then to presume to be infallible Judge of the Word of God. Take me that Text, the sense whereof is most controverted, even these words, This is my Body. The way is 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 blame∣less, the husband of one wife, — having his children in subjection with all gra∣vity? 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 Command∣ment 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 in∣terpretation.

And whosoever will sift narrowly that Proposition, That the Pope with his Ro∣man 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 him∣self 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 In∣terpreter; 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 Interpre∣tations 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 sa∣crifice 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,* 1.182 and him only shalt thou serve. The interpretation of our Adversaries, is, that the Lord will have the cult of latria deferred unto God alone; for (say they) the cult of dulia is for the Saints: But that distinction is not found in Scripture, which will have the cult of dulia deferred unto God; as Rom. 12.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yielding dulia un∣to God: And Mat. 6.24. You cannot 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yield dulia unto God and to Mammon.

Jesus Christ said to Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.* 1.183 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.(a) 1.184 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,(b) 1.185 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 interrogati∣on: The things which seem obscurely said in some places of Scripture, are expound∣ed in other places, and clearly set down.

II. The second difference is, that when we have expounded Scripture out of Scri∣pture, 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,* 1.186 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 un∣to 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, That(c) 1.187 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 attri∣butes 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

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,(d) 1.188 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 interpre∣tations 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;(e) 1.189 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, be∣cause the Priests were commanded to have their loins girt about, and to wear drawers. The same thing is proved by Pope Innocent the I.(f) 1.190 because it is writ∣ten, They that are in the flesh, cannot please God.

VI. Also that reproach cannot be objected unto us, that we bring interpreta∣tions 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 Para∣dise, 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 com∣munion 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 under∣stand not the communion with that body, but the very body of Christ.

VII. Finally, our interpretations of Scripture are not ridiculous, and done pur∣posely 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,* 1.191 who hath written a book purposely for the de∣fence of that Council.

I will add one Text more, which alone for all, may shew the horrible profana∣tion, 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 suc∣cessor 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

of sins, being given to the Apostles, the Pope extends that power so far as to dis∣solve 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 what∣soever 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 Eccle∣siastical 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 in∣fallibly.

THe Cardinal in the fifth chapter of his first book against his Majesty of Great Britain, alledgeth Hierom, saying, that(a) 1.192 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 ex∣tant; 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,* 1.193 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,(b) 1.194 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.(c) 1.195 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 Scri∣pture 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 autho∣rity to interpret Scripture. But still he stumbleth at that stone, presupposing against truth, that in points necessary to salvation, Scripture hath need of an interprter.

It will not be found in express terms in Scripture, that God governeth the

world by his providence: Yet that we believe, not by humane reasoning, nor by revelation, nor by the authority of any Interpreters, but by Scripture, which saith the same thing in equivalent terms,* 1.196 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 Scri∣pture. 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 Per∣ron teacheth,* 1.197 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 abstain∣ing 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 mo∣ved 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 im∣mersion, 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 Eu∣charist; for he confesseth that(a) 1.198 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 my∣steries 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

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 cor∣rect 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 pur∣pose, to shew that it is the ordinary language of the most famous Doctors of the Roman Church.

(b) 1.199The 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,(c) 1.200 Our ancestors, men ex∣cellent in religion and piety, would never have disanulled those decrees of the Apo∣stles and many more, but that, &c. Whence he inferreth, that(d) 1.201 those have not er∣red, 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 Coun∣cil are,(e) 1.202 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 Apo∣stle 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 command∣ing 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 con∣trary; 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 pro∣hibita: Then the Pope can give dispensation in those things that are forbidden by Gods Law.

Thomas Aquinas goeth so far, as to say, that(f) 1.203 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, that(g) 1.204 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,(h) 1.205 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.(i) 1.206 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 exam∣ples in the Preface of this Book.

To which I will adde this corollary out of the Roman Decree, in the first que∣stion of the 31. Cause. It is a Canon ascribed to Chrysostom, against second mar∣riages. It speaks thus(k) 1.207 To marry a second wife according to the Apostles com∣mand, 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 per∣mission, 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 ado∣ption:* 1.208 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 Or∣thodox 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, that(a) 1.209 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.(b) 1.210 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 sal∣vation, 1 Cor. 3.15.

To this purpose serve the words of Moses, Deut. 4.6. You shall keep these Com∣mandments 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 whe∣ther 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 cer∣tain, 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 re∣ceived by the Adversaries. Whence it followeth, that the true Church is discern∣ed 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 do∣ctrine. 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 cer∣tain knowledge of the true Church, but by the true faith and doctrine.

One only demonstrative reason decides that difference. It is a rule without ex∣ception, that definitions must be more known then the thing defined. As if I said,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

that expositions must be clearer then the things expounded, and that the candle must be lighter then the book that is read by it. If then true faith and doctrine enters into the definition of the Church, and makes part of the definition, it fol∣lows 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.(a) 1.211 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 do∣ctrine, 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;* 1.212 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 them∣selves 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 know∣ledge 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,(a) 1.213 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 mani∣fested, 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 Do∣natists, 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:(b) 1.214 Let them shew us whether they have the Church, Only by the Ca∣nonical 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 Ma∣jesty, 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 confess∣eth, 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 re∣moved, 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 Apo∣stles, which themselves have set down in writing.

The same words of the Cardinal, overthrow that thredbare objection of our

Adversaries, that one cannot know that such a book is Scripture but by the Church. For behold one of the most eminent Cardinals of the Roman Church, who confesseth with Austin, that one cannot know the Church but by the Scripture.

Now that not only in the question of the marks of the Church, but in other questions Austin will have the Scripture to be judge, it is 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,(c) 1.215 Let the Apostle judge with Christ, for Christ himself also speaks by the Apostle. And in the second book against Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5. he saith, that(d) 1.216 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 quar∣relling among themselves about Religion, may know to what Church he must ag∣gregate 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 im∣perfect work upon Saint Matthew,(e) 1.217 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 confor∣mity 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 con∣formity 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 un∣to 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 challen∣ged 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

money, &c. are marks of Soveraignty, although an usurper assume them un∣justly.

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 uncontro∣verted, 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 distinct∣ly 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 be∣longs 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 socie∣ty 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 them∣selves 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 contro∣versie, it is enough for her to forfeit the title of true Church.

Upon the whole matter, to fright men away from examining the Doctrine of the Roman Church, the Cardinal makes the way so long, that a thousand years of study would not be enough: For he will have one to know all the Objections and Answers that ever were made upon every point of Divinity; And yet in the end, if one be deficient in one point, he holds that all is lost, All that, to the end

that 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 infi∣nite 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 be∣lieveth 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 Marci∣onites. 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 up∣on him to undertake the examination of the whole doctrine either of the Ro∣man 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 understand∣ings 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 Ad∣versaries; 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 ob∣ject 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 be∣fore, 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 Adver∣saries 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 sen∣sible, 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 be∣fore 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 con∣sequent, 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 te∣stifieth 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 com∣prehended 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 never∣theless 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 Cha∣rity, which is violated by the Schismatical Churches: Neither do I find any Schis∣matical 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 Scri∣pture, 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 as∣sumes 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 evi∣dent: 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 of∣ten give false titles, and contrary names, and the same title may be usurped by

dissenting Churches. The names proper to a thing arise from the essential form thereof, but words and titles are given by the will of men.

Also it is necessary that the names and titles attributed unto the Church be given to her, either by 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;(a) 1.218 Each Congregation of Hereticks holds her self above all to be Christian, and her Church Catholick. Salvianus in the 5. Book of Pro∣vidence;(b) 1.219 So much they hold themselves Catholicks, that they defame us with the title of Hereticks. Cyprian to Jubaian;(c) 1.220 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, that(d) 1.221 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 contend∣ing 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 Bap∣tism, 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 Ʋni∣versal 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 Ro∣man. 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, be∣cause she comprehends all the Elect; both them that triumph in Heaven, and them that are or shall be militant here on earth. And if that Church mentioned in the Symbole, comprehends also the visible Church upon earth (which we would not

deny) then that visible Church is called 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.(a) 1.222 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.(b) 1.223 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 Ca∣tholick is rather added in the Symbole to discern the true Church, which is pure, and neither heretical nor schismatical, from the heretical and schismatical Chur∣ches. 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 parti∣cular, 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 Catho∣lick 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,(c) 1.224 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, under∣stand 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(d) 1.225 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 Ca∣tholick in that sense. Austin in the 152. Epistle,(e) 1.226 Not only (saith he) the Ca∣tholick 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;(f) 1.227 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 ex∣presly saith it in the Book De Genesi ad literam, chap. 1.(g) 1.228 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;(h) 1.229 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 Ca∣tholica, 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 de∣vise absurd and unreasonable reasons, why he will have the true Church to be cal∣led 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 mul∣titude is not alwaies on the side of the true Church.

The(h) 1.230 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 habitu∣al or an actual whole. So then a Church from which other Churches were separa∣ted, is not a whole, containing in any respect the said separated Churches, especi∣ally since she did not contain them before the separation, but only they were joyn∣ed 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, ha∣ving 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. saith(i) 1.231 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 Pascen∣tius, he saith, that(k) 1.232 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, Chris∣ma, 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 Cardi∣nals 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 the(l) 1.233 Canon is most perfect, and more then sufficient for all things. The other is, than(m) 1.234 since there is a dissention about the in∣terpretation of Scripture, we must hold the tradition of the Catholick Church, and take the Scripture for our Interpreter, Secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sen∣sus 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.

(n) 1.235Nevertheless 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 he∣resies, 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 an∣noy 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 coun∣sel of Vincentius Lirinensis, who will have such heresies convinced with the only Scripture, and by the antient Universal Councils. For indeed restraining our Ad∣versaries to Scripture, and to the antient Councils, is compelling them to impos∣sibilities: since they maintain, that all the doubts about the faith, cannot be de∣cided by Scripture, and send us to an unwritten word; herein opposing Vincen∣tius 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 Coun∣cils, they find nothing in them contray to us, but many Canons contrary to them. They find in the Council of Chalcedone a(o) 1.236 Canon equalling the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, with that of Rome in all things. They find in the Council of(p) 1.237 Lao∣dicea, 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,(q) 1.238 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,(r) 1.239 that is, bread and wine mingled with water. They find in the same Council two Canons(s) 1.240 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 ser∣vice 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 recei∣ved 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 men∣tion 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, which(t) 1.241 M. du Perron confess∣eth 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

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 read∣ing of Fathers, and Greek and Latine histories, where the people understands no∣thing, 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 admit∣teth 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 be∣lieved by all and everywhere. And none can justly reproach us, that ever we de∣parted 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 un∣derstanding, 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 in∣structed 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 vi∣ces 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 Ro∣man 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 de∣clare 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.(a) 1.242 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, and(b) 1.243 permit whoredom? Or to set on the people to rebel against their soveraign Prince, pro∣mising

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. Re∣mission 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 interpre∣tation? 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 satis∣factory 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 Monasti∣cal 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 them∣selves by recriminating, that we teach that good works are not necessary to sal∣vation, 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 con∣formity 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; ne∣vertheless 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

chapter of the book of prescriptions.(a) 1.244 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 rea∣son of the consanguinity of their Doctrine [with the Apostles.(b) 1.245] 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,(c) 1.246 and confor∣mity 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 in∣tricate? 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 af∣ter 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

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 Anti∣christs, the worst commonly overcame. So according to the very Canons of the Roman Church, factions and corruptions in the creation of the Popes, have se∣veral 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 Irenae∣us, 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 revo∣lutions, 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, with∣out speaking of conformity and succession in the Doctrine. Upon that the words of Irenaeus are pregnant,(d) 1.247 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.(e) 1.248 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 al∣ways 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 orati∣on concerning Athanasius,(f) 1.249 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 lan∣guage;

(g) 1.250 Behold (saith he) we shew the succession of our Doctrine from Fa∣thers to Fathers. And Ambrose(h) 1.251, That man hath not the succession of Peter, that hath not the faith of Peter. And Irenaeus, in the 4. Book. 43, & 44. chap. calls succession in the true Doctrine, the(i) 1.252 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,(k) 1.253 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 sanctifi∣eth the Pastor, but it is the holiness of the Pastor and his preaching that sancti∣fieth 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;(l) 1.254 Alas, alas, Lord Jesus, Those are the first in persecuting thee, that love pri∣macy 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;(m) 1.255 This we must dissemble, and hold our peace, especially about our Prelates and Masters of Churches. And in the same place,(n) 1.256 Iniquity pro∣ceeded from the old Judges, thy Vicars, which seemed to govern thy people. And in the 33. Sermon, speaking of the Papal Court;(o) 1.257 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,(p) 1.258 They will all be Successors, but few will be imitators, &c.(q) 1.259 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 Conside∣ratione, speaking of the Roman Court;(r) 1.260 If I durst speak it, These are ra∣ther 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,(s) 1.261 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 suc∣cession 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;(t) 1.262 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 suc∣cession.

We will shut up this discourse with a sentence of Austin in his 46. Treatise upon John.(u) 1.263 If sitting in Moses chair, they teach the Law of God, God teach∣eth by them; But if they will teach that which is of their own, (that is, their own inventions) hearken not unto them, and do not what they say.

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

OF this matter we have treated more at large in(a) 1.264 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 succes∣sion 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 to∣wards God, or of his Word, or of the obedience due to him. That form of Oath(b) 1.265 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 Sa∣crificers of the body of Christ, for the living and the dead, of which office the in∣stitution 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 there∣by 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 Ne∣storian 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. Where∣fore also the(c) 1.266 antient Church allowed the Office of heretical Bishops, when they converted themselves to the true Faith; neither did they confer a new Ordi∣nation

upon them. The Imposition of hands which they bestowed upon them, was not a new ordination, but only a blessing, as(d) 1.267 Balsamon teacheth. I say then, that the first Reformers of Popery had the ordinary calling and succession re∣ceived 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 in∣tervention 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, hold∣ing 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 possi∣ble) 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,* 1.268 asking him, By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? and asking the Apostles when they preacht Christ,* 1.269 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 Syna∣gogue of Nazareth, and expoundeth the Prophet Isaiah, although he was nei∣ther

Scribe nor Doctor, nor Levite, but of the Tribe of Judah; brought up, not un∣der 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 Cy∣renians 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 con∣vinced 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.(a) 1.270 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.(b) 1.271 That then the people might increase and multiply, it was permitted to all in the beginning, to preach the Gospel and baptize, and ex∣pound 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 Chri∣stian Religion. It is true, that Frumentius returning into Egypt, was perswa∣ded 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 return∣ed 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 cap∣tive; 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

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,* 1.272 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 Navigati∣on, 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 Pa∣stors 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 Mi∣nistry of the Gospel? Should that man suffer Christian Religion to perish in the Country for want of succession and ordinary calling? For in extraordinary dif∣ficulties 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 un∣truth. In which case can one find it strange, that God raise some of the lay peo∣ple 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 impor∣tant 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 in∣vented 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 suc∣cession of persons, and the forms of entering into the Office of Pastor, it is in∣deed 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

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 peo∣ple 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 un∣lawful 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 whe∣ther 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 adher∣ing unto false doctrines, and partaking with a Sacrifice which God hath not com∣manded. 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 Fa∣thers, and Greek and Latin histories, where the people understand nothing; And if they understood them, yet should they find a discord between historians, and inter∣vals, and interruptions, where the readers are at a loss. Therefore(a) 1.273 Lydia the Purple-seller, and the people of(b) 1.274 Berea, and the(c) 1.275 three thousand Jews con∣verted at Peters preaching, enquired not about Peters or Pauls calling; Nor the Eunuch of Queen Candace, of the vocation and succession of Philip: But be∣lieved their preaching, because they proved what they said by Scripture, al∣though 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 Ro∣man 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 suc∣cession 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 ac∣count before God. While they amuse men about formalities, they hide the do∣ctrine 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 do∣ctrine 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 Scri∣pture, 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 Ro∣man 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 re∣proach 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 ad∣minister 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, ac∣cusing us of intruding without ordinary calling and without any succession.

But we disputing against the Roman Church, bring heavier accusations against

them, and stand upon far higher terms; For not only we accuse Popes, Cardi∣nals, 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.* 1.276 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 Ro∣man 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.† 1.277 Other Archiepis∣copal 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 no∣thing 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 Apo∣stle 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 puri∣ty. 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 Com∣mission. Our accusation is of the ground and essence of faith, and is a point ne∣cessary to salvation. Their accusation is a point of history, and of Church Di∣scipline, 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 suc∣cession 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 be∣ing 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 com∣mand it, and spake never a word about that. That succession then in Peters pri∣macy is imaginary and an humane invention. We find indeed in Scripture, that the Apostles going from place to place, preaching the Gospel, would create Pa∣stors and Presbyters in every town where they past, and those Pasto••s were succes∣sors 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 sup∣positious Constitutions, and some Epistles ascribed to him, where there are orders about mice dung, and where he commendeth Plato for banishing the words meum & tuum out of his Commonwealth, and(a) 1.278 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 Bi∣shop of Rome is called Episcopus Episcoporum, the Bishop of Bishops, ruling the

Churches of all the world? For this is the inscription of the first Epistle, which he writes unto James,(b) 1.279 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, re∣moved 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 ver∣sion of Bernard of Bress, revised and corrected by the Jesuite Fronto Ducaeus, a learned man in the Greek tongue;(c) 1.280 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 capi∣tal 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;(d) 1.281 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 An∣tioch,(e) 1.282 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 in∣ferior 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?(f) 1.283 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

longer, or be dissolved and perish? For what is it else but to ask Whether the foun∣dation 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 va∣nisheth 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 ac∣knowledgeth, 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 di∣vine 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,(g) 1.284 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 succes∣sion, 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 salvati∣on 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 autho∣rity 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 intru∣ded 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 in∣volve 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

mens shoulders, wearing a triple Crown sparkling with Diamonds, giving his pantable unto Kings to kiss,(a) 1.285 making Caesar to pay tribute to him; suffering himself to be called God, and the Divine Majesty, causing himself to be adored; Ca∣nonizing 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 Con∣querour; dispensing men from keeping their vows, and the Oath made unto God, and the obedience sworn to their Soveraign Prince; dissolving marri∣ages; 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 lan∣guage. 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 sick∣ness 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 ob∣tained 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 quali∣fied 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 Monar∣chy, 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 an∣tient Bishops of Rome.

In that succession of place, the lower we go, the worser things do we find.(b) 1.286 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 Soli∣taries, saith, that(c) 1.287 Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed to Arianism; and Hilary in his Fragments, very often doth anathematize him, because he had sub∣scribed the Confession of the Arians formed at Syrmium.(d) 1.288 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 which(e) 1.289 Baronius taunts him.(f) 1.290 Hinckmarus saith that Vi∣gilius,

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 Beli∣sarius 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 re∣voked his Heretical Epistles. Neither did his instalment hinder Reparatus Bi∣shop 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. Bi∣shop of Rome, successor to that Honorius, doth detest him as one that had defiled the Roman See by his heresie.(g) 1.291 Innocent the I. hath taught that the parti∣cipation of the Eucharist was necessary to little children to be saved. This Do∣ctrine 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.(h) 1.292 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 repeat∣ed 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 ordina∣tion or promotion, but let him be expelled from that dignity and charge which he hath obtained with money. See(i) 1.293 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 Leiute∣nant 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 ex∣amples. And yet at this time Kings and Princes give Pensions to Cardinals re∣siding 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;(k) 1.294 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 fil∣led with the Holy Ghost, and cannot err in the Faith.

In the year 882. Marin, or Martin, attained to the Papal dignity, of whom Platina saith, that he(l) 1.295 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 ob∣liged by Oath never to receive Episcopacy, though it were presented unto him. But that Marin delivered him from that Oath by a dispensation, giving him leave to be forsworn with a good conscience. At that time the Counts of Tusculum had such a power at Rome, that they made Popes such as they listed. Marin being

dead, they promoted Adrian the III. to the Popedom, and after him Stephen the VII.(m) 1.296 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 un∣buryed 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 where∣with 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 tyran∣nies 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 For∣mosus 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;(n) 1.297 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.(o) 1.298 King Saul resolveth rather to kill his son, then to go against his Oath; For(p) 1.299 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 dispen∣sation 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 dis∣charge 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,(q) 1.300 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 dis∣order having continued at Rome above one hundred and fifty years; I do not see where that succession from St. Peter can be found; or how the thread of that succession so many times broken could ever be knit again: For in that ninth and tenth age, well nigh fifty Popes will be found who came to the See either

by the power of the Counts of Tuscany, or by the faction and credit of Theodora an infamous harlot, and of her two daughters Marosta and Theodora, who reign∣ed at Rome many years, and made and unmade Popes. Of which disorder Cardi∣nal Bellarmin speaks thus(r) 1.301 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.(s) 1.302 In this thing only this age was unfortunate, that for the space of well nigh a hundred and fifty years, above fifty Popes did altoge∣ther degenerate from the vertue of their ancestors, being rather Apotactick or Apo∣statick 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 asham∣ed, and(t) 1.303 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 for∣gotten 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(u) 1.304 saith, The holy Church of God, that is the Roman, suffered her self to be shame∣fully 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,(x) 1.305 who detesteth that John as an execrable monster. The Emperor Otho called a Council where he was de∣posed, and Leo the VIII. set in his room An. 963. That Pope renewed the con∣stitution 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 this(y) 1.306 John lying with some bodies wife, was so beaten by the Devil in the temples of his head, that he died of it a sevennight after. This Pope for money created children Bishops, drunk the Devils health, playing at dice he called upon Jupiter and Venus, and conferred holy Orders in a stable.

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

At the same time, a Council was held at Rhemes, Hugh Capet then reigning; In which Council Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans bewaileth thus the state of the Roman Church.(z) 1.307 O deplorable Rome, which in our ancestors time hast produced Fathers that were bright lights, now thou hast spread monstrous darkness, which shall be infamous in future ages! And after he had represented the enormity of the Popes of his time, he addeth,(a) 1.308 Is it a thing decreed, that so many of Gods Priests over all the world, men eminent in learning and in holy life, must be subject to such monsters of men, full of infamy, and empty of knowledge of divine things? And a little after,(b) 1.309 What think ye then Reverend Fathers, this Pope to be, who sits in a high throne, glittering with scarlet and gold? If he have no charity, and is puft up with learning only, He is the Antichrist, sitting in the throne of God. Again, in the same vein; But for the animosity of Kings dissenting, it seems that we ought rather to be judged by them then by that city [of Rome] which being herself venal, weighs judgements by the weight of money. He saith more, that Antichrist is neer, and that the mysterie of iniquity advanceth it self. To which purpose he alledg∣eth the Epistle of the VI. Council of Carthage to Celestinus, where the Bishops of Africa warn him not to medle any more with their businesses, to receive no appeals from Africa, not to send his Legates thither, and not to bring the pride of the world into the Church. Of which Epistle we shall speak afterwards in the right place. It is very observable, that this Arnulphus, for thus dealing with the Pope, fared never the worse, neither did any censure pass upon him, but he kept in his place and in the Kings favour; For at that time France was but half subject unto the Papal See, and the French Kings feared not to be deposed by the Pope.

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

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

In the year 999. Gerbert Archbishop of Rhemes, and since Archbishop of Ra∣venna, was promoted to the Popedom by the Emperor Otho the III. who had been his scholar, and was sirnamed Sylvester the II.(c) 1.310 Historians with a great consent say, that to obtain the Popedom, he made a paction with the Devil, and made him an absolute gift of his soul, to be carried away by him after his death. Baronius in the year 999. saith this to be a fable, but brings no proof to confute it. Genebrard in his Chronicle in the year 1007. speaks thus of the Popes of that time, The Popes of that time being intruded by the Emperors rather then elected, were monsters: Whereby the lawfull succession was interrupted, as sometimes under the Synagogue in the time of the Antiochi.

In the year of our Lord 1033. Benedictus the IX. son to Albertus Count of Tusculum, being but ten years old, was created Pope by the authority and faction of his father, as it is acknowledged by Coeffeteau(d) 1.311 Bishop of Dardanie. Cardinal Benno saith, that he was addicted to Magical arts. Such was the succession of St. Peter: Children and Magicians were admitted to it. Cardinal Peter Damia∣nus saith,(e) 1.312 that after his death he appeared to a man in the shape of an asse, and said, that he was so transformed because he had lived like a beast. Platina saith the same, & Fasciculus temporum. And Coeffeteau in the fore-alledged place saith, that Benedictus the IX. was infamous for all sorts of crimes, which give probability to that vision that Damianus and others relate of him.

That Benedictus being expelled by the Romans(f) 1.313 Sylvester the III. was put in his place, being but ten or twelve years old, and that by faction and bribery,

as Platina saith. Such was the succession in those dayes; but after nine and forty dayes Benedictus was restored by his faction. Whereupon Platina addeth,(g) 1.314 Pope∣dom was then come to this, that he that prevailed, not in holiness of life and learning, but in gifts and ambition, attained to that great dignity, good men being opprest and rejected; and would to God that our time had not retained that custom. Likewise(h) 1.315 Baronius, An. 1024. of his Annals, speaking of John the XX. brother to Benedictus the IX. saith, that he invaded the See unworthily and tyrannically, and climbed to it by wicked wayes. And yet this is the same Pope who put Romu∣aldus in the list of the Saints, and St. Martial in the number of the Apostles, as if a devil should carry a soul into Paradise. Where the great absurdity is, that this St. Martial is an imaginary Saint, who was put in heaven, and never was in earth; For he of whom Gregorius Turonensis speaks in his first Book, chap. 30. is above an hundred years posterior to that false Martial, whom they say to have been cosen to St. Peter, and to have been sent by him to preach in Gaules. Of such Popes then the Popes of our time are successors.

Never was the like confusion. That(i) 1.316 Benedictus the IX. being made Pope, not long after sold the See to John Arch-priest of Rome; And after he had re∣ceived the money, expelled the same John: So there were three Popes together, the one of which put the two others out by devilish wayes. And all three in the end yielded the See to Gregory the VI. for a great sum of money. But the Em∣peror Henry the II. turned them all out in the year 1044. and made Syndeger Bishop of Bamberg Pope, who called himself Clement the II. Of those Popes(k) 1.317 Platina speaks thus: Henry the II. coming into Italy with a great army, called a Synod, and constrained Benedict the IX. Sylvester the III. and Gregory the VI. three horrible monsters, to leave the Magistracy. In that time it was hard to find any in the Monasteries that could read. And(l) 1.318 Coeffetenu upon this place saith, that in that time the chair of St. Peter was a shop of Simon Magus. From those merchants the Popes of these times are descended. At the same time in the year 1045. the Kingdom of Poland was made subject to the Roman See, and obliged to pay to the Pope an obol by the pole. England also about that time, was brought under the same yoke, and that tribute by the pole was called Peter's peny.

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

The Emperor thinking to have mended all disorders, came short of his hope; for Clement the II. whom he had made Pope, was persently after poisoned. Platina saith, the Historians affirm that he was poysoned by his successor Damasus the II.(m) 1.319 For (saith the same Platina) that custom had got strength, that to every am∣bitious man it was permitted to invade St. Peters See. But that Damasus was used as he had used his predecessor, and he died three and twenty dayes after his creation.

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

In the year 1057. Victor the II. successor to Leo, died with poyson, which was

given him in the chalice of the Mass. His Subdeacon did him that good Office, who thereby gave work to the Doctors that maintaine transubstantiation. For they ask whether the blood of Christ can be poysoned?(n) 1.320 Whether accidents, that is, lines, shape, whitness, redness, can be poisoned? For if that be, acci∣dents must become the subject of a substance. In that Victor's time began the cu∣stom of changing bodily penances, as fasting and pilgrimage, into pecuniary pains. Peter Damianus Bishop of Ostia and Cardinal, speaks thus of it,(o) 1.321 Thou know∣est, that when we receive from the penitent grounds and fields, we bate of the pennance according to the proportion of that they give. And Baronius freely acknowledgeth with Damianus, that thereby the stock of the Church was raised.

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

(p) 1.322In the year 1084. the Emperor Henry the IV. having caused Gregory the VII. to be deposed by a Synod, made Clement the III. Pope. Gregory expelled from Rome, dyed soon after out of grief at Salernum. But after his death, the Countess Mathild or Maud, who called herself St. Peters daughter, helped by the Normans, set on Desiderius Abbot of Mount Cassin to take the Popedom; And he born up by the Normans, set upon Clement, and after great slaughter drove him out of Rome, and making himself Pope, called himself Victor the III. Pla∣tina following Martinus Polonus, saith, that he was poisoned in the chalice of the Mass. Ʋrban the II. succeeded; who presently fulminated Clement the Anti∣Pope with excommunications; but he was maintained by the Emperors power, and kept his See at Placentia, thundering likewise against Ʋrban, who for his safety left Rome, and retiring into France, assembled a Councill at Clermont in Au∣vergne against Clement, and Clement another at Rome against Ʋrban. This is that Ʋrban(q) 1.323 who by an express Decree for bad keeping faith to an excommunicate person.

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

Paschal being dead, the Romans created a Pope who called himself Gelasius the II. But the Emperor caused another to be chosen, who was called Gregory the VIII. Gelasius beind dead shortly after, at Vienna in Daulphine, Calixtus the II. succeeded, who having found the way to lay hold on Gregory the VIII. clad him with raw and bloody goat-skins with the flesh-side outwards, made him ride about upon a Camel with his face towards the tayl, and giving him the title(r) 1.324 of Antichrist, condemned him to perpetual prison. Thus strength prevailed; for one must alwayes presume (if we believe our Adversaries) that the strongest Pope was the lawfull. This is that Calixtus that sent(s) 1.325 John de Crema Legat into England, to take the Priests wives from them. But that Legat was found in a baudy-house at London, lying with a harlot, whereby his legation was made odious.

In the year 1130. which was the time of Bernard, part of the Cardinals elect∣ed Innocent II. But a contrary faction elected Anacletus the II. These two Popes were excommunicating one another, and continually calling one another Antichrists, and assembling contrary Councils. Of these two Popes Bernard gives

this verdict in the hundred twenty fifth Epistle. This Apocalyptical Beast to whom a mouth was given speaking blasphemy, and that makes war with the Saints, holds St. Peters chair like a Lion prepared for the prey; and the other Beast silently bloweth neer you, like the cub of a wild beast lurking in a close place, These Popes were ful∣minating one against the other and fighting cruelly.

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

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

This Pope received the Emperor upon the stairs of the Church of Saint Mark at Venice. Whereas the Emperor was stooping to kiss the pantable of Alexander, the Pope trod upon his neck with his foot, saying, Thou shalt tread upon the asp•• and ad∣der, the Lion and the Dragon shalt thou trample under feet:(t) 1.326 That History is related by Nauclerus, Sabellicus, Papirius, Masso, Petrus Justinianus, and many more. And the Jesuite Azorius puts this heroical act among the triumphs of the Church. The ill success of the businesses of Frederick, made this Alexander to be held a successor of Saint Peter. If the Emperor had prospered, Calixtus would have been the lawful Pope, and Alexander an usurper. For our Adversaries to main∣tain the succession of the Popes, presuppose always that the stronger of the An∣tipopes was the lawful Pope, although he was the most vicious, and although he had crept into the Popedom by fraud and corruption, and kept it by violence.

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

(u) 1.327In the year 1191. Celestin the III. came to the Popedom, being four∣score years old. The Emperor Henry the VI. came to him to receive the Impe∣rial crown from his hands. And as he bowed to kiss the Popes feet, Celestin with his foot smote Henries crown, and made it fall, to shew that he had the power to take it from him, when he listed: Baronius approveth that action.

In the year 1269. died Pope Clement the IV. after whom, the Roman Church was two years and nine moneths without a Pope. So that the••thred of that imaginary succession was long interrupted. The like vacancy of the Papal See, was after the Death of Nicolas the IV. which lasted two years and three moneths, because the Cardinals could not agree about the election of any. In the end, as by contempt they elected a poor silly Hermite, who would be called Celestin the V. that Pope would ride upon an Ass, after the example of Jesus Christ, and would bring all the Cardinals to do the like. One(x) 1.328 Cardinal Benedict plaid upon his simplicity to make himself Pope; for he would make admonitions to him, saying, that he must leave the Popedom, if he would be saved; and that it was too great a burden for him, to have so many souls to answer for unto God. Then he sub∣orned

a groom of Celestins chamber, who In the night spake in his ear out of an hole, Celestine, Leave the Popedom, if thou wilt be saved; saying, that he was an Angel of God sent to him: The good man frighted with this, resigned the Papal Dignity, which was transferred to that Cardinal Benedict, in the year 1294. This was that fa∣mous Bonifacius the VIII. Wherefore when some years after this Boniface was apprehended by Sarra Colona and Nogaret, sent by Philip the Fair King of France, and carried prisoner to Rome, for excommunicating the said King, and bestowing France upon the Emperor Albert, if he would get it, upon which dis∣grace Boniface dyed with anger and grief, the world said of him, that he entred into the Papal dignity like a Fox, reigned like a Lion, and died like a Dog. I leave it to the Readers Judgement, whether the succession of this Boniface into Celestins place, was lawful and valid.

The succession of John XXII. was not lawfuller: For Clement the V. who had transported the Papal See to Avignon, being dead, the Cardinals were two years, three moneths and an half about the election of a Pope; and found no other way to end their difference, then to defer unto James d' Ossa Bishop of Porto, the power of naming a Pope:* 1.329 But he deceived them all, and named himself. This is that Pope that taught, that the souls shall not enjoy the vision of God before the resurrection, as Ockam witnesseth in his work of ninety three days, Gerson in his Sermon of the Passover, Erasmus in his Preface upon the fifth book of Irenaeus, Genebrardus in his Chronicle upon the year of the world. 5422. Wherefore also that Pope was censured by the Sorbon. Thus the following Popes are successors of an heretical Pope: Now our Adversaries hold, that heresie breaks the thred of succession, as we have shewed in this chapter.

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

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

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

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

That Alexander the V. created by the Council, lasted but little. Balthasar Cos∣sa who is John XXIII. succeeded him,(y) 1.330 having bought with money the suf∣frages of the Cardinals. Three Popes then were reigning together, John XXIII. Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII. who were exchanging excommunications

among themselves, breaking and disanulling all sentences, buls, judgements and ordinations, each of the two others; So that over all the Roman Church, there was neither Priest, nor Bishop unquestionably such, and of whom it was not doubted, whether they had a lawful power to make the consecration in the Mass; Which being not made, they hold that the people worship bread, and fall into idolatry.

That John, the most abominable of all, as teaching openly that there was nei∣ther Paradise nor Hell, assembled a Council. Nicolas de Clemangis, Archdeacon of Bayeux, who lived among all that confusion, saith, that over that Pope in the midst of the Council, a great Owl sate shreeking hideously, and that for many Sessions. The common saying was, that the Holy Ghost descended upon his Ho∣liness in the shape of that Dove.

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

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

In that Council of Constance, the three abovenamed Popes being deposed, Martin the V. was elected; whom the Emperor Sigismond worshipped, and kissed his feet in full Council. That Martin sent Embassadors to Constantinople, to whom he gave instructions, which begin thus;(z) 1.331 The most holy and most beate, who hath the heavenly Empire, who is Lord on earth, the successor of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the Master of the Ʋniverse, the Father of Kings, the light of the world, the Soveraign Pope Martin by the divine providence, commandeth Mr. An∣tony Mason, &c. Such doubtless were the titles which Saint Peter assumed in his instructions to his Embassadors whom he sent to the King of the Parthians, or to the Emperor Nero!

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

But Eugenius took arms, and being held up by Princes, maintained

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

Peruse all histories ever since there was any Empire in the world, and see if ever there was any Monarchy that bore more marks of the wrath of God on the fore∣head, or any throne stained with more vices, or troubled with more confusions. It is not then without reason, that two of the less evil Popes, Adrian the IV. and Marcel the II. would say with grief, that they thought that a Pope could not be saved, as(a) 1.332 Onuphrius an Augustinian Monk relateth. Which is a notable confession, and extorted by the sense of the truth.

(b) 1.333I pass by the busie mysteries of the Conclave, when they are about the election of a Pope; How the windows of the Conclave are walled up, and all doors but one, so that no day-light gets in. How meat is thrust in for the Cardi∣nals by an hole, their bread cut into small bits, for fear of some letter hidden; their drink in clear glass bottles: How they eat every one by himself, and are for∣bidden to present any thing of their meat to one another. How there are com∣monly three factions, the one of France, another of Spain, and the third of the Princes of Italy. There is no Cardinal but sels his suffrage very dear, and gets pensions out of France or Spain, whose factions are always contrary: That of Italy joyning with this or that, carrieth it by the plurality. There are im∣ployed all the arts possible to cross and traverse the suffrages one of another. In a word, all things there are done, as the question being not to choose a Pastor for the Church, but a Prince whose inclinations further or hinder the affairs of other Princes, and are a casting weight in the balance. He that hath the two thirds of the suffrages, is chosen Pope, who is presently devested of his clothes, and in∣vested with Pontifical robes, and crowned with the tripple crown; he is carried up, and laid upon the Altar, which is Gods place, and then every one of the Cardinals doth him the homage of adoration. In that election none enquires, whether he that is in election, be fit to teach, nor whether his Doctrine be pure, or his life holy? So much is presupposed without difficulty.

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

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

knows not whether he be Pope, or whether he be so much as baptized.

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

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

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

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

The famous Thuanus, in the sixth Book of his history, in the year 1550. relates an action of Jules the III. when he was newly made Pope, which is worthy of memory.(a) 1.334 The custom (saith he) being that the new Pope giveth his Cardi∣nals Hat to whom he pleaseth, he bestowed his upon a youth called Innocent; who because his Office in the house was to keep an Ape, retained the name of Ape after he had attained his Cardinals dignity; and to him the Pope gave also his on sir∣name and coat of arms. Whereupon when the Cardinals expostulated with him for raising an unworthy person to such a high Dignity, he answered them pleasantly enough, And you, what perfection did ye find in me to make me Head of the Chri∣stian Common-wealth? With that answer he stopt their mouth.

Every one knoweth that the Embassie of M. du Perron to Clement the VIII. to desire him to receive King Henry the IV. into the bosom of the Church, served in part to promote him to the Cardinalship. That recompense he had for prostituting the dignity of the King his Master, having cast himself at the Popes feet, and received by the Penitencer, blows with a wand both upon the back and the belly; as representing the Kings person, upon whom the Pope in∣flicted penance, admitting his Majesty to receive it by proxie. But the chief, yea the only cause that moved the Pope to receive the King, was that the party of the League was going to wrack in France, and that the Towns returned to the Kings obedience. Nevertheless all past as if Clement had been moved by divine Inspi∣ration to receive the King. But unto M. du Perron to recompense him for blemish∣ing the dignity of the King his Master with such a base submission, the Pope gave some bags full of Medals, little Crosses, and blessed Beads, to scatter them among the people, to which Beads and Crosses he gave that vertue, that who∣soever should kiss them, and say certain Prayers, should get an hundred years of pardon. Which liberality brought to the King and to the Kingdom of France a great measure of Consolation. I remember that my self at Fontainbleaú

did upbraid M. du Perron with this, in the presence of the late Kings(b) 1.335 sister, he being then Bishop of Eureux. His answer was, that the Pope did like Jesus Christ, who sent those he healed to the Pool of Siloam, although he could have healed them without that.

If I would stir this sink further, I could bring forth persons who have got the Cardinals Hat for a recompense(c) 1.336 of unchast and dishonest services done to great men. The very form used to get that dignity, which is to imploy the favour of Kings to obtain it for persons incapable, is an accusation. That Hat the Pope sends packt up. Such Hats doubtless were sent by Saint Peter to those that he would advance to honor!

(d) 1.337At Rome in the Church of Saint Agnes, some white Lambs are kept, with whose wooll white cloth is made, and with that cloth little white cloaks, which are laid over St. Peters Tomb. None can exercise an Archbishops fun∣ction, but he must first buy one of these cloaks, and there is such a cloak for which forty or fifty thousand Ducats must be payed. By that gate they enter into the Archiespiscopal Dignity: Behold the Vocation, behold the Succession that is so much cryed up. Note, that if an Archbishop die one day after he hath paid for that Cloak, his Successor must buy another; so that mortality among Prelates is exceedingly lucrative to his Holiness.

* 1.338This also is to be observed of the charge of Cardinals, that assoon as a Bishop is made Cardinal, he is presently discharged of the care of that Church which was committed to him: For he ceaseth to be Pastor of a flock, and becomes a Prince of the Papal Hierarchy, and capable to receive Benefices of all sorts. After that, with what conscience can these Gentlemen open their mouthes to speak of their Vocation?

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

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

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

Between Duration and Antiquity there is this difference, that antiquity re∣gards only the time past, but duration regards also the time to come. Which is enough to prove, that although the true Church must alwayes endure, yet that duration is not a mark to know her by: For the marks of a thing are things actual

and present. But perpetual duration is not yet, but is expected and hoped for: For that which is not yet, cannot be an evidence of a thing that is. Our hopes and desires cannot be marks of the true Church: For to that hope one may oppose a contrary hope, and say that the Roman Church is not the true Church, because we hope that she shall not last alwayes, but shall be cut off, of which she is threatned by St. Paul, Rom. 11.22.

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

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

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

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

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

time that visible multitude be, and that Church eminent in number and splendor? And when wings are given to the Church to flye and hide her self in the desart for a time, Rev. 12. it is not like that then she was or shall be great in number; for a great multitude cannot be hid.

There was alwayes more Pagans then Christians, and many times hereticks have past the Orthodox in number. A time when Arians were the greater number, as Vincentius Lirinensis saith,(a) 1.339 The venom of the Arians had defiled not a small portion, but well nigh all the world; so that almost all the Latine Bishops were deceived, partly by force, partly by fraud; a deep darkness had overspred the spirits. Among those Latin Bishops were the Bishops of Rome, Liberius and Felix; the one of which by fear, the other in earnest, had embraced Arianism. And Hierom in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith, All the world groaned and wondred to see it self turned Arian. And upon the 133. Psal.(b) 1.340 The Church consisteth not in the walls, but in the truth of the doctrine. There the Church is where the true faith is; for it is but fifteen or twenty years since hereticks possest all the wals of these Churches; but there the true Church was where the true faith was. The Author of the life of Gregory Nazianzen speaks thus, The heresie of Arius did hold well nigh the whole bredth of the world, being backt with the help of an ungodly Emperor.

Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration against the Arians, and concerning himself, Where are they that upbraid us with our poverty?(c) 1.341 That define the Church by her multitude, and despise the little flock? As they have the people, so we have the faith. They have the gold and the silver, we the faith and the doctrine. Himself in the ver∣ses of his life,(d) 1.342 It is a small people, but of great price before God, who numbereth not the multitude, but the hearts. And in the 32. Oration pronounced before a hundred and fifty Bishops, he speaks thus to the Adversaries who boasted of their great number;(e) 1.343 God delighted not in the greatest number. Thou countest the thousands, but God those that are saved. Thou countest the infinite dust, but I the vessels of election.

The second Tome of Athanasius, hath an express treatise against those who judge of the truth by the multitude,(f) 1.344 How miserable (saith he) are those that attribute the strength of reason unto the only multitude! He that finding himself un∣able to resolve a question propounded, and wanting proofs, hath recourse unto the mul∣titude, confesseth himself overcome, as having no provision to maintain the truth. Why dost thou boast of multitude, as if thou didst threaten God to build another tower of Babel, &c. That text is very long and very express. In the end he concludes,(g) 1.345 Dost thou strengthen untruth with the multitude? Thou shewest thereby that the evil is so much the greater. In the 16. chap. of the 2. Book of the history of The∣odoret, the Emperor Constantine who was an Arian, upbraideth Liberius, that he was alone of the party of Athanasius: to which Liberius answereth,(h) 1.346 Al∣though I be alone, the word of faith is not thereby weakened. In old time three persons only were found that resisted the ordinance; he durst not add, of Nebucadnetsar, for fear of offending the Emperor. Pope Nicolas the I. in his Epistle to the Em∣peror Michael, The smal number doth no harm where piety aboundeth. The great number availeth nothing where impiety reigneth; yea the more the congregation of the wicked is numerous, the more is she powerfull to compass her evil designs, &c.(i) 1.347 Glo∣ry not in the multitude; for it is not the multitude, but the cause that makes one con∣demned or justified.

Austin is the only Father, to whom it happened to go about sometimes to di∣scern the true Church by the multitude; for disputing with the Donatists, whose Church was small, compared to the Orthodox Church, he maintains in several places, that the true Church is alwayes eminent and in greater number then the society of Hereticks. Which text M. du Perron sets forth with a great shew, and

alledgeth them upon all occasions. But Austin must not be believed against him∣self, and against the other Fathers, much less against the Word of God, and against experience. Himself, chap. 19. of his Book de catechizandis rudibus, speaks thus,(k) 1.348 We ought not to be moved that many consent with the devil, and few follow the Lord; for wheat also is very smal in comparison of the straw. And in the 6. Sermon upon the words of the Lord in St. Matthew,(l) 1.349 The Church of Jesus Christ suffereth that which himself suffered in the crowd of the people; She is opprest by the crowd, but few persons touch her. Where by those that touch the Church, he understands the faithfull. See Austin upon the 128. Psal. where he saith, that the Church in old time was in Abel only, another time in Enoch only, and after Enoch in the only family of Noah; for in all these texts he disputeth not against the Donatists Note also that those Churches, the multitude whereof Austin opposeth unto the Donatists, are at this time contrary to the Roman Church.

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

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

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

With the like abuse these texts are imployed to prove that at all times the true Church must be the most populous; for there is not one of all these texts that speak of a perpetual multitude and eminence. They are Prophecies that peculi∣arly regard the calling of the Gentiles in the time of the Apostles and their Di∣sciples, in which there was a very great confluence of people converted to the

faith. This clearly appeareth in the text of Isa. 2. where God promiseth, that many people shall go and say, Come ye and let us go to the mountain of the Lord; for presently after that promise Isaiah addeth, For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem; where it is evident, that he speaks of a time when the Word of God was to be carried among the nations from Jerusalem and Judea; which hapned not but in the Apostles time.

CHAP. 42. Of Miracles.

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

I. That miracles are not proper to the true Church, and that false Doctors will make some, Jesus Christ teacheth it, Matth. 24. False Christs and false Pro∣phets shall rise, making signs and miracles. And chap. 7. v. 22. In that day many shall say unto me Lord, Lord, have we not prophecyed in thy name? have we not cast out Devils in thy name? And the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2. foretels that the son of perdition will come, with all power and signs, and lying wonders, and with all de∣ceivableness of unrighteousness, and that God will give them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the power of delusion. The Jews exorcists did miracles, and expelled the unclean spirits; of which we have an example in a Jew named Eleazar, that healed a man possest of a Devil in the presence of Vespatian, as Josephus relates it in the 8. Book of the Antiquities, chap. 2. Philostratus relates the miracles of Apollonius Thyanaeus; and at this time yet miracles are done at Mahomets sepulchre. See Suetonius in the life of Vespatian, chap. 7. Porphyrius a sworn enemy of Jesus Christ, opposed to the Christians the miracles which the Pagans did, as may be seen in Eusebius, in the fourth Book of Evangelical preparation:(a) 1.350 They make a great noise of ther predictions, and oracles, and cures and healing of all kinds of diseases.(b) 1.351 The example of Actius Navius Augur is famous, who in the presence of King Tar∣quinius Priscus, cut a whet-stone in two with a razor.

After the Ascention of Jesus Christ, Hereticks began to do many miracles.(c) 1.352 Tertullian, chap. 44. of Prescriptions, saith, that Hereticks boasted, that they had exceeded all others in the confirmation of their doctrine by miracles; that they had raised the dead and healed the sick: And that Jesus Christ had foretold so much, saying, that many would come that should do very great mi∣racles to authorize their false doctrine. And in the 3. Book against Marcion, chap. 3. he saith,(d) 1.353 that to do miracles was a thing very easie among the false Christs, and that it was a rash part to hang our belief upon them. Theodoret up∣on Deut. 13. We are taught not to believe [miracles] when he that doth them teacheth things contrary to piety. Hierom upon Gal. 3.(e) 1.354 We must observe, that those are said to do miracles that hold not the truth of the Gospel. Then he addeth, This I say against hereticks that hold it an approbation of their faith when they do some sign.

The imperfect work upon St. Matthew, attributed unto Chrysostom in the 49. Homily,(f) 1.355 The operation of miracles is now quite taken away, and it is found that many more fained miracles are done among those that are false Christians. Au∣stin in the Book of the 83. questions, in the 79. saith,(g) 1.356 that perverse and

wicked men do miracles, which the Saints cannot do. Himself against the letters of Petilianus, lib. 2. cap. 55.(h) 1.357 For as for expelling Devils, and the power of mi∣racles, because many do not these things, and yet belong to the kingdom of God, and that many do them which belong not unto that kingdom, neither your side, nor ours ought to boast of them. That especially is remarkable, which we learn of the nine and thirty four Canons of the Council of Laodicea, and of Balsamon upon the thirty fourth Canon of that Council, that the Orthodox would come to the Se∣pulchres of the Hereticks, and there be healed. Whence it appeareth, that He∣reticks did true miracles, since healing followed. And Scripture witnesseth that the Magicians by their inchantments, did the same miracles as Moses.

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

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

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

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

As for the miracles which in the first ages were done in the Christian Church, God made use of them to make Pagans turn Christians. But we read not that ever any miracle was done to confirm the adoration of images, or Purgatory, or Transubstantiation; for the miracles which are alledged to that purpose, are later then the invention of these Doctrines, or are related by Authors manifestly fa∣bulous, and so prone to be false and forged. I will shut up this discourse with a

sentence of Prosper,* 1.358 drawn from Saint Austin. The Disciples ought to be imi∣tators of Christ, not by doing miracles, which no body requires of them; but by keeping humility and patience, to which the Lord hath invited us by his example.

CHAP. 43. Of Union in the visible Church.

UNion and concord are desirable things, so it be an union in things good and holy; for otherwise union is but a conspiracy. Thus the Apostle Eph. 4.15. commands us to follow truth with charity, rejecting that charity which main∣taineth untruth. The Devils themselves have an union among them. And with∣out a strict union, a company of thieves cannot subsist. When then our Adver∣saries give us union for a mark of the true Church, we ask Whether they under∣stand union in the true Doctrine, or in the false? If they mean (as it is to be sup∣posed) union in the true Faith and Doctrine, it follows, that before we can know whether union in a Church be good and holy, that Church must be instructed be∣fore in the true Faith and Religion. It appears then, that union cannot be a mark of the true Church, since to judge of that union, there is need of another mark.

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

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

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

Let our union then be with our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Jesus Christ with God, and with them that serve him, according to his Word. For in vain do we seek union with men, while we are in discord with God. Now the way to be united with God, is to follow his Word, and to conform our selves unto his Will; By consequent that we may enter into that union, we must be instructed in his Word: For it is an open contradiction to reason, and a wilful blindness, to

think to agree upon an union, and not know about what we must be united; and to press concord upon the people, and at the same time to hide the truth from them, without which, all agreement is a conspiracy against God.

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

ALthough the Roman Church be a particular Church, yet she will be called Universal. Nowadayes to be a true Christian, and to be Roman, are taken for one and the same thing; and the same man is called a Catholick Roman, that is, an Univesal Particular. But the Word of God doth not oblige us to be Romans, or to be of the Roman Church or Religion to be saved: Nay the Apostle Rom. 11.22. threatens the Romans, that they shall be cut off, that is, that they shall fall off from Gods Covenant. For although that threat∣ning be spoken generally to the Gentiles, grafted in the place of the Jews, yet it is not without cause, that it is particularly addrest by the Spirit of God to the Roman Church. Saint Paul indeed commendeth the faith of the Romans, that is, of the Christians of the City of Rome; but he giveth the like praise to the faith of the Thessalonians, saying, that from them sounded out the Word of the Lord,* 1.359 and that in every place, their faith to Godward was spred abroad. And yet he ob∣ligeth not thereby all Christians to call themselves Thessalonians, or belonging to the Church of Thessalonica. It is very considerable, that Saint Paul having writ∣ten such a long Letter to the Roman Church, did not think of exhorting them to their duty, by the consideration of the dignity of their Church, and of the superiority of the Church of Rome. It is certain, that Christian Religion was planted and spread over Judea, Syria, Egypt, Natolia, Grecia, &c. many years before there were Christians at Rome. It would be a great error to think, that at that time the Universal Church ought to have been called Roman. Neither do we find, that in the first ages, the Christians of Syria, or Persia, or Armenia, or Egypt, did stile themselves Romans, or of the Roman Religion. That Title is grown with the Papal domination, and is now one of the marks of his Empire. It is very probable, that this word Roman, is that mark of which it is spoken, Rev. 13.16, 17.

Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, on the year 45. §. 10. brings some Texts of the Antients, to prove that in old time to be a Roman, and to be a Catholick, was all one. He alledgeth Theodosius the II. speaking thus in an Epistle to Acacius,(a) 1.360 Shew us by an evident proof, that you are approved Priests of the Roman Religion. That passage is mistaken by that Cardinal; for Theodosius by the Roman Religion, un∣derstands not that of the Church or the Pope of Rome, but the Religion kept in the Roman Empire; as if one now called the Turkish Religion that which is establisht in the Turkish Empire.

Baronius brings another authority of Victor Ʋticensis, in the first book of the persecution of the Vandals, where an Arian disswadeth King Theodoricus from putting an Orthodox man to death. For (saith he) if thou killest him with the sword, the Romans will begin to make a Martyr of him. But whosoever hath read Victor, knoweth that under the raign of the Vandals in Africa, there was three sorts of persons; The Vandals which were Arians; The Moors which were Pagans; And the Romans which were Orthodox, who having been subject to the Roman Em∣pire, were opprest by the victorious Vandals, and were called Romans, because they had been conquered by the Vandals from the Roman Empire. The like to this may be seen in(b) 1.361 Gregorius Turonensis, that the Gauls subdued by the Franks and Burgundians, and conquered from the Roman Empire, were called Ro∣mans not with any regard to the Roman Religion, but in relation to the Roman Empire.

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

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

The Roman Church in this point is intolerable: For she boasteth of Anti∣quity, but will not suffer the truth of her Doctrine to be examined, though it be the only way to discern true Antiquity. She will have us to judge of the Truth by antiquity, whereas we ought to judge of antiquity by the Truth, and by the conformity to the Word of God, which is the first antiquity. She boasteth to be antient, and yet every age brings additions or alterations to her Doctrine; so that the form of the old building is no more seen, and yet that building keeps the same Name. She boasteth of antiquity, and yet brings new things every day. She makes a shew of some old patched clothes, to make the world believe that she comes from far, as the Gibeonites did: But when one comes to examine her Do∣ctrine by pieces, one finds that she comes not from very far, and that almost all is new. And indeed there was need of great alteration to make a Bishop of the City of Rome to become the Monarch of the Universal Church, and to make the Doctrine of the Gospel to serve for building an earthly Kingdom. We are ready to undergo any punishment, if it be found that the antient Church many ages after the Apostles excluded the people from the Cup, or kept them from reading the holy Scripture; or made pictures of the Trinity; or yeilded Veneration to the Images of the Saints; or called the Virgin Mary the Queen of Heaven; ••or made mention of the Roman Indulgences; or of the power of the Pope to de∣pose Kings, and fetch souls out of Purgatory, &c. In a word, as it is now ano∣ther Doctrine, so it is another Church, because it is another Religion. And we have proved before by a multitude of very express passages, that the Roman Church boasteth that she hath power to add to the Symbole, and dispense against the Apostle, and to alter that which God hath commanded in his Word. M. du Perron hath bestowed a Chapter purposely upon that subject in the 674. page.

Yet after that, these men speak of nothing but Antiquity and Fathers, hoping thereby to confound mens understandings, and avoid the Exami∣nation of their Doctrine by the Word of God. But of that we shall speak hereafter.

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

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

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

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

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

By that means also the Roman Church should lose her cause, for the Greek Church is her Mother; and Christian Religion hath past from the East to Rome, and to the West, as the History of the Acts of the Apostles shews it evidently, and there is no Church so corrupt but boasteth of Antiquity: The Jews boasted themselves to be children of Abraham, even when they reviled Christ,* 1.362 and said that he had a Devil. And the Samaritans called Jacob their Father, and by the authority of their Fathers who had worshipped God in their Mountain,* 1.363 they de∣fended their Religion.

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

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

Upon that it is good to see Symmachus, a Pagan, Epist. 54. of the 10. Book, where writing to the Christian Emperors, Valens, Theodosius, and Arcadius, he desireth them to have a reverence for the Pagan Religion, by reason of her anti∣quity,(a) 1.364 If (saith he) the length of time gives authority to Religion, we must keep faith to so many ages, and follow our Fathers who have so happily followed theirs. Then he personates the old Pagan Rome, thus speaking to the Emperors; Good Princes, Fathers of your Countrey, respect my years, unto which the pious Ceremonies have brought me; permit me to use the Ceremonies of my Ancestors. This Religion hath subjected the world unto my laws: These holy services have beaten back Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the Capitol. Have I been preserved till this time that I should be rebuked in my old age? The correction of old age comes too late and is injurious. What could Ambrose and Prudentius

answer, who confuted that Epistle, but that the Law of God is more antient then Numa Pompilius, the Author of these Ceremonies? And that all is new which is not from the beginning? and that Error cannot be authorized by the number of years?

See Lactantius in the 5. Book of Justice, c. 10. where he saith, that the Pagans disputing against the Christians,(b) 1.365 when one asketh them a reason of their be∣lief, they cannot give any, but have a recourse to the judgement of their ancestors who were wise.

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

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

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

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

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

Another hinderance troubleth mens minds very much, That the words which the Antient used have lost their signification, and are now taken in a quite diffe∣rent sense; as the words of Mass, Sacrifice, Indulgence, Oblation, Pope. Purga∣tory, Satisfaction, Prayer for the dead, &c. have lost their antient signification, and are taken in our time in another sense then in old time. Whereby the igno∣rant are deceived, not knowing that such words in those dayes signified quite another thing then in ours, and that the Roman Church puts old words upon new inventions. He that will lead the spirits of a people that way, in stead of bringing them to the Word of God, doth involve them in a dark labyrinth, puts them in a way that hath no end, and makes men Judges in Gods cause.

As then on the one side, we reverence Fathers as lights that have been shining in their time, and recommend the reading of them to such as have leisure and capacity; so on the other side, when it is question of giving laws to the Church,

we acknowledge no other Lawgiver but God, and no other rule of faith but his Word; which, in matters necessary to salvation, is so clear, that it needs no in∣terpreter; which also is as strong alone as attended, and suffers wrong in its au∣thority, when it is defended with the testimony of men.

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

Cyrillus of Jerusalem, in his fourth Catechesis, speaks thus,(a) 1.366 One must not teach the least thing concerning the divine and sacred mysteries of faith without the holy Scriptures. And a little after,(b) 1.367 Believe me not simply when I say these things unto thee, unless thou hast proofs of what I say by the holy Scriptures.

Hierom upon the 86. Psal.(c) 1.368 Although some man since the Apostles be holy, although he be well spoken, yet he hath no authority.

And Austin against Faustus the Manichean, Book, 11. chap. 3. speaking of his own writings and of other Fathers,(d) 1.369 These Books (saith he) are written by us, not by authority of commanding, but to profit by exercise. And soon after, having establisht the holy Scripture for Judge, he saith, that in other works of them that have written since, the Reader hath his judgement free, either to receive that which he approveth, or to reject that which displeaseth him. The same in the 1. chap. of the second Book of Baptism, (e) rejecteth the authority of Cyprian which was ob∣jected to him.

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

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

THe Glossary of the Decree upon the 9. distinction, endeavouring to elude some testimonies of St Austin, who saith, that the holy Scriptures have alone the perfection of infallibility, but that all other writings of persons never so ho∣ly are subject to err, and ought to be read with circumspection, hath put this Gloss in the margent,(a) 1.370 These words must be understood according to that time when the writings of Austin and other holy Fathers were not authentical, but now it is commanded to keep them to the last tittle. Against that Glossarie Alphonsus de Castro takes a quarrel in the 1. Book of heresies, chap. 7. and calls him a fool and lyar, seeing that the writings of the Fathers are often dissenting among them∣selves: And Melchior Canus in the 7. Book of the Theological places, in the 3. chap. to the same purpose alledgeth many errors of the Fathers; of Cyprian among others, who believed that those that were baptized by hereticks must be rebaptized; and of Hilary, who denieth that the body of Jesus Christ hath felt any pain, ascribing to him an impassible body; of Irenaeus, who was a Chiliast; and he goes so far as to say, that the Fathers sometimes bring forth monsters against the order of nature. Cardinal Baronius, whose writings are so highly esteemed by our Adversaries, censureth the Fathers with great liberty. On the year 34. §. 113. he acknowledgeth freely, that(b) 1.371 the Catholick Church doth not alwayes follow the most holy Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture. Himself on the year 31. §. 24. rebuketh St. Austin, because he did not well understand these words of our Lord, Thou art Peter, &c. for want of understanding the Syrian tongue. And on the year 34. §. 185. Hierom hath erred for want of memory. And on the year 60. §. 20. he quarrelleth with Theodoret for rejecting the invocation of Angels. grounded upon a text of St. Paul;(c) 1.372 Hereby (saith he) one may see that Theodoret, by his have, hath not well comprehended the sense of the words of Paul. And on the year 369. §. 24. Hilary had also his errors.

Bellarmine every where beareth himself as judge and censor of the Fathers. In the first Book of the felicity of the Saints;(d) 1.373 I see not how we may defend from error the opinion of Justinus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius and Oecumenius. In the same place he heaps up the errors of many Fathers. Of whom also he saith in the second book of the Councils, chap. 13.(e) 1.374 The writings of Fathers are not the rule, and have no authority to oblige us.

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

Sixtus Senensis, in his Preface upon the 5. Book of his Bibliotheca, saith, that(f) 1.375 in the holy Doctors which are read in the Church with authority, sometimes things evil and heretical are found.

Andradius in the 2. Book of the defence of the Tridentine faith,(g) 1.376 I will say nothing (saith he) of Austin, Basil, Athanasius, and the other Cyrillus, Chryso∣stomus, and Epiphanius, to whose opinions we are not alwayes tyed. And in the same place he saith, that the Fathers are contradicting one another, and then addeth, So many things there be wherein it is lawful for us to depart from the opinion of the Fathers.

Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of his Comments on Genesis,(h) 1.377 If (saith he) sometimes a new interpretation occurs agreeing with the text, and not contrary to Scripture or to the doctrine of the Church, let the Reader shew himself an equitable censor, although that interpretation be divers from the stream of the holy Doctors. And in the same place, Let none detest a new sense of Scripture, because it is dis∣sonant from the antient Doctors, &c. For God hath not tyed the exposition of Scri∣pture to the sense of the antient Doctors, but to the whole Scripture it self, under the censure of the Catholick Church; subjecting Scripture unto the censures of the Roman Church.

The Jesuit Pererius in the 8. Book upon Genesis, in the first disputation,(i) 1.378 I am ashamed (saith he) to say the things which I must say against very good writers, which say things not only false, but also shamefull and absurd. Now the Fathers which he hath a quarrel with, are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandri∣nus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Sulpitius Severus.

Salmeron in the second prolegomen acknowledgeth that the Fathers have often dissented among themselves,(k) 1.379 Cyprian (saith he) had many disputes with Pope Cornelius (he would say Steven) Origen with African, Chrysostom with Theo∣philus Alexandrinus, Epiphanius with John of Jerusalem, Ruffinus with Hierom, Hierom with Austin, Austin with Simplicician, Prosper with Hilary, Gregory with(l) 1.380 Eutyches of Constantinople, and each of them made good his party.

And not only he saith, that the Fathers dissent among themselves about the ex∣position of Scripture, but also every one with himself.(*) 1.381 Every one of them (saith he) expounds a text otherwise then another doth, yea the same Doctor expound∣eth a text diversly.

In the 51. dispute upon the Epistle to the Romams, treating of the conception of the Virgin without sin, he alledgeth against himself a multitude of Fathers, that hold that she was conceived in sin. To which he answereth, that(m) 1.382 the proof by authority is weak, and that reason must go before authority. And in the same place, Against that multitude [of Fathers] which is objected to us, we answer by the Word of God, Exod. 23. Thou shalt not speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest Judgement.

The Jesuit Maldonat in his Comment upon the Gospel, disputeth everywhere against the exposition of Fathers. As upon Matth. 6. treating of the supersub∣stantiall bread, he confutes the opinion of Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Victo∣rinus, Athanasius, Juvencus, Hierom. And upon the 6. of John.(m) 1.383 I leave the opinion of Austin and Innocent the I. which reigned for 600. years, that the Lords Supper is necessary to children.

The famous Bishop of Bitonto speaks very ingenuously to that purpose, upon Rom. 14. p. 606. where setting the Pope in the place of God, and comparing his authority with that of the Fathers, he speaks thus, Whatsoever is spoken by him whom we account for God in the things of God, we must hearken to it as to God himself. As for me (that I may confess it ingenuously in the things that concern the mysteries of God)(n) 1.384 I would give more faith to the only soveraign Bishop, then to a thousand Austins, Hieroms, Gregories, that I speak not of the Richards, Scotuses, and Gulielmuses; for I believe and know that the Soveraign Bishop only cannot err in the things that are of the faith, because the authority of determining matters of faith resides in the Pope.

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

The Jesuite(o) 1.385 Gregorius de Valentia, in the Book of Transubstantiation, ch. 8. to rid himself of Theodoret, who in his Dialogues confutes Transubstantiation, Theodoret (saith he) hath been noted of other Errors in the Council of Ephesus. The like will be found in the Preface upon the Dialogues of Theodoret printed in Greek at Rome. And the same Gregorius de Valentia, saith in the same place, that(p) 1.386 We must not wonder, if some of the Antients have believed and written in∣considerately of this matter.

Wherefore our Adversaries in their Comments, and in their Books of Contro∣versies use to alledge divers opinions of the Fathers, and to chose that which pleaseth them best, and sometimes they reject them all. Bellarmine in the Book De Monachis, chap. 9.(q) 1.387 Five Expositions present themselves, which we must confute. The first is of Hierome and Beda, &c. and soon after, Hieroms memory failed him.

The Jesuite Maldonat upon Matth. 20. after a long enumeration of the opi∣nions of Fathers, freely declareth that he doth not acquiesce to any of them. And upon Joh. 6. rebuking Austin, as one that had not apprehended in what sense Je∣sus Christ saith himself to be the Bread, saith, I am perswaded that if Austin had lived in our time, he would have been of another of opinion. And upon the same chap∣ter upon these words, They shall be all taught of God;(r) 1.388 I do approve (saith he) the interpretation of Chrysostom much more then that of Austin. And upon Matth. 11. after he hath alledged divers opinions of the Fathers, he addeth, To speak freely, none of these contents me.

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

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

But Salmeron alone may serve for all. That Jesuitie in his thirteenth Tome in the sixth Dispute about St. Pauls Epistles, makes himself Judge of the Fathers with great authority, and makes a Collection of the Errors of the Fathers in these words. Such is that which Irenaeus saith concerning the age of Christ, that he at∣tained unto forty years; and that the Name of Jesus is compounded of two letters and a half. And the Monogamy of Tertullian; and what he saith, that the death of Christ hapned about the thirtieth year of his age. The opinion of Papias, of the Resurrection at the end of a thousand years, which Nepos, Cantor, and Lactantius have followed. Austin and Origene, and the Platonicians have said, that the Angels are made of airy and subtil bodies. And our Gregory in the Homily of the Epiphany of the Lord, calls an Angel a reasonable animal. The Doctrine of Cyprian, of the rebap∣tization of those that have been baptized by Hereticks, which hath been determined by three Councils of Carthage, and confuted by the Church. The opinion of Euse∣bius Cesariensis, that the Son of God, who is the Word of the Father, is inferiour to the Father, hath been rejected as most false. The opinion of Basil, that the roof of the Firmament is flat, that it may hold water, as he saith upon Genesis. Himself upon the 14. Psalm, maintains that under the New Testament, it is not at all per∣mitted to swear, no more then it is permitted to circumcise. Which nevertheless Euthymius and Theophylactus upon Matth. 5. have followed. Yet this hath not been followed by them that are come since. Also it is a hard opinion of Nazianzenus,

that he holds second marriages to be unlawful, and the third to be a prevarication, us he testifieth in the thirtieth Oration. This also is hard in Gregorius Nyssenus, to hold that in the state of Innocency, there should have been no generation by copu∣lation of sexes, no more then in the Resurrection, as he testifieth upon Gen. 17. Eu∣thymius teacheth the same upon Psal. 50. And Damascenus in the Book of Ortho∣dox Faith, although the command of increasing and multiplying, and filling the earth had preceded. And so this in the same Book of Nyssenus, c. 30. that the reasonable soul is made by traduction, is absurdly said; although he contradicts him∣self in the second Book of the soul, c. 4. This also is hard in Athanasius, that our soul is drawn from the power of the matter; and that the souls of the Saints do not see God till the day of Judgement, in the 16. and 20. questions to Antiochus, if yet those questions be not falsely ascribed to him. It is a hard and unworthy saying of Chrysostomus upon these words of Joh. 2. They have no Wine, and upon these words of Matth. 12. Behold thy Mother and thy Brothers are without: and upon this sen∣tence of the Psalm, There is none that doth good, no not one: That he saith, that the Blessed Virgin was ambitious and desirous of vain-glory. Which Theophylactus hath followed, and Euthymius upon Matth. 12. & Mark. 3. & Luk. 2. Tertullian saith worse things yet of the Virgin Mary, in the Book of the flesh of Christ, which have not been believed by posterity, but have been reproved. It is likewise a hard saying of Arnobius, that the souls are descended into the bodies by necessity of na∣ture, and that pains come not by the Providence of God, but by the necessity of the matter, as he teacheth in the 2. Book against the Gentiles; and that the souls differ not in reason: and that the souls of the damned are reduced to nothing by their suf∣fering. Lactantius teacheth, that the sin of the Devil is the envy of the first Angel that was made, or rather of the Holy Ghost, whom he seems to make a Crea∣ture, Book 1. chap. 9. It is a hard opinion in Hilary, that Christ did not fear death, and felt no pain in his passion, as he teacheth in the 10. Book of the Trinity. The opinion of Ambrose is singular, whereby he prayeth that the Emperours, Gratian, and Valentinian, may rise from the dead more early. And in another place he saith, that whensoever we celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection of the Lord, alwayes some rise again, &c. Hierom in a certain Epistle, saith, That Christ is come out bloudy out of the Virgins womb. Austin did retract himself in many things. And in the Book of the City of God he denyeth Antipodes. In Bernard we could desire more perspicuity in that Doctrine, That the souls do not receive the glory of blessed∣ness until the day of Judgement. In Damascenus we observe a Doctrine, which the Church admitteth not, That the Holy Ghost proceeds not alike from the Son, and from the Father; wherein he is followed by Theophylactus upon Joh. 3. and by Michal Syngelus in the Book of the praises of Denis. It would be indeed a very long thing, if I would run over all the Doctors, and all the particular opinions of every one, whose belief the Church hath not approved. So speaks that Jesuite.

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

Thus our Adversaries are become Judges of the Fathers, and confute them

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

CHAP. 48. That the Roman Church opposeth her self to the consent of antient Doctors.

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

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

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

II. How great is the consent of the Fathers to put the Book of Maccabees among the Apocrypha, and to deny them a place among the Canonical Books? So did the Council of Laodicea determine it, and Amphilochius Bishop of Ico∣nium, and Melito Bishop of Sardis, and Ruffinus in the Exposition of the Sym∣bole, and Athanasius in his Synopsis, and Eusebius in his Chronicle upon the 117. Olympiad, and in the 3. Book of his History, chap. 10. And Hierom in his Preface upon the Books of Solomon, and in his Prologus Galeatus, and Hilary in his Preface upon the Psalter; and Gregory Nazianzen in his Verses; and Epiphanius in the Book of measures, and Pope Gregory the I. in the 19. of the Morals upon Job; and many more, as we shall shew it* 1.389 hereaf∣ter more exactly.

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

III. The words of the Jesuite Maldonat upon Joh. 6.53. are notable.(a) 1.390 I leave (saith he) the opinion of Austin and Innocent the III. an opinion which had reigned in the Church for 600. years, or thereabouts, that the Eucharist is neccessary to Infants. Then an opinion received in the Church of Rome for the space of six hun∣dred years, is now rejected by the same Church.

To the works of Hinckmarus, an Epistle of Jesse Bishop of Amiens is added,(b) 1.391 whereby it appears that at that time, that is, in the ninth age, that custom was yet practised in Gaules, to give the Lords Supper to little children, pre∣sently

after Baptism. In the same place there is a Constitution of Riculfus Bishop of Soissons of the same time, that such as are baptized, should receive the Lords Supper presently after Baptism, because the Lord saith, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c. The Council of Trent, in the XX. Session, made no diffi∣culty to pronounce anathema to them that hold that opinion, without respecting Pope Innocent the I. and Saint Austin, who have been of that opinion. Cassan∣der in his consultation to Ferdinand and Maximilian, p. 936. saith, that he hath often observed that practise in Antiquity; and M. du Perron acknowledgeth, that this practice continued yet in the time of Charlemagne and Lewis the Meek.(c) 1.392 The Greek Churches to this day observe that custom; and(d) 1.393 so do the Abyssine Churches.

IV. Six hundred and thirty Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon, who have judged by an express(e) 1.394 Canon; that the Bishop of Constantinople must be equal in all things to the Bishop of Rome, are I hope a sufficient number to authorize such an order; yet that order was opposed by the ambition of the Popes.

V. How famous and received by the common consent of ages, were the Let∣ters(f) 1.395 of the sixth Council of Carthage? wherein the Bishops assembled out of all Africa, write to Celestin Bishop of Rome, that from thenceforth he would abstain from sending Legats into Africa, and meddle no more to judge the causes already judged in Africa, or to receive appeals coming from Africa, because causes ought to be judged in the places where they begun; warning him not to bring the famous pride of the world into the Church; and telling him that the pretended Canons of the Council of Nice, upon which he grounded his autho∣rity, are supposititious, and are not found in the Original. Nevertheless the Roman Church did oppose that. Baronius in the year 419. §. 78. saith, that the things contained in that Epistle,(g) 1.396 are somewhat hard, especially that which the Bishops say of sending no more Legats into Africa. Bellarmine in the twenty fifth chapter of the second book de Pontifice, speaking of those African Bishops, saith, that(h) 1.397 those African Fathers were deceived through ignorance. And Cardinal du Perron chap. 57. of the first book against his Majesty of Great Britain, saith, that the wrath of contention hath fetcht so much out of their mouth.

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

VII. Generally the Fathers before Austin, and Austin himself in the begin∣ning, believed, that God had predestined men to salvation according to his foreknowledge, that such and such should do good works, and have saith. To that consent, the Jesuite Pererius upon Rom. 8. opposeth himself boldly, speaking thus in his twenty second Dispute; The Greek Fathers and many Latin Doctors have believed and written, that the cause of the predestination of men to eter∣nal life, is Gods fore-knowledge from eternity of the good works which they should do, cooperating with his grace, and of the faith whereby they should believe, &c. Ne∣vertheless it is easie to shew by many and evident Texts of Scripture, that Gods fore-knowledge of faith is not the cause of the predestination of men. Bellarmine and the Je∣suites are of the same opinion.

VIII. It was a common opinion among the Ancients, that the Angels are fal∣len from their purity, by cohabiting with Women. It was the opinion of(i) 1.398 Justin Martyr in his second Apology, and of Clemens Alexandrinus,(k) 1.399 3.5 &

sexto Stromaton, and of(l) 1.400 Tertullian in the book of the behaviour of women, chap. 2. And of Austin, in the third book of the City of God, chap. 3. And of Cyprian, in the book of the behaviour of Virgins, chap. 11. and of(m) 1.401 Am∣brose, in the first book of Noah and the Ark; And of Irenaeus in the first book, chap. 70. and of Lactantius, chap. 15. of the second book.

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

X. In nothing the Fathers agree better, then in the opinion that all(n) 1.402 oaths are unlawful, and that no Christian ought to swear for any cause whatsoever. The Roman Church swears not only by the name of God, but by the Saints and their relicks.

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

XII. The Ancients believed, that the souls while they are separate from the bodies, cannot be tormented. A certain proof that they believed not Purgato∣ry, which the Roman Church now believeth. Tertullian, in the 48. chapter of the Apologetick,(o) 1.403 The soul alone cannot suffer any thing without solid matter, that is, without flesh. He saith the same, in the book of the testimony of the soul, chap. 4. Gregory Nyssen in the third Oration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,(p) 1.404 The fire can never touch the soul separate, and darkness cannot be troublesom to it, seeing it hath no eyes. By these convenient reasons, we are induced to believe the resurrection of the dead. Ambrose in the book of Penance, c. 17.(q) 1.405 The soul without the body, and the body without the soul, cannot be partakers of punishment and reward, seeing they are fellows in their actions.

Chrysostom saith the same, hom. 39. upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians,(r) 1.406 The soul (saith he) shall not be punisht without the body. Against that con∣sent, the Roman Church hath forged her Purgatory.

XIII. It was a generally received belief in the ancient Church, that the con∣secration is done in the Eucharist by Prayer, not by speaking to the bread, but by speaking to God. Justin Martyr in his second Apology, cals that which is re∣ceived in the holy Communion, a food consecrated by prayer. Origen in the eighth Book against Celsus, We eat bread which by prayer is made a body, which is some holy thing. Basil in the book of the holy Ghost, chap. 17. The words of invoca∣cation, when one sheweth the bread. Theodoret in the second Dialogue, introduceth the Heretick speaking thus; The signs of the body and the blood, are others before the invocation of the Priest, but after the invocation they are changed. The Roman Church in our days, makes consecration by speaking unto the bread, not unto

God; contradicting her own Canons; Especially the Canon(s) 1.407 Corpus Dist. 2. of the Consecration. We call the body and blood of Christ, that which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer, is duly taken by us for the spiritual salvation in memory of the passion of the Lord.

XIV. It is the general opinion of the Ancients, that as soon as the dead are raised, they shall pass through the flame, and shall be purged by the fire of the last Judgement, which they call a Baptism of fire, and the flaming sword set at the gate of Paradise. Hilary upon Psalm 118. upon the Letter Gimel, makes the Virgin Mary to pass through that fire. And Ambrose in the twentieth Sermon upon the same Psalm, and in the third Sermon upon the thirty sixth Psalm, makes the Prophets and Apostles to go through it. Origen, Lactantius, Basil, Gregory Na∣zianzen, Austin, Cyril of Jerusalem, say the same: Of whom, we have(t) 1.408 in another place set forth the words; and we shall speak of this matter again(u) 1.409 in the last book of this work. But the Roman Church hath put out that fire, and kindled another more lucrative to the Pope and his Clergy.

XV. It was a received opinion by most of the Ancients, that children dead without Baptism, are eternally tormented in hell. Austin in the first book, de bono perse∣verantiae, cap. 13. saith, that(x) 1.410 little children unbaptized, are led unto eternal dead. And in the first book of the merits of sins and of remission, chap. 28. dispusing against the Pelagians, who put the unbaptized children in a middle condition be∣tween hell and heavenly glory, he saith,(y) 1.411 There is no place between both, where he that is not with Christ, may be in another place from the Devil. Wherefore also the Lord willing to take off from the hearts of the half believers, I know not what middle most condition, which some endeavour to attribute to unbaptized children, said, He that is not with me, is against me. For at that time they did not believe the Limbus of children dead without Baptism. His Disciple Fulgentius speaks the same language, in his book of faith to Peter the Deacon, c. 27.(z) 1.412 Believe stedfastly (saith he) and doubt not at all, that not only men that have not the use of reason, but also the little children, which either have some beginning of life in their Mothers womb, and there die, or being born from their Mothers, go out of this world without the holy Sacrament of Baptism, shall be punisht with the pain of everlasting fire. That opinion hath long prevailed, and was also followed by Pope Gregory the I. who (if our Adversaries may be believed) could not err in the faith. In the ninth book of his Morals upon Joh, chap. 16. he speaks thus of little children dead without Baptism,(a) 1.413 Some are gone out of this present life, before they can attain to the time of doing the good or evil merits of an active life, who because they are not delivered from the original offence by the salutary Sacrament, and have not done here any good of their own, go yonder to be tormented. And a little after, By an occult and just judgement of God their plagues are multiplied without cause. That opinion is displeasing to the Roman Church of this time, which makes these chil∣dren to suffer an eternal punishment which they feel not, and in the day of Judge∣ment puts them neither among the goats, nor among the Lambs. These Doctors have not considered, that since Jesus Christ hath satisfied for original sin by suffer∣ing torments, it followeth, that original sin deserveth to be punisht with pains which be really felt.

XVI. It is the general belief of the Fathers, yea of most part of the Doctors of the Roman Church which are not of this last age, that Jesus Christ was the only man that ever was free of original sin, and that even the Virgin Mary was not free of it. Austin in the second book of the merits of sins, chap. 24.(b) 1.414 Jesus Christ alone being made man, remaining God, never had any sin, neither did take the flesh of sin, although he had taken [his flesh] from the nature of the flesh of sin,

speaking of the flesh of his mother. And upon the 34. Psal. Sermon, 2.(c) 1.415 Mary come from Adam, is dead by reason of sin. Adam is dead by reason of sin, and the flesh of the Lord come from Mary is dead to take away sins. Leo the I. in the first Sermon of the Nativity of Christ;(d) 1.416 (d) 1.417 As Christ found no man free from guilt, so he is come to deliver them all. Ambrose upon Luke 2. Jesus Christ is every way the only among them that are born of women, that hath not felt the contagion of earthly corruption, by the newness of an immaculate birth. We shall see hereafter how Chry∣sostom accuseth the Virgin Mary of rashness and ambition. And Eusebius Emis∣senus in the 2. Sermon of the Lords Nativity, chap. 4. as Cajetan alledgeth him, saith,(e) 1.418 None hath been free from the original bond, no not the mother of the Re∣deemer. Bernard bestoweth a whole Epistle upon that, which is the 174. to the Canons of Lyons, where he proveth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, and that the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin was ill-instituted. And which is more, Hilary upon Psal. 118. on the Letter Gimel, saith, she must pass through the fire of the day of Judgement, by which sins shall be purged. Anselmus in the 2. Book, that sheweth why God is man, chap. 16.(f) 1.419 The Virgin herself from which Christ is sprung, was conceived in iniquity, and her mother conceived her in sin, because she also hath sinned in Adam. Their reason is, because Scripture hath concluded all under sin, saying, that there is no man that sinneth not. And be∣cause Christ is dead for her, and she had need of the remission of sins, and that she is dead; now she is not dead for the sins of others; then for her own. Wherefore Austin in the Book of the perfection of righteousness giveth this rule;(g) 1.420 Whosoever thinks that there is or ever was in this life any man or men, excepting the only Mediator between God and men, to whom the remission of sins was not neces∣sary, contradicteth the holy Scripture. And Fulgentius in the Book of the Faith to Peter the Deacon, Believe firmly and doubt not at all, that every man conceived by the copulation of man and woman, is born in original sin.

That consent of Antient Doctors hath not hindred the Roman Church of our time to hold the contrary, and to celeberate the Feast of the immaculate concep∣tion of the Virgin Mary, though Bernard condemned that celebration. The Council of Basil in the year 1439. in the 36. Session, determineth and declareth, that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, forbidding expresly the holding of the contrary, and reneweth the Order for celebrating the feast of her Concep∣tion. Since in the year 1483.(h) 1.421 Pope Sixtus the IV. granteth to them that have heard Mass or caused Masses to be sung on the day of the Feast of the Con∣ception of the Blessed Virgin, instituted by Mr. Leonard de Nogarolles Clark of Verona, the like indulgences as to those that celebrate or say Mass on Munday, Thursday, or Gods Feast. In which Bull the Virgin is called the Queen of hea∣ven and the Mother of grace. By another Bull the same Pope declareth those He∣reticks, that say that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, and excommunicates them, thereby excommunicating all the Antients that have spoken so. Where∣fore the Jesuits, although they say sometimes that the Roman Church hath deci∣ded nothing as yet upon that point, yet maintaine stifly that the Virgin was con∣ceived without sin.(i) 1.422 Salmeron, Vasques, and Bellarmin, insist much upon that, not fearing to oppose antiquity. Bellarmin saying that the Church of Rome hath defined nothing about that (although the Council of Basil hath decided it, and the Feast is celebrated) yet giveth one Chapter to that opinion. The title of the Chapter is, That the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin.

XVII. Hardly in any thing do the Fathers consent more then in the enumera∣tion of the Commandments of the first table of the Law; for (excepting Austin) no antient Author of any authority shall be found, that puts not four Command∣ments in the first Table, making of the Commandment about the images a Com∣mandment

by it self, distinct from the first, Thou shalt have none other Gods be∣fore me.

The Jews writers that lived in the time of the Apostles, Philo and Josephus, are in this point idoneous witnesses; for they relate the Belief of the Church of the old Testament. Philo in the book of the Decalogue,(k) 1.423 The first five are the more worthy; The other five less. Those first five more worthy, speak of the Empire of one God over the world. 2. Of images and statues, &c. 3. Of not taking the name of God in vain, &c.(l) 1.424 Josephus in the 3. book of Antiquities, chap. 4. The first Commandment teacheth us, that there is but one God, and that we must serve him alone. The second forbids to make any image of any animal, and to wor∣ship it.

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

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

(m) 1.425Athanasius in his Synopsis, saith, that the book of Exodus contains these ten Commandments written in Tables. The first, I am the Lord thy God; The se∣cond, Thou shalt not make any idol or resemblance.

Gregory Nazianzen(n) 1.426 in his verses, hath summed up the ten Commandments in verses, which begin thus; God hath graven his ten Commandments in tables of stone, but write them in thy heart. Thou shalt acknowledge no other God; for the ser∣vice belongs to one only.

Thou shalt not set up vain resemblance nor inanimate image.

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

(o) 1.427Ambrose upon Eph. 6. It is a received truth that the Commandment is thus set down, Thou shalt have none other Gods but me. And next, Thou shalt not make any likness of the things that are above in heaven, nor in the earth below. The third, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

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

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

From that consent of the Antients the Roman Church of this time is departed; for her Doctors not contenting themselves to mingle the first and the second Com∣mandement, endeavour to abolish the second, having utterly(p) 1.428 razed it out of the Houres, Offices, Brevaries and Catechisms, which are given to the people for their exercise and instruction. In the Council of Auspurg held in the year 1548. the Commandments of God are put in German, where the second Commandment is supprest, in which God forbids to make and worship images. These men that make images of the Trinity, and bow down before the images of creatures, think to cover their crimes by suppressing Gods Law. But the original of the Law is in the Counsel of God, and cannot be blotted out by men. By that shall they be judged in the last day.

XVIII. This proposition that man is justified before God by faith only, is odious unto the Roman Church, as a doctrine that slackens the zeal, and averts men from good works as useless. Yet it is the ordinary language of the Fathers. Origen upon Rom. 3. saith, that(q) 1.429 the justification by faith only is sufficient. Basil in the Sermon of humility,(r) 1.430 Paul did acknowledge himself poor in true righthteous∣ness, and that he was justified by the only faith in Jesus Christ. Hilary 8. Canon up∣on St. Matthew, Fides sola justificat, Faith only justifieth. Hierom upon Gal. 3.(s) 1.431 Because no body keeps the Law, therefore it is sayd that the believers must be ju∣stified. And in the same place, Vobis ad justitiam sola fides sufficit, To be righteous, faith only is sufficient to you. And a little after,(t) 1.432 That the nations might be blessed in Christ by faith only. Ambrose upon Rom. 4.(u) 1.433 How do the Jews think to be justified by the works of the Law with the Justification of Abraham, since they see that Abraham was justified, not by the works of the Law, but by faith only? and a little after, Impius sola fide justificatur apud Deum, The wicked is justified before God by faith only. Chrysostom upon Gal. 3.(x) 1.434 They said, that he that stands upon faith only is execrable. But St. Paul sheweth, that he that stands upon faith only is blessed. Austin 68. Serm. de Tempore,(y) 1.435 Abraham hath been justified by saith without works, and that only belief hath given him that which might be conferred up∣on him by the observation of the Law. Theodoret, We have not obtained the my∣stical goods by works, but by faith only. Bernard 21. Serm. upon the Canticles. Being justified by faith only he shall have peace with God.

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

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

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

XXI We hope to shew towards the end of this Book, that private Masses (that is, without Communicants and assistants, and sayd to the intention of him that payeth for them) are not only without precedent in the antient Church, but also are generally condemned by the antients, and by the very Orders of the old Ro∣man Church. Bellarmin in his second Book of the Mass, chap. 9. doth freely con∣fess it, saying, That no express passage is found in all the Antients, which shew that ever they offered sacrifice without the communion of some one or more with the Priest.

XXII. Who knows not, that in the antient Church the publick service was ce∣lebrated in Italy in Latin, in Greece in Greek, in Armenia in Armenian; and that every one prayed in a language which he understood? That they made no ele∣vation of the host over the head, turning their back unto the people? and that the people adored not the host; which was not a waser, but some quantity of bread which was distributed unto the people? That in those dayes the Bishop of

Rome had no Court, and was subject to the Emperors and Kings? That the Bi∣shops in their reception took no oath of allegiance and obedience unto the Pope? and that the Pope did not exercise a temporal domination over them by Annats, and the like oppressions? That they did not know what the treasure of the Church was, which now is made up with the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints? That then the nations did not run from all parts to Rome to gain par∣dons? That the prayers of the Antients for the dead, were not to draw souls out of Purgatory? That then the images of Saints were not worshipped, and they re∣presented not the Trinity in stone or colours? That the Virgin Mary was not cal∣led Queen of heaven? In a word, that the face of the antient Church is altoge∣ther changed as well as the doctrine? How can now the Popes adherents be so de∣stitute of conscience, as to boast of the consent of the Fathers after they have despised them and forsaken their doctrine?

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

CHAP. 49. Doctrines in which the Roman Church rejecteth every Father in par∣ticular.

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

Justin and Clement.

(a) 1.436Justin Martyr and(b) 1.437 Clement Alexandrin did believe, that God had given to the Gentiles the Sun, and the Moon, and the Stars to worship, least they should be altogether destitute of religion; and that by the adoration of the Stars they might go to God. The Roman Church approveth not that Doctrine.

Justin Martyr believed(c) 1.438 that the souls of the Fathers under the Old Testa∣ment

were in the Devils power: And that(d) 1.439 the glory of the Father is greater then that of the Son; And that it was the Son, who in old time came down and ap∣peared to Abraham and to Moses, because the Father doth not come down, and is invisible, as though the Son as God, was not of the same nature, and in∣visible alike. Himself in the Dialogue against Tryphon, p. 307. saith, that the Christians shall live a thousand years at Jerusalem before the resurrection. He believed also that the Angels fell by the love of women. And in the second Apo∣logy, p. 83 he thinks that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians. That Divini∣ty is rejected by the Roman Church.

Clement Alexandrin

Clement Alexandrin repeateth often, that(e) 1.440 before the Lords coming the Grecians were justified by Philosophy.(f) 1.441 The same puts four hypostases in God.(g) 1.442 He saith that the afflictions of the faithful happen, and that the death of Christ hapned, not but by the will of God, but by his permission. And that(h) 1.443 God hath a body, and that Jesus Christ descended into hell to preach to the Jews, and that the(i) 1.444 Apostles descended to the same place to preach to the Gentiles, and bring them to salvation, even those who among them have lived righteously ac∣cording to the rules of Philosophy. The same holds, that(k) 1.445 the Angels are fallen from their purity, by falling in love with women, to whom they did un∣discreetly discover many secrets which were not to be divulged. All these Do∣ctrines are rejected by the Roman Church, and this Father is condemned for them.

Clemens I. Romanus.

Our Adversaries have published some Epistles of Clement the I. Bishop of Rome, in one of which he teacheth that those words of mine and thine ought to be banisht, and that goods ought to be common. Then he addeth, Therefore a certain man who was the wisest among the Grecians, knowing these things to be thus common, saith, that All things are to be common among friends:(l) 1.446 Now under these terms, all things, no doubt but Wives also are comprehended. That is found in the first Tome of the Councils, and in the Canon Dilectissimis, in the first question of the twelfth Cause: The Roman Church hath rejected that Doctrine. For although the Popes establish Brothelhouses, yet they would not have all Women to be common.

Ignatius.

Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philippians, saith,(m) 1.447 that to fast upon Satur∣day or the Lords day, is to be a murtherer of Christ. Wherefore also the Church of Milan in Ambrose's time, did not fast upon Saturday, but only upon Satur∣day before Easter, and upon Saturday before Pentecost or Whitsunday. The Churches of the East, and that of Egypt, kept the same custom. And Cassian book 3. chap. 10. reproveth the Roman Church for fasting upon Saturdays. And the VI. Universal Council assembled in the Palace of Trulla, Can. 55. condem∣neth the Church of Rome by name for that same reason: Yet the Roman Church for all their order, hath continued the observation of Saturday to fast.

Tertullian.

Tertullian had many errors: He was a Montanist: In his Writings he calleth Montanus the Paracletus or the Comforter: He adhered to the Prophecies of Priscilla and Maximilla: In the book of the soul, he maintains that the soul is corporal, and groweth with the body, and hath a bodily figure; Yea that(m) 1.448 God himself is a body: Many others errours he hath, too long to be related. He believed also the Fall of Angels by the love of Women: Wherefore in his book, where he teacheth, that the faces of Virgins ought to be vailed, chap. 7. he saith, that such dangerous faces ought to be covered, which have darted up scandals even to heaven. Himself as well as Irenaeus shuts(n) 1.449 up the Souls of the Saints in an underground dungeon until the day of Judgement: He was also a Chiliast,(o) 1.450 giving to the Church a flourishing reign in Jerusalem for the space of a thou∣sand years: And he believed, that some would rise sooner then others: modicum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis luendo; that is, that those that have sinned more, shall pay even for the least sin, by the retarding of their resurrection; as he saith in chap. 58. of the book of the soul. Cyprian who called him his Master, hath followed him(p) 1.451 in the rebaptizing of Hereticks; Austin in the book of heresies, ad Quod vult Deum, puts him among the Hereticks. For the same causes the Ro∣man Church condemneth him: But I find not, that ever any of the Ancients con∣demned Tertullian for expounding these words,(q) 1.452 This is my body, by This is the figure of my body; speaking thus in his fourth book against Marcion, chap. 40. Christ having taken bread, and distributed it to his Disciples, made it to be his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body; And in the third book, chap. 19.(r) 1.453 God hath called bread his body, that thereby thou mayst un∣derstand that he hath given to bread to be the figure of his body: of which passages we shall speak more fully hereafter.

Origen.

Origen is accused by Cardinal du Perron(s) 1.454 to have denied the Almighty power of God, and the Godhead of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, the resur∣rection of the flesh, and the eternity of Paradise and Hell. Also to have forged many successive wordls, and affirmed, that the Devils shall become Angels, &c. For these errors and many more he is placed among the Hereticks by Epiphanius and by Austin. But M. du Perron is not content to blame him for the same causes that he was blamed for by Ancients; for he blames him also and multiplyeth ill words against him, because he did not believe the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ in the Eucharist, as the words of Origen testifie it upon Mat. 15. This food which is sanctified by the Word of God, and by prayer, as for the matter thereof goes down into the belly, and is sent down into the draught, and sanctifieth not of its nature. In the same place, he cals that which is received in the Eucharist, a Symbolical and significative body. Upon these words of Origen,(t) 1.455 that this food sanctified, is sent down into the draught, and sanctifieth not of its nature, M. du Perron crieth out,(u) 1.456 Shut up your ears, Christians; and saith, that(x) 1.457 Origen doth purposely dispute against the Catholick Church, and that it is a particular whimsie of the heretical Spirit of Origen. It is true, that(y) 1.458 Theo∣philus of Alexandria blames Origen, for saying that the Spirit of God doth not work upon inanimate things: Which he confuteth by the example of Baptism, whose water is consecrated by the coming of the holy Ghost; and of the bread, whereby the body of the Saviour is shewed or represented: Which things (saith he) are inanimate, and yet are sanctified by the invocation and coming of the holy Ghost. But in that Text, Theophilus condemneth not Origen for denying the turning of the bread into the body of Christ; since he puts the water of Baptism in the same rank as the bread of the Eucharist. He saith, that both the water of Baptism and the bread of the Lords Supper are inanimate things, and are

sanctified by prayer and by the Holy Ghost. According to the Cardinals inter∣pretation we should say, that Theophilus condemneth Origen for not believing the transubstantiation of the water of Baptism into the blood of Christ.

Irenaeus.

Upon that Irenaeus saith, Book 2. chap. 39. that Jesus Christ hath taught till the age of 40. or 50. years, Doctor Fevardent, who hath commented upon the Book, hath written in the margent Naevus de aetate Christi, It is a fault of Irenaeus about the age of Christ. The same Father teacheth(z) 1.459 that the souls separated from the bodies have a bodily shape, and keep the character or form of the body to which they were joyned. Such was the opinion of many Antients, as of Theo∣dotus, who is added to Clement Alexandrin, and of Austin in the 4. book of the soul and her origine, ch. 19.(a) 1.460 The soul (saith he) hath an eye, and a tongue, and a fing∣er, and such other members of the body, and all that is a likness of a body, and not a body. Like things to this he saith in the 12. Book de Genesi ad litteram, chap. 32. & 33. The same Irenaeus in the 30. chap. of the 4. Book saith, that the Law was not gi∣ven to the Fathers that lived before the Law, because they were righteous, and there was no need that they should be warned by reprehensions; But that this righteousness being worn out in Egypt, God then had given his Law. The same Father in the 5. Book, chap. 33. and the following, brings after resurrection bo∣dily feasts, because Christ said, that he should drink of the new fruit of the Vine in the Kingdom of his Father. And he esteems that it is the promised retribution to them that shall invite the blind and the lame to their table. That Fathers ho∣liness did not make the Roman Church to follow his opinion. See Hierom upon Matth. 19. where he confuteth the doctrine of Irenaeus, not naming the Author. M. du Perron makes bold to say, that Irenaeus hath said such things as would make one go for an Arian in these dayes. The same Father opposeth them as Hereticks, that hold that the souls of the faithful departed enjoy the heavenly glory. His opinion is,(b) 1.461 that at their coming out of the body they go down into an invisible place where they expect the resurrection.

Cyprian.

Cyprian believed and maintained against the Bishops of Rome, that those that were converted from Heresies to the true Faith, were to be rebaptized. Austin in the 1. Book of Baptism against the Donatists, chap. 8. and(c) 1.462 Book 2. chap. 4. saith, that it is not known, that ever Cyprian went from his opinion. Agrippin Bishop of Carthage, predecessor of Cyprian, and the Council which he assembled, had already establisht that doctrine in Africa. And(d) 1.463 Hierom in his Catalogue saith, that Dionysius Alexandrinus was of the same opinion as Cyprian, as also Fir∣milianus Bishop of Cappadocia, and many with him. And the first Council of Nice, decreed that the Paulianists or Samosatenians be rebaptized. And Basil in the Epistle to Amphilochius would have the Saccofori, Encratites and Apotack∣ticks to be rebaptized. And Athanasius in the 3. Oration against the Arians, holds the Baptism of the Arians to be void and unlawful, and saith, that one is ra∣ther defiled then washt in it. The Roman Church hath alwayes resisted that do∣ctrine; so far that Steven Bishop of Rome hath for that cause called Cyprian false Christ, false Prophet, and deceitful workman, as Firmilian witnesseth in his Epistle inserted among the Epistles of Cyprian. And Eusebius in the 4. chap. of the 7. Book of his History saith, that Steven for that reason separated himself from the Communion of the Churches of Cilicia, Cappadocia and Galatia, and other Churches neer them. This Cyprian in a Council assembled by him against the Church of Rome, and in the Epistle to Pompius, calling Steven Bishop of Rome

a defender of Hereticks, did not believe that the Roman Church could not err. Also one may see in that Father, that in his time the Lords Supper was given to new-born infants. In the 59. and 63. Epistles.

Athanasius.

Athanasius in the Book of the passion of our Lord, saith, that Jesus Christ ha∣ving overcome the Devil on earth, would also overcome him in the air, and for that cause would be crucified, that he might have a combat in the air with the De∣vil. And that these words, My God My God, why hast thou forsaken me? were fained words, whereby Jesus Christ made a shew that he was afrayd, that he might draw the Devil to the combat. In that no more then in his affirming (in the first Apoloy of his flight) that St. Peter(e) 1.464 had his thoat cut, he is not approved by the Roman Church. Nor in that he exhorteth the people to read Scripture. Nor in that he puts the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, &c. out of the number of the Ca∣nonical Books.

Gregorius Nazianzenus.

The Roman Church approveth not this Father(f) 1.465 in that he condemneth se∣cond mariages. Nor in that (in the 40. Oration, which is about Baptism) he would have infants baptized when they are in danger of death. But if there be no apparent danger, he would have the Baptism put off till they come to age to an∣swer for their own faith. Nor in that(g) 1.466 he rejecteth all Councils without ex∣ception, saying, that he never saw any good end of them, and that the evils and discords of the Church are alwayes rather increased then diminished by their means. Nor in that he saith in the Oration upon his return from the Country, that he wisheth that there were(h) 1.467 no difference of degrees among the Pastors of the Church, nor any precedence, but that they should be distinguisht only by their vertue.

Basilius.

Neither doth the Roman Church approve Basil in many things, whom yet Gre∣gory Nazianzen holds to be inferiour in doctrine to(i) 1.468 none but Jesus Christ on∣ly, and compares him with the antient Prophets and Patriarcks. That Father in his Asceticks in the second interrogation of the rules expounded at large, teach∣eth, that the love of God is not got by teaching, but that we have it by nature, as to love light. Himself in the Treatise of the Judgement of God,(k) 1.469 makes the punishment of all sins equal; Wherein the Roman Church approveth not of him. No more then in that he would not have(l) 1.470 alms given to the poor that are without [the Church] because it is written, Give not the bread of the Chil∣dren unto dogs, And I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Nor in his opinion that those that have been baptized by Hereticks, should be re-bapti∣zed. Nor in his exacting a twelve months pennance of them that marry the second time, in the same Epistle, Canon 4. Nor in permitting to them that commit Fornication, to continue in the same for fear of worse, in the same Epistle, Canon 26.

Hilarius.

The Roman Church approveth no bettet of Hilary; who in the 10. Book of the Trinity, and upon the 138. Psal, and upon the 53. maintains that(m) 1.471 Jesus Christ in his death suffered no pain, but that only he would make us believe that he suffe∣red, and that the blows did not give him any pain, no more then if an arrow pierced the water, or prickt the fire, or hurt the air; and that(n) 1.472 the vertue of the body of Christ received the violence of pains without feelings(o) 1.473 The same Fa∣ther saith, that Christ ate and drunk, not out of any necessity, but to complie with custom; for which doctrine he is reproved by Claudius Bishop of Vienna, in the Book of the state of the soul. That error so gross and ruining the whole work of our Redemption, hath brought him to another, that in these words of the Lord,(p) 1.474 Father, let this cup pass from me, Jesus Christ desired his Father that his Disciples also might suffer in the like manner. So that by his account St. Peter felt no pain in suffering martyrdom. The same Hilary is not approved by the Roman Church, in that he saith, upon the Psalm 119. in the Letter Gimel, that the Vir∣gin Mary(q) 1.475 must undergo the judgement of the fire of the last day, by which sins shall be purged.(r) 1.476 It is also one of his opinions that souls are corporal.

Eusebius.

This Father is not approved by the Roman Church, because speaking of an image erected unto Christ, he saith, that(s) 1.477 it was done by a Pagan custome. Nor in that having made the universal Ecclesiastical history until the death of Constan∣tine hapned in the year of Christ 337. in all that time he speaks never a word of the Popes primacy, and no trace of that in all his works. And yet he is the only historian we have of the 3. first ages; wherefore our Cardinal is angry with him, and accuseth him to have been an Arian, although his writings and actions wit∣ness the contrary, as we shall shew in the proper place. Neither is he approved for saying(t) 1.478 that the Fathers before the Law had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as though they were not subject to any evil affection. Nor in that he adviseth to use some∣times lying, in the 12. Book, chap. 29.

Ambrosius.

The Roman Church approveth not that Ambrose with most part of the Antients believeth(u) 1.479 that all, yea and the Prophets and Apostles must pass through the fire of the last Judgement to be purged from their sins. This the Fathers call the se∣cond Baptism, and the flaming sword placed at the gate of Paradise. That was the Purgatory of the antient Church, where Indulgences have no place; for the Fathers put off that purgation to the day of Judgement. This Father hath fol∣lowed the errors of Tertullian,(x) 1.480 that all shall not rise at the same time, and that they that have sinned most shall rise later, carrying into a fire the slowness of their resurrection; for which error he is blamed by the Jesuit Salmeron, in the 13. Tome. 6. Disput. upon St. Pauls Epistles. Also for saying that at Easter al∣wayes some rise again.

In one thing especially this Father dipleaseth the Roman Church, that he did excommunicate the Emperor Theodosius without the advice of the Bishop of Rome his neighbour; for it is now a maxime in the Roman Church, that none but the

Pope can excomunicate the Emperor. That rule is found in the Aphorisms of Emanuel Sa in the word(y) 1.481 Excommunicatus.

Also he is not approved for saying(z) 1.482 that Abraham lying with Agar sinned not, because the Law was not yet, and adultery was not yet forbidden.

Augustinus.

Austin is not approved by the Roman Church,(a) 1.483 for condemning Infants dead without Baptism to the torment of eternal fire. Which was also the opinion of Fulgentius his Disciple. For Austin did not believe the Limbus of Infants. He is no more approved for holding the participation of the Lords Supper necessary for Infants to be saved. Nor for making the souls in some manner corporal, as we have shewed. Nor for holding(b) 1.484 that the world was created not in six days, as Moses relateth, but in a moment: Nor for being one of the Bishops, who in the Milevitan Council prohibited the appeals from Africa to Rome, upon pain of ex∣communication.(c) 1.485 Nor for condemning the worshippers of images and re∣licks. Sixtus Senensis in his Preface upon the fifth book of his Library, saith, Austin seemeth sometimes to attribute too little to the free Will of man. Baronius and Bellarmine(d) 1.486 reprove him for understanding these words, Super hanc pe∣tram, &c. not of the person of Peter, but of his faith and confession. It was his opinion, that(e) 1.487 the souls are shut up in hidden places until the day of re∣surrection. How contrary he was to the Transubstantiation, we shall examine hereafter.

Johannes Chrysostomus.

Sixtus Senensis in the 107. annotat. of the fifth book, observeth, that Chrysostom towards the end of his book of Priesthood approveth frauds, lyes, & impostures, and holds them sometimes necessary, when they are done without an intention to do harm to any. Our Adversaries hold, that to do works of piety acceptable un∣to God, we have need of the preventing Grace of God to move our Wils; Chrysostom holds the contrary. Hom. 42. upon Genesis. That very thing (saith he) that this Patriarch Abraham, who lived before the time of grace, and before the Law, hath by himself, and by the knowledge that comes by nature, attained to such a measure of vertue, will be sufficient to take away all excuse. But perhaps some will say, that God took great care of that man, and that the Soveraign God shewed a great providence towards him.(f) 1.488 Indeed I confess it; but if he alone had not done that which was in him, he should not have received the Graces of the Lord. And Hom. 16. upon S. John, according to the Greek Text,(g) 1.489 Hence we learn, that God preventeth not our Wils by his gifts; but when we have begun, and we have brought our Wils, then he doth furnish us with many means of salvation. Like things he saith, Hom. 12. upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many other places.

The same Father in his Homily ad Neophytos;(h) 1.490 We baptize children (saith he) though they be without sins: Then he addeth to which end children are bapti∣zed; Not for the remission of original sins; But (saith he) to add unto them ho∣liness, righteousness, adoption, and inheritance.

Himself in the tenth Homily upon the Epistle to the Romans, expounding these words of the fifth chapter, that by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: By this word sinners, he understands not that by the sin of Adam we are stained with original sin, and made prone to sin, but only that we are subject to

punishment. These are his words: What means this word sinners?(i) 1.491 I think it signifieth as much as subject unto punishment, and adjudged unto death: For he hath shewed prolixly, that Adam dying, we were all made mortal. With these Texts the Pelagians armed themselves against the Orthodox, to deny original sin. I believe not that any of the Roman Church will approve of him for often blaming the Virgin Mary, accusing her of importunity, vain ostentation, presumption and unbelief. Thus Hom. 45. upon Matthew,(k) 1.492 That which she undertook was out of an excessive ambition: for she would shew that she had authority and power over her Son, imagining yet no great thing concerning him. Wherefore she came unseasonably: See then her rashness, &c. Hom. 21. upon John, according to the Greek, he gives a reason why Jesus Christ answered his Mother thus: What is there between me and thee, Woman? saying,(l) 1.493 that when our Parents come to make unseasonable que∣stions, and to hinder some spiritual action, there is danger in obeying them: Where∣fore Jesus Christ in this place did so answer her: And thereupon he saith, that Ma∣ry thought she could command Jesus Christ in all things, as other Mothers, whereas she ought to have served and reverenced him as her Lord. And reproveth her for coming in the presence of the people to hinder the utility of the Assistants. In the 28. Homily, upon the Epistle to the Hebrews,(m) 1.494 and in the 39.(n) 1.495 upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he teacheth, that the souls of the Saints have not yet received the reward, and shall not enjoy Glory till after the resurrection.

Theodoretus.

The Roman Church approveth not of Theodoret, for teaching (in the book of divina dogmata, in the chap. of the Antichrist) that the(o) 1.496 Antichrist, shall be a Devil clad with humane flesh: Nor for saying (in the same book, in the chapter that proveth that he that is good is righteous also) that the Law forbids not evil thoughts, nor evil desires: Nor for denying, that(p) 1.497 Woman was created after the image of God in the twentieth question upon Genesis: Nor for affirming, (in the book of Heresies, in the chapter of Nestorius) that to Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople,(q) 1.498 the government of the Universal Church was committed; for the Bishop of Rome will not allow that. Nor for say∣ing, (in the second and third Dialogue) that God hath honoured the bread with the name of his body, without altering the nature of bread, and that the bread af∣ter the consecration, remains in its first substance, which is overthrowing tran∣substantiation.

Gregorius Nyssenus.

The Roman Church likes not the opinion of Gregorius Nyssenus,(r) 1.499 that the souls cannot be tormented without the bodies, and feel no pain before the re∣surrection: For that opinion is repugnant to Purgatory; Nor his Doctrine, that(s) 1.500 God creates no more souls, for he holds them to have been created all at once in the beginning of the world. It is he (that to find the three days in which Scripture saith, that Christ was in the womb of the earth) begins the three days at the hour of the institution of the Lords Supper, as if(t) 1.501 the body of the Lord had been from that time without a soul.

Epiphanius.

Nicephorus lib. 13. chap. 12. observeth that he was an Anthropomorphite: Sozo∣menus saith the same in the fourteenth chapter of the eighth book, saying, that Theophilus had reproved Epiphanius, that he believed that God had a humane shape. That which confirmeth that opinion, is, that Epiphanius having made an

enumeration very exact of all the heresies, hath not put that of the Anthropomor∣phites among them. He is not approved by the Roman Church, because in the he∣refie of the Collyridians, he condemns certain superstitious women that worshipped the Virgin Mary, and called her the Queen of Heaven. And whereas the Roman Church deferreth the cult of dulia to Angels, and to the Virgin Mary the cult of hyperdulia, which is an higher kind of adoration; Epiphanius makes her inferior to Angels, saying, If the Apostle prohibits to worship Angels, how much more the woman born of Anna? so he cals the Mother of the Virgin Mary. Neither is he approved by the Roman Church, for tearing a vail or peice of hanging in a Church in the borough of Anablata, because there was an image of Christ in it, or of some Saint; saying, that such images ought not to be suffered in the Church of Christ; As himself saith in an Epistle translated by Saint Hierom.(u) 1.502 Villavin∣centius an Augustinian Monk reproveth him for many things, especially because in the Ancorat he was so bold as to expound these words, My Father is greater then I, as true even of the divine nature of Christ; And for saying that Jesus Christ praying, Let this cup pass from me, did not speak in earnest, but fainedly, to mock the Devil. The same Father puts off the day of Christs Nativity(x) 1.503 to the sixth of January: which was the observation of the Churches of Egypt; as one may see in Cassian in the tenth Collation, chap. 2.

Cassianus.

He is not approved by the Roman Church, for(y) 1.504 blaming the Roman Church about fasting upon Saturday: Nor for relating a discourse of the Abbot Joseph,(z) 1.505 whereby lying and hypocrisie are commended, when they are beneficial to our neighbours, and not condemning that Doctrine: Nor for teaching after Ab∣bot John,(a) 1.506 that the Law of God promiseth only temporal goods to the ob∣servers thereof.

Hieronymus.

In many things the Roman Church disliketh Hierom; As for saying,(b) 1.507 that the Histories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon are fables. For saying,(c) 1.508 that the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, &c. are not Canonical, and that the Church acknowledgeth them not for true: for maintaining stifly,(d) 1.509 that God knoweth not how many Gnats and Flies are upon the earth, or how many Fishes in the Sea; and he denieth that Gods ptovidence extends as much upon un∣reasonable as reasonable things, and cals fatuos adulatores, foolish flatterers, those that hold the contrary. For calling marriage an ignominy, in his books against(e) 1.510 Jovinian, and married persons vasa in contumeliam, vessels to dishonour; saying, that the end of marriage is death; and placing the Virgins with Abra∣ham, and the married persons with the rich Glutton: Alledging to that purpose these Texts, They that are in the flesh cannot please God; and that flesh and blood can∣not inherit the kingdom of God; as if married persons could not be saved. In the Epistle to Salvina, he cals Widows that marry again, dogs that return to their vomit. Going so far as to say, that Saint Paul permitting wanton Widows to marry again, had given them praecepta non bona & justificationes pessimas; precepts that are not good, and rules of justice most evil. Wherefore also in his Epistle to Gerontia, he excludeth such women from the alms of the Church. And in the Epitaph of Fabiola, he praiseth her, because she did penance in publick in the Church for marrying the second time. Wherefore Bovius in his Notes upon the fifth book of Clements Constitutions, speaks thus;(f) 1.511 Hierom was too hard against those that marry twice: So that unless he be gently dealt with, hardly can we exempt him from the accusations of those that blame him.

The same Hierom is reproved by Cardinal Bellarmine,(g) 1.512 for maintaining, that Priests are inferior to Bishops, not by divine right, or by Gods Ordinance, but by an Ecclesiastical order.

The same Cardinal reproveth(h) 1.513 Hierom, because he believed that a man who hath married a Wife before Baptism, and another after, ought not to be held a by-game, that is, twice married.

In the first book against Jovinian, Hierom condemneth the use of flesh as pol∣luted, saying, that the use of flesh was for wrestlers, and for Plow-men, not for Christians.

Himself holds that all oaths are forbidden to Christians, saying upon Mat. 5. Evangelica veritas non recipit juramentum, Gospel truth receiveth no oath.

He hath written against Austin Letters full of Invectives. The subject of their quarrel was, that Hierom maintains, that in Scripture there are sometimes offici∣ous lyes; that is, that the Holy Ghost lieth sometimes for the good of those whom he speaks to; and that Saint Paul rehearsing how he had reproved Saint Peter, used lying and dissembling.

* 1.514But that wherein he is most displeasing to our Adversaries, is his making all Bishops equal, and equalling the Bishops of Tanis and Rhegium, which are small Towns, unto the Bishop of Rome; adding that pride came from the Church of the City of Rome. And in his Preface upon the book of Didymus, he cals Rome Babylon and the whore clad in purple, and the Clergy of Rome, the Senate of the Pharisees. The like things he saith in the Epistle to Marcella, under the name of Paula and Eustochius.

Gelasius.

Pope Gelasius in the book against Nestorius and Eutyches, speaks things dis∣pleasing to the Roman Church of this time, affirming, that in the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remains, and the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of mysteries. It is he who in the Canon Com∣perimus, in the second Distinction of the consecration, condemneth those that take the bread in the Eucharist, and abstain from the cup; and saith, that(i) 1.515 the di∣vision of this Sacrament cannot be done without a great sacriledge. Wherefore he commandeth that one kind be not given without the other. The same Pope in his Commonitory to Faustus his Legat, condemns all the indulgences granted to the dead, because it is written, All that thou shalt bind on earth, and not under earth. And denieth that a Bishop can give any absolution to the dead, for they are no more of his flock. That Pope speaking thus, hath condemned his successors who give indulgences to the dead, and draw souls out of Purgatory.

Lactantius.

Lactantius saith,(k) 1.516 that Jesus Christ is not God. He was a Chiliast. He saith,(l) 1.517 that God hath divided the world into two parts, the East and the West, and hath reserved the East to himself, and left the West to the Devil;(m) 1.518 He holds, that the wicked shall not rise in the day of Judgement:(n) 1.519 He teacheth, that God before he created the world, created two Spirits, the one good, who is his Son; the other wicked, who is the Devil, to whom he hath given craft and dexterity to invent evil. He holds also, that(o) 1.520 Angels polluted themselves with women, and that out of that copulation came the Demons. Hierom ob∣serves this error of his,(p) 1.521 that he denied the holy Ghost to be a person subsist∣ing in the Godhead. We shall see upon another discourse, that he shuts up the souls of the Saints in underground places, and by consequent denieth the invo∣cation of Saints.

Arnobius.

Arnobius holds,(q) 1.522 that the souls of the wicked are mortal, and are brought to nothing: and in the first book he saith, that men were made subject to diseases, by a certain importunate cruelty that would have it so: and often he sets up many Gods.

In all these things and many more, the Roman Church rejects the opinion of the Fathers, and holds not her self bound to stand to all they say. For we have made this Collection, not to lay open the errors of the Ancient Doctors of the Church, whose holiness of life we praise, and admire their zeal, and make profit of their writings, but to shew how little our Adversaries deferr unto them; and that in many things wherein they have well spoken, as well as in others where they have erred, the Roman Church hath made no difficulty to depart from their opi∣nion. Also that the Readers may acknowledge, how the Writings of those that are called Fathers, are under the perfection of the holy Scripture; and that the faith of the Christian shall never have any stedfastness, till it be stayed altogether upon the Word of God. Yea I say, that a Son that should see men honouring his Fa∣thers memory with excess, and making an idol of him, should be bound to lay open, though with grief, the imperfections of his Father, that the honour of God might be maintained. Or if a man could be of such a perverse disposition, as to delight, as Cham did, to shew to the world his Fathers nakedness, and lay the errors of the ancient Doctors in open view, for no other end but to cast a re∣proach upon their memory; yet that crime should be light, compared to the rash licentiousness of Cardinal du Perron, who hath made a chapter on purpose of the Texts of Scripture which seem absurd unto humane reason; which he sets forth in such a manner, that he makes his end evident, which is to find fault with the Word of God, and expose it to derision, and plant unbelief in the Readers mind. To the confutation of which collection, we reserve also a chapter on pur∣pose.

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

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

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

II. Then(r) 1.523 the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, were held Apo∣crypha, not Canonical, as we shall prove hereafter.

III. Then(s) 1.524 they believed that things necessary to salvation, were suffici∣ently and clearly contained in the holy Scriptures.

IV. Then(t) 1.525 the Pastors of the Church recommended to the people, Trades∣men, Husbandmen, Women, and all, the reading of the holy Scripture.

V. Then(u) 1.526 the Councils prohibited to have images in the Church, least that which is adored, should be painted on the Wals. And the Fathers of that time, said, that making images of Jesus Christ was a Pagan Custome; and those deserve to be seduced, that seek Jesus Christ in painted wals, instead of seeking him in the holy Scriptures. So contrary they were to images, that they would tear vails

and hangings where there was any image of Christ or of some Saint. So far were the Christians of the two or three first ages from yielding any religious service to images, that the very(x) 1.527 trade of Painter was held unlawfull and forbidden by God. Tertullian objects it to Hermogenes as a crime and a reproach. How farre were they from making pictures of God and images of the Trinity?

VI. Then in the form of service and publike prayers which were pronounced be∣fore the table of the Lord these words were said,(y) 1.528 Make that this oblation may be put to our account, reasonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Which words have been taken away, and blotted out of the Masse to bring in the Transubstantiation.

VII. The Fathers and Councils of that time(z) 1.529 give the interpretation of these words, This is my body, that is, This is the figure of my body, and say that(a) 1.530 Je∣sus Christ said, This is my body, when he gave the signe of his body; And expound these words, the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, by the bread and the wine con∣secrated. They say that the thing which Jesus Christ called his blood was wine, and that the nature and substance of bread remains after the consecration.

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

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

X. Then the consecration was made, not by these words, This is my body, but(b) 1.531 by prayer; Not speaking to the bread, but to God.

XI. Then they beleeved that(c) 1.532 as the body of Jesus Christ was not in heaven when it was on earth, likewise that now that it is in heaven it is no more on earth, and that we apprehend him in beleeving, not in chewing; by faith, not with the teeth or belly.

XII. Then they beleeved(d) 1.533 that the wicked and unbeleevers do not eat the body of the Lord, although they take the signe of it to their condemnation.

XIII. Then the whole faithful people did communicate under both kindes, nei∣ther is there so much as one example found in all Antiquity of denying the Cup unto the people, or of the holy Sacrament administred in the Church without gi∣ving the Cup to any.

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

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

XVI. For three hundred and fifty years since the birth of our Lord, all the Fathers with one consent will have God alone invocated, and reject the addresse of prayers made unto creatures. After that time some began to speak of it doubt∣fully, as Gregory Nazianzen(a) 1.534 the first Father that ever called upon Saints, and yet he declareth that he doubteth whether the Saints understand him.

XVII. Then they beleeved(b) 1.535 that the Saints departed know not and under∣stand not the things that are done here below.

XVIII. Then(c) 1.536 they beleeved that there was but two places for the souls after death, paradise and hell; and that for him who is not in Christ, there is no place left but with the devil.

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

XX. Then they beleeved(d) 1.537 that the souls separate from the bodies cannot be tormented, and by consequent they beleeved not the fire of Purgatory.

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

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

XXIII. Then they held that S. Peter was the first and chief of the Apostles, as for honour and precedence;(e) 1.538 but that in power and jurisdiction all the Apostles were equal.

XXIV. Then they held that the multitude was no mark of the true Church, and that the great number was often on the heretick side; And that Hereticks and Se∣ducers are often they that make the greatest shew of miracles, as we have proved before by a multitude of testimonies.

XXV.(f) 1.539 Then the Bishops that had any authority were called Popes,(g) 1.540 and writ Remonstrances to the Bishop of Rome, and being assembled in Council without their leave, writ to him that they did not like that he should send them Legats, or take notice of their businesses, or receive any appeal coming from their countreys, and pronounced Excommunication against any man who being condemned by the Church of his Countrey, should appeal to Italy. Their election was made by suf∣frages of the people. Cypr. Epist. 52. & 68.

XXVI.(h) 1.541 Then the Bishop of Rome exacted not from the Bishops of Gaules, or Spain, or Greece, or Asia, an Oath of Allegiance at the time of their reception; They took no letters of investiture from him, They paid no Annats unto the Pope of Rome. They feared not a sentence of lapse from Rome upon their Benefices.

XXVII.(i) 1.542 Then the Bishop of Rome in his Epistles and Decrees took none of those Titles which he assumeth now, and called himself only Bishop of the city of Rome.

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

XXIX(l) 1.543 Then the Patriarchs of Alexandria sent to the Bishop of Rome every year to point unto him Easter day; And the Bishop of Rome accounted it not an injury or a contempt to receive that order from them.

XXX. Then the Universal Councils were convocated by the Emperours, who by their imperial Letters called the Bishop of Rome to the Council.(k) 1.544 We finde not that the first Council of Nice was assembled by Constantine, by the advice of the Bishop of Rome, or that he consulted with him about it: It is found also, that the second Universal Council, which is the first of Constantinople, was convocated by the Emperour Theodosius the I. without the advice of Damasus Bishop of Rome; And that the same Council having met the second year again, Damasus endea∣voured to transferre it to Rome, but could not effect it. In that Council there was not any Legat of the Romane Bishop, and there without his advice the order of the Patriarks was altered. And so for the IV. Council, which was that of Chalcedon, which(m) 1.545 Leo Bishop of Rome went about to hinder by humble supplications to Theodosius the II. but he could not obtain it. In that Council, against all the efforts of the Legats of Leo there present, the Patriarch of Constantinople was declared equall unto the Bishop of Rome in all things; In the same manner as the City of

Constantinople was equall in all things to the city of Rome for the civil. Neither shall it be found that before Charlemagne the Popes had Legats in the Councils of Gauls, or that his leave was demanded to convocate them, or that the causes of Bishops were evocated to Rome. That tyranny got footing in France under Ca∣rolus Calvus towards the end of the ninth age.

XXXI. Then the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperours who have of∣ten punisht, expelled and deposed them, and often also have granted them graces, immunities and priviledges, and have imposed upon them certain sums of money for their entry into the Bishoprick. It was then very farre from the Bishop of Rome to think of degrading Emperours, and taking crowns from the heads of Kings.

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

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

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

XXXV. Then there was no mention of Gods Feast, nor of the Masse of such and such a Saint, as now there is the Masse of St. Rock and of St. Genovesa, and of St. Anthony, and of the holy Ghost. For of late they have judged it reasonable that the holy Ghost should also have his Feast. Then the Altars were not conse∣crated to such and such a Saint, whose Reliques are hid under the Altar.

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

XXXVII. Then the Roman Indulgences were not in use, as Gabriel Biel ac∣knowledgeth(n) 1.546 in the 57. lesson upon the Canon of the Masse, and the Cardinal Cajetan in the Book of Indulgences to Julius de medicis.

XXXVIII. In that time the publike Service war pronounced aloud, and the peo∣ple answered Amen, because they understood that which was said. That part of the Masse which is called Secreta, was a thing unknown to Antiquity.

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

XL. Then the Baptisme was not ordinarily conferred but at Easter and Pente∣cost; and the most part to avoid the rigour of the penitential Canons, would de∣fer the Baptisme till they were at mans estate, and many even to the hour of death.

XLI. We shall see hereafter that the whole doctrine, and the whole form of

Penitence, and all the Penitentiall Canons of the antient Church are abolisht in the Church of Rome.

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

I have been large upon this matter, to be even with Card. du Perron, who in the 18. ch. of his first Book quoteth many testimonies of the Fathers in the mar∣gin, whereby he pretends to prove the conformity of the Roman Church of this time with the Antient. All that to no purpose; for who knows whether these pas∣sages be faithfully quoted? or whether the same Fathers speak alwaies the same language? or whether the words of these passages be not used in a sense contrary to the Authors minde? or whether the signification of the words be not chan∣ged? (As in effect the words of Pope, Merit, Sacrifice, Indulgence, Masse, Con∣secration, Prayer for the dead, Satisfaction, &c. have lost their antient significa∣tion) Or whether the alledged Books be not supposititious? Or whether the se∣verall ages have been uniform, and have altered nothing in these matters? And after all, they are but men that speak, such men as the Roman Church con∣demneth in many things, and that will not be beleeved without the Word of God.

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

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

Theodoret saith. That(o) 1.547 the mysticall signes are adored; He speaks not then of the adoration of Latria due unto God alone; for the signes must not be thus ado∣red. Besides, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Theodoret useth, doth many times simply signifie to venerate and make obeysance or a congy. The testimony of Austin upon Psa. 98. is this, That none eat this flesh unlesse he hath first adored it; Where Au∣stin speaking of manducation by faith, will have the flesh of Christ adored in the celebration of the Eucharist, but he saith not, Let the Eucharist be adored. It is one thing to worship Christ in the Lotds Supper, and another to worship the Lords Supper, or to adore the Sacrament which is set upon the table; The Fa∣ther also is adored in the Eucharist, although he be not inclosed under the acci∣dents of bread. Chrysostome saith the same in the alledged place, and will have all those that partake of the Sacrament to worship Christ, which we acknow∣ledge to be necessary. But he speaks not of the adoration of the Sacra∣ment.

In the same Chapter also to defend the Communion under one kinde, he quo∣teth in the margin such passages as say, that in old time they carried the bread home, that it was brought to the sick, carried upon the sea, and sent to remote Countreys. Who seeth not that this doth not touch the question? The question

is, Whether in the antient Church the Eucharist was celebrated in the Temple without giving the cup to any of the Assistants; or whether the cup was ever de∣nied to any of the people that required it, or whether it was interdicted to the Laity, as it is now in the Roman Church.

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

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

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

ONe of the chief proofs that our Adversaries bring to raise the authority of the Church above the holy Scripture, is the power which they ascribe unto the Church to add unto Scripture, and to make Laws (which concern faith and manners) not contained in the Scripture. The Jesuit Gregorius de Valentia saith, that the(a) 1.548 Scripture is not a sufficient rule of faith, because it contains not all things. The Jesuit Bayle in the ninth question of his Catechism, I will make you (saith he) palpably discern, that Scripture is not sufficient. And so Charron in the fourth chapter of the third verity: Scripture is but a very little parcel of the re∣vealed truth. Salmeron gives a reason why God would not have all the Mysteries of Religion to be written, namely,(b) 1.549 That the Commandment of Christ should be kept, Give not holy things unto Dogs. So that in his account, the holy Scripture is for Dogs:(c) 1.550 Costerus saith the same.

And that one may not think that the Traditions which the Church addeth unto Scripture, be of small concernment;(d) 1.551 Thomas Aquinas saith, that the Pope can make a new Edition of the Symbol. Upon which Text, Andradius in the second book of the defence of the Tridentine faith, saith,(e) 1.552 The Roman Popes by defining many things which had been hidden before, use to augment the Symbol of the Faith. Whence the Council of Florence, in the last Session attributes to the Pope and to the Roman Church the power of adding to the Symbol. The Bull Exurge, which is at the end of the last Council of Lateran, condemneth Luther for saying that it is not in the power of the Pope and the Roman Church to stablish new Articles of Faith.

Hence it appears, that our Adversaries hold, that unwritten Traditions which are wanting unto Scripture, are not only light things and indifferent customs, but such as are held to be Articles of faith, essential points, and necessary to Christian Religion, as the Jesuit Salmeron saith,(f) 1.553 The Doctrine of faith suffereth ad∣dition in essential things. Whence it follows, that Christian Religion had not yet all her essential Doctrines in the time of the Apostles, and was wanting in things necessary. For the same Jesuit in the same place is prolix in maintaining, that(g) 1.554 there are many Traditions, even in things essential, which the Apostles have not taught, neither by word nor writing. So that by a great abuse, they call

all traditions Apostolical, there being many Doctrines of which the Apostles have neither written nor spoken. For (saith he) all things have not been taught by the Apostles, but such as were then necessary and fit for the salvation of Believers. By that reason there are some Doctrines that now are necessary and essential to faith, which were not so in the Apostles time. It were good to know when Christian Religion shall be perfected, and whether the Popes shall have always the power to add new Articles of faith.

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

To this Tradition our Adversaries have recourse, when Scripture faileth them. So did the old Hereticks, as Irenaeus saith in the third book, chap. 2. When one convicteth Hereticks by Scripture, they will accuse the Scriptures as not being in good form, and having no authority, and diversly spoken, and because truth cannot be found in Scripture by those that know not tradition, because it was not given in Wri∣ting, but viva voce. For which cause, Paul said, We speak Wisdom among the per∣fect.(h) 1.555 Tertullian being turned Heretick defended his error by tradition, alledging these words of the Lord, I have yet many things to say unto you, but as yet you cannot bear them. Which Text(i) 1.556 Bellarmine and other defenders of traditi∣ons, make use of to establish them; as also of this Text alledged by Irenaeus, We speak wisdom among the perfect. A little after the Apostles, Papias Bishop of Hi∣erapolis, applied his mind to unwritten traditions, which were parables, and strange Doctrines, and other fabulous things, as Eusebius saith in the last chapter of the last book of his history.

Clemens Alexandrinus, who among many vertues had also his defects, was much given to traditions not contained in Scripture. He(k) 1.557 taught that the Pagans were justified by Philosophy, and that it was necessary before the coming of the Lord, and that it was a Schoolmaster unto Christ. That Christ had prescribed to the Jews twelve years for a term of repentance;(l) 1.558 That not only Christ, but the Apostles also descended into hell to preach repentance, and many such Doctrines, which the Roman Church of our dayes doth not receive.

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

Now although the(m) 1.559 Council of Trent equal those traditions with the holy Scripture, commanding that they be received with the like reverence and af∣fection of piety as the holy Scripture; Nevertheless traditions have really a greater authority with the Roman Church then the holy Scripture; Since the Romanists ground the authority of Scripture upon tradition, and upon the testimony of the Church. Certainly if the tradition of the Church can change that which God commandeth in Scripture (as the Cardinal will have it) it follows, that Tradition hath more authority then Scripture. Or if Scripture must be believed, because the tradition of the Church prescribes it, what followeth but that the tradition of the Church is more to be believed then Scripture? Whence also the Jesuit Costerus in his Manual, chap. 1. calleth the tradition printed in the heart of the Church, another kind of Scripture.(n) 1.560 The excellency of that Scripture (saith he) far surmounteth the holy Scriptures, which the Apostles have left in parchments; First, because that is written by the finger of God, the other is written with the Pens of the Apostles. Salmeron in the third part of the XIII. Tome, in the 8. Dispute, pronounceth this goodly Aphorism, Tradition hath all things necessary to salvati∣on, yea more then Scripture.(o) 1.561 He addeth, Tradition is more antient then Scri∣pture. Again,(p) 1.562 Scripture cannot be Judge of doubts, because it is hard and dumb, and like a nose of wax which is drawn any way, &c. Wherefore such as will be insolent, cannot be convinced by Scripture; but with the only tradition we must

cut their throats. Again, Tradition is more firm then Scripture. And a little after, Tradition is far more universal then Scripture, and extends to a longer time, and hath more matters, and more persons then Scripture; Yea that Jesuit goeth so far, as to say, that(q) 1.563 Scripture is subject unto the Church which hath the Spirit. Now to be subject unto the Church, and unto the tradition of the Church, is all one. Which is the same thing that Lindanus saith in Panoplia,(r) 1.564 The Church was not tyed to Scripture by the Will of Christ. And the Jesuit Costerus in his Manual,(s) 1.565 Christ would not have his Church to depend from Scriptures of paper, and would not commit his mysteries to parchment. And Stapleton in the second book of the authority of Scripture, chap. 11.(t) 1.566 I have said, and say again, that Scripture in herself is not so much the rule of Faith, as the faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture. Now by the Faith of the Church, the tradition of the Church is understood; and by the Church, they understand the Roman; and by the Roman, they understand the Pope, in whom resideth the whole au∣thority of the Roman Church. So the Pope is set above God, speaking in the Scriptures; Wherefore they are gravelled, when they are asked whether the Pope be subject to the holy Scripture?

Did ever any of their Doctors say of the Traditions, that which they say of the h••ly Scriptures? Did they ever call the Traditions a piece of a rule, a nose of wax, a stumbling block, a dumb rule, a sword for both hands, an obscure and ambiguous Doctrine which cannot be judge, &c? In a word, they will have Tra∣dition, not Scripture to be Judge. And their practice justifieth it; for in the Ro∣man Church, the people is a thousand times more carefully instructed in the tra∣dition, then in the Doctrine of salvation contained in the holy Scripture. The very idiots among them know what belongs to Lent and Emberweeks; what meats are forbidden on certain days; and speak of Holy days, Vigils, Pilgrimages, Relicks, great Pardons, Obits, Beads, Rosaries, &c. But many that go for learned, are ignorant in the Doctrine of our Redemption, and free Adoption, and Justification by Faith, and about the Offices and Natures of our Redeemer, and about the relation between the New and the Old Testament, which are the fun∣mentals of Christian Religion. Confirmation being of humane invention, is more honoured then Baptism, which is instituted by Christ. For Confirmation is not conferred but by the Bishop; But Baptism may be conferred by a Woman, yea by a Pagan Woman, yea by a Pagan Whore. Of sins against Gods Law, as Fornication, Murther, Perjury, Adultery, Priests and Bishops give absolution; but they cannot absolve them that have molested those that go to Rome to gain pardons, or robbed the victuallers that carry provision to the Court of Rome, nor Princes and Magistrates that levy Tenths upon the Clergy, nor them that appeal from the Pope unto the future Council. These are cases reserved unto his Holi∣ness, except only in the Article of death. They are traditions, which to transgress, is a greater sin then to transgress the Law of God. If a Priest marry for a reme∣dy to his incontinence, according to the Apostles command, he fals into irregula∣rity, and becomes unable to sing Mass; but not for keeping many Concubines, or for being a Sodomite, as we learn of Pope(u) 1.567 Innocent the III. and of(x) 1.568 Navarrus the Popes penitentiary.

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

Besides, all traditions are lucrative unto the Pope, and serve to exalt and enrich the Pope and his Clergy. He draweth great profits from Indulgences, private Masses, Dispensations, Annals, Suffrages for the dead, and from Purgatory.

By the confessions the Confessors know the secrets of families, and the intenti∣ons of Princes, and have a King kneeling before them, confessing his sins, and craving pardon, and undergoing penances at their discretion. Clergy-men re∣serving to themselves and Kings the Cup in the Sacrament, raise themselves above the people, and make themselves fellows to Kings. By the Transubstantiation they arrogate to themselves the power of making God with their word, and hold Jesus Christ shut up in a box. By the sacrifice of the Mass they make themselves Priests after the order of Melchisedeck, and sacrifice Jesus Christ unto his Father, having no command of God for that. The images of God the Father arrayed like a Pope, make the ignorant to beleeve that the Pope is like unto God. By holy dayes the Pope usurpeth the power of shutting up the Shops, and hindring the sitting of Courts of Justice and Councils of State. By the distinction of meats, the Pope rules the markets, and the kitchins, and the bellies, and the Tables of Kings. By the canonization of Saints h•• gives his servants to be adored by the Nations, and raiseth to heaven such as have faithfully served him: By the Sacra∣ment of Penance he chastiseih Kings and Princes, imposing corporal and pecuni∣ary punishments, and changing when he listeth the corporal into pecuniary: By the Absolution Priests forgive sins, and bear themselves as Judges in Gods cause; For God is the offended party, and the Priest is the Judge. By the adoration of Images, and the prohibition of reading Scripture in the vulgar tongue, the Pope keeps the people in ignorance, that they may not know the abuse and the tyranny. By the service in the Romane language the Pope tameth the people to the Roman Religion, and giveth his language to the nations which he hath subdued. The dispensations which the Pope giveth to Princes, of marrying in the forbidden degrees and unlawfull by the Word of God, oblige the children born of those marriages to maintain, the Papall authority; for if that au∣thority were shaken, one might doubt whether they were lawfull. The power which the Pope usurpeth to take from Kings both their Crowns and their lives, and to dispose of Kingdoms, makes him King of Kings, and Monarch over the whole temporall of the earth. Who shall wonder now that the Pope labours with all his power to raise the authority of Traditions above that of the Law of God, since they are so lucrative unto him? And whereas he is Master of Traditi∣ons, and having made them he can change them, no wonder if he sticks to them, but he can neither abolish Scripture, nor make another at his pleasure.

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

Yet do we not absolutely reject all traditions, since Scripture it self is a tradi∣tion, as Cyprian saith in the 74 Epistle to Pompeius. Whence comes this traditi∣on? doth it come from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or from the doctrine and Epistles of the Apostles? And a little after, If it be commanded in Scripture, or in the Epistles, or in the Acts of the Apostles, let that holy and divine tradition be observed. Besides there be many things that concern Ecclesiasticall policy and outward order, which we would not reject, although they be not in Scripture; so that there be nothing in them against good manners, and that they exceed not in number, and that they be not given as necessary to salvation, and equalled to the doctrine of faith contained in the Scripture. Also if there be any tradition which adds nothing to the holy Scripture, but be an acknowledgement of the perfection of the same, and barre all addition to it; as that such and such books are sacred and Canonicall, which is a tradition arising from the nature it self of Scripture, we receive it willingly. Moreover, if one call traditions the doctrines which are not found in formall texts in the Scripture, but are found in it in equi∣valent terms, or are drawn out of it by necessary consequence, we reject not those traditions. We reject those only that cannot be received without admitting some defect in Scripture, as if it contained not the whole doctrine of salvation.

As Hierome saith,(y) 1.569 Whatsoever we say, we ought to affirm it by the holy Scri∣ptures. And Austin, Let us hear no more among us, This I say, and that thou sayest, but the Lord saith this. We have the books of the Lord, to whose authority both of us consent, and beleeve it, and serve it: There let us seek the Church, there let us decide our cause. Again,(z) 1.570 Let us remove all that we bring, the one against the other, from any other place but the Canonicall Scriptures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If one say that the good traditions are learned by the consent of the Fathers, the Fathers are things hidden from the people, who never reade them, because they are Greek and Latine, and of an endlesse length. And if one should reade them all, he should finde a great number of traditions in the Roman Church, of which the Fathers say nothing, and some which the Fathers contradict. Can any

man finde in the Fathers of the four first ages any mention of the power of the Pope to send souls out of Purgatory? or to give and take away Kingdoms? Do they speak of Roman Indulgences? or of the Jubilee every twenty fifth year? or of the adoration of Images? or of denying the Cup in the Lords Supper unto the people? or of private Masses? or of forbidding the people to reade Scripture? and many the like things.

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

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

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

8. Luk. 16.29. The rich Glutton being in hell, desireth Abraham that some of the dead be sent to his brothers to warn them of their duty, lest they should fall into the like torment; To whom Abraham answereth, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Abraham will have them to be content with the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, which was read every Sabbath in the Syna∣gogues, without expecting other revelation. For Christ speaks of that rich glut∣ton as of a man that had lived under the Old Testament, under which the Church had no other doctrine but that of the Law and the Prophets: Chrysostom under∣stood it so upon Gal. 1.(a) 1.571 Abraham (saith he) being required to send down Lazarus, answereth, They have Moses and the Prophets, if they will not hear them, no more they shall hear dead men raised again. Now Jesus Christ brings in Abraham speak∣ing thus, shewing that he will have us to give more faith to Scripture then to dead men risen again.

9. S. John ch. 20. ult. speaking of his Gospel, saith, that these things are written that we may beleeve in Jesus Christ, and that beleeving on him we may have life through his Name. We grant to the Cardinall, that these words contain not a demonstrative proof of the perfection of Scripture, but it is a very probable ar∣gument, since God hath inspired many of his servants to write the doctrine of salvation propounded by Jesus Christ, that he hath indited and inspired unto them, all that he knew to be necessary to save us. For that which is committed to the simple word of men, and to unwritten tradition, is subject to be altered and corrupted: Which appears in that Churches have contrary Traditions, though they have the same holy Scripture. The Antients made use of that Text to prove the perfection of Scripture; So did Austin,(b) 1.572 All that the Lord would have us to reade about his words and deeds, he commanded them to write, they being as his own hands. And in another place,(c) 1.573 These things were chosen to be written which seemed to be sufficient for the salvation of beleevers. And Cyrillus,(d) 1.574 All that the Lord hath done was not written, but that which the writers thought to be sufficient,

that shining by the right faith, and by works, we may attain to the Kingdom of Heaven.

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

* 1.575But (saith M. du Perron) where is the Ordinance for Baptism, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, found in the Old Testament; and the Ordinance for distributing the body and blood of the Lord? I answer, that the knowledge of these things was not necessary under the Old Testament; And that even in the beginnings of the Christian Church, that which is revealed in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ, might be suffici∣ent to salvation, to him that had wanted means to receive a more ample instructi∣on. Besides, the Old Testament doth instruct us in these things, inasmuch as it sends us to Christ, and commands us to hearken to him, and by consequent to receive his Ordinances. And this is it that the Apostle addeth, saying, the holy Let∣ters are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the Faith which is in Christ Jesus; that is, These holy Letters address thee to go unto Christ, and will have thee to believe in his Word.

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

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

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

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

14. Saint Paul 1 Cor. 4.6. speaks thus; These things I have(e) 1.576 transferred in a figure to my self, and to Apollo for your sakes, that ye might learn(f) 1.577 not to think to be wise above that which is written. The whole context takes away all doubt of the sense of these words: For the Apostle in the precedent chap∣ter, v. 5. & 6. and in this chapter, called himself an Architect, and a Minister of Christ, and Steward of the Mysteries of God; and had said, that Paul had planted, Apollo had watered, but that God giveth the increase; and he had sent us to Christ, who is the only foundation, of the building. Now in this Text, he saith, that he hath transferred those things to his person, and to that of Apollo,

that by that example, the Pastors of the Church might learn not to assume to themselves more then the Scripture attributes unto them; for their charge and their authority must be limited by the Word of God. Whence we infer, that since Scripture sets a rule to the charge of Pastors, and puts limits unto them, which they cannot overpass without offending God, then we must make no doubt, but that the same Scripture prescribes unto Pastors that which they must teach, and limits their preaching. Whereby the Peoples duty is also limited; For the faith∣ful must not presume to be wise beyond that which is written. This Text seems to have been purposely made against the Roman Church; in which, the Pope and the Priests assume titles beyond that which is written, as the titles of Vicar of God, and head of the Universal Church, and sacrificers of Christs body.

15. The same Apostle Gal. 1.8. speaks thus to the Galatians, Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that ye have received, let him be accursed. The dispute is vain, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek signifieth besides or against; for who so teacheth besides the Gospel, teacheth also against it: And adding to the Gospel is gain saying the Gospel. Hence it is, that the word trans∣gressing signifies not only overpassing, but violating and breaking the Law. Chry∣sostom upon Gal. 1. expoundeth that Text in this manner.(g) 1.578 Paul saith not, if they announce things contrary to the Gospel, or if they overthrow all, but if they preach never so little besides the Gospel which you have received, if they shake any thing never so little, let them be anathema.(h) 1.579 And Theophylactus after him, The Apostle hath not said,(i) 1.580 If they preach only things contrary, but if they preach be∣sides that which we have preacht our selves, that is, if they add never so little more.

Tertullian in the Book of Prescriptions, Chap. 8. speaking of Scripture,(i) 1.581 First, we beleeve this, that there is nothing that we should believe besides. And Chap. 14.(k) 1.582 To know nothing besides that, is to know all. And truly reason in this is evident: For if S. Paul hath taught both by word and writing all that is necessary to salvation, it follows that he forbids to adde to that which he hath taught, and not only to contradict it.

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

It is vain to reply, that S. Paul since that Epistle was written, hath added ma∣ny Epistles, and that S. John after him hath written his Gospel, and the Revela∣tion; For it will not be found that S. Paul in his last Epistles, or S. John in his Books have added anything to the doctrine of salvation, which S. Paul had writ∣ten and preacht before, and which was already contained in the other Go∣spels.

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

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

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

M. du Perron answereth, that Christ Matth. 15. speaks not of the Mosaicall and Propheticall traditions, but of the Rabbinicall institutions of Rabbi Sammay, and Rabbi Hillel,* 1.583 heads of the order of the Scribes and Pharisees. Here he would make a shew of his great reading; yet they that have taught him this, have co∣sened him; for the order of the Scribes comes not from these Rabbies, seeing that Ezra was a Scribe, who was none of their disciples, and was more ancient then they. He is abused also by them that made him think that the Scribes and Pharisees were one and the same order: For the Scribes had charge in the Church: but the Pharisees as Pharisees, had none. Pharisaism was a voluntary devotion, and a fraternity of professors of works of supererogation, and of an austere life. The difference between a Scribe and a Pharisee, is such as is in the Roman Church between a teaching Priest and a Lay Frier, whom to conceive to be all one order would be a great ignorance: It is another mistake of the Cardinal, to put Sam∣may before Hillel, seeing that Hillel is far more antient. See Drusius in his second Book of the three Sects, of the Jews. Cha. 10.

But to answer the main Question, The words of our Lotd cannot be restrained to the Pharisaical Traditions, since to condemn those traditions he makes use of a Text of Isaiah more antient then the Pharisees, a Text that condemneth Tra∣ditions in general. It matters not upon what occasion Jesus Christ condemneth traditions which add unto the Word of God, since he condemneth them all with∣out exception.

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

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

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

THE Antients abound in testimonies for the perfection of Scripture. Thus Tertullian against Hermogenes,(a) 1.584 I adore the perfection of the Scriptures. And in the same book,(b) 1.585 Let the shop of Hermogenes shew that it is written, otherwise let him fear the wo denounced to them that add or diminish. It would be impertinent to object here that Tertullian writ this book being a Montanist; for the Orthodox never accused the Montanists of too much adhering to Scri∣pture, or rejecting the unwritten Traditions.

The whole Antiquity commends the words of Constantine in the Council of Nice.(c) 1.586 That the books of the Gospels, and Oracles of the Apostles and of the ancient Prophets, do clearly instruct us of the opinion we ought to have of divine things. Wherefore all perverse contention being laid aside, let us fetch the solution of doubts from the words divinely inspired. To which(d) 1.587 Bellarmin answers, that Constantine was a great Emperour, but not a great Doctor.

Athanasius in the beginning of the book against the Grecians, speaks thus,(e) 1.588 The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient to make the truth to be understood. And in the Treatise of the Lords incarnation,(f) 1.589 If you will bring other things besides, that which is written, why do you fight against us who are perswaded neither to hear nor to say any thing besides that which is written? And in the same place, You are so exceedingly idle(g) 1.590 as to say things that are not written, and to have tenets remote from piety.

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

Cyrillus of Alexandria in the two books of his Treatises upon Genesis,(h) 1.591 How could we receive that which holy Scripture hath not said, or put it in the rank of true things? And in the seventh book against Julian, The holy Scriptures are sufficient to make wise and most approved and sufficiently understanding, those that are bred and instructed in it.

Theodoret in the first Dialogue, entituled The immutable; Bring me not humane reasons,(i) 1.592 for I believe none but holy Writ. And in the second Dialogue,(k) 1.593 I am not so rash as to affirm a thing of which the holy Scripture is silent.

Chrysostom upon the second chapter of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians,(l) 1.594 All things that are in the divine Scriptures are clear and straight. All that is necessary is clear. And upon Psal. 95.(m) 1.595 When one saith something that is not written, the hearers mind is halting.

Basil towards the end of his Ethicks, which are among his Asceticks,(n) 1.596 If (saith he) all that is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle saith, and faith is of hearing, and hearing of the word of God; all that is without the divinely inspired Scripture, being not of the faith, is sin. Note that he saith without, not against Scripture. One cannot doubt but that these Asceticks are of Basil; for Gennadius Archbishop of Constantinople hath compiled common places, or short Homilies drawn out of Basil: where there is a great number of passages out of the Asce∣ticks. And the style of Basil is evident in them where the florid fluidity is in∣imitable. And Photius in his Library puts that book among Basils works.

Hierom upon the first chapter of Haggai.(o) 1.597 All things that men invent of

themselves, pretending Apostolical tradition, without authority and testimony of Scripture, are smitten by Gods sword. And upon the Prophet Micah, book 1. chap. 1.(p) 1.598 The Church of Christ is not come out of her limits, that is, the holy Scriptures. And writing against Helvidius,(q) 1.599 We reject that which is not written.

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

Cyrillus of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechesis(r) 1.600 Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith, the least thing must not be taught without the holy Scri∣ptures. Believe me not saying these things to thee, unless I shew thee what I say by Scripture. Salvation and the preservation of our faith consisteth not in in∣vention of words, but in demonstration by the divine Scriptures.

Austin Epist. 14. chap. 9. By the(s) 1.601 Scriptures only thou canst fully know the will of God. And in the book De bono viduitatis, chap. 1. Let my teaching be nothing else but propounding the words of the Doctor. And in the third chapter of the book de unitate Ecclesiae, Auferantur illa de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris, sed aliunde recitamus. Let us take away all that we bring the one against the other, out of other places then the divine Canonical books. This Father receiveth no proof but out of Scripture. Himself in the second book de doctrina Christiana, chap. 9.(t) 1.602 In the things which are clear∣ly set down in the Scriptures, all things are found that concern faith and manners. And against the letters of Petilianus, book 3. chap. 6. Read us this out of the Law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel it self, out of the writings of the Apostles, and we will believe it. And in the second book of the merits of sins, and of pardon, chap. 36. When the dispute is about a very obscure things, without help of clear and certain instructions out of the divine Scriptures, presumption must stay. Most pregnant of all are this Fathers words in the fifth chapter of his book of the unity of the Church(u) 1.603 Let us pick the clear and manifest texts, which if they were not found in the holy Scriptures, no way should be left to open the things that are shut up, and to clear those that are dark: That holy man finds no other way of clearing doubts and difficulties in religion, then by clear texts of the holy Scriptures. A thousand the like passages might be produced.

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

The Jesuit Salmeron told us befores that the Scripture was subject unto the Church, and that Scripture is a nose of wax, and a Judge uncapable to decide any difference, and that Tradition goeth beyond Scripture in excellency; Ne∣vertheless in the first Prolegomen he speaks thus of Scripture,(x) 1.604 Scripture teacheth all truth, disswadeth from all vices, encourageth to all good works, exhort∣eth to all vertue. And a little after(y) 1.605 Scripture is so formed and woven by the Spirit of God, that it is fitted for all places, times, persons difficulties, to expell all dangers, sicknesses, and sorrows; to bring in all good, to cut the throat of errors, to establish doctrines, to plant vertues, and drive vices away. And he alledgeth Basil, who compareth it unto a compleat Apothecaries shop, af∣fording remedies for healing all sicknesses.

Bellarmine, who in the first book of the unwritten word, chap. 3. & 4. deni∣eth the Scripture to be sufficient without the traditions, and calls Scripture a a part or a piece of a rule, not a whole rule; yet maintains the contrary in the sixth book de amissione gratiae & statu peccati, chap. 3.(z) 1.606 We must not (saith he) affirm any thing concerning the things which depend of the will of God, if God himself hath revealed no such thing in the holy Scriptures. So grew is the strength of truth.

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

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

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

In the same chapter he brings forth divers points of doctrine,* 1.607 which he af∣firmeth not to be written in the books of the Law, as the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of the finall judgement, of Paradise and of Hell. One may wonder how this Prelate is so diligent to mark the defects of Scripture; and it is more to be admired how he hath not seen clear proofs of the immortality of the soul, in the books of Moses.

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

The Patriarch Jacob was saying, being neer his death, I have waited for thy

salvation O Lord, Gen. 49.18. The same Patriarch calls his life, and that of his Fathers, a pilgrimage on earth, and acknowledgeth himself a stranger in the world.* 1.608 Now the Apostle, Heb. 11.14. saith, that they that say such things, de∣clare plainly that they are seeking a countrey, their proper countrey.

Gen. 35.18. It is said of Rachel dying in labour, that as her soul was in de∣parting, she called her son Benoni. Indeed death should not be a departing of the soul, if the soul did not out-live the body. And the transportation of Enoch to heaven is a proof of his immortality. What meant that expression of death usuall among the Antient, that a man slept with his Fathers, but that they that sleep are not brought to nothing, and that they look for the awaking of the resurrection? So God spake to Moses, Deut. 31.16. Behold thou shalt sleep with thy Fathers. All the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, should have been deceitfull, if they had concerned their present life only, since the poste∣rity of Ismael and Esau was in a flourishing state, and reigning in Arabia and Idumea, while the posterity of Jacob was in bondage in Aegypt. What had Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but affliction according to the world? And the pro∣mise made unto Adam, that the womans seed should bruise the Serpents head; and the promise made to Abraham of the blessed seed, are they not promises of the coming of Jesus Christ, and of the vocation of the Gentiles, which are spi∣ritual promises that concern salvation? Finally, Christ himself out of these words of God,* 1.609 I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, draws this conse∣quence, that these Patriarchs are living, because God is not the God of the dead but of the living. If none before Christ drew that consequence (which yet doth not appear to us) it followeth not that it should not have been drawn. And if by these texts the felicity of the Saints is proved, may not one gather thence that the wicked shall not have the like usage, but that God will judge them after this life, although the words of Paradise, and Hell of the damned be not found in the five books of Moses?

The Cardinal goeth on, and finds many histories of which no mention is made in the books of Moses,* 1.610 as that the names of the Magicians that resisted Moses were Jannes and Jambres: That Moses being at the foot of the mountain, said, I exceedingly fear and quake, &c. But in vain doth he heap up histories; for when we say that Scripture contains all that is necessary to salvation, we understand all the rules and doctrines necessary to that end, not the names of all the persons, nor all the histories and circumstances of things happened, of which one may be ignorant without peril, and without diminution of the doctrine of sal∣vation.

The same I say of many small ceremonies which M. du Perron finds in the New Testament, as the washing of feet before Easter, and the custom of re∣leasing a fellon at Easter, and many the like things, which were civil customs, or indifferent observations, not Laws of religion, or necessary customs. The Cardinal was grosly mistaken when he put the custom of releasing a malefactor at Easter among the Traditions of the Church; for it was a wicked custom, whereby they saved the lives of murtherers; of which we have an example in Barabbas, against the express prohibition of God to spare a murtherers life, Num. 35.31, &c. Yea God will have a murtherer pluckt off from his very Altar, Exod. 21.14.

As for the form of blessing used among the Jews before they ate the Passe∣over, since God had prescribed none, the Jews had the liberty to make one; and that cannot be put among the Mosaïcal Traditions, to which the Church was of necessity subject.

To say with the Cardinal that in the figure of the Manna, and the Paschal lamb it was necessary to understand that Christ was signified, and that without that one could not be saved, is a rash affirmation. God forbid that we should ex∣clude from salvation all the Israelites that understood not the figures of the Old Testament.

That which the Cardinal addeth, that the continuall fire which was upon the

Altar was preserved by a miracle during the transmigration, is a Jewish fable. And it is much more credible, that as many other prerogatives and ornaments of the first Temple (among others, the Ark and the Oracles) have been want∣ing to the second Temple; that also this fire lighted from heaven was not there. But howsoever this is a story, not a doctrine or a precept. It is easie to prove that the fire came down from heaven that consumed the sacrifices in the dedication of Solomons Temple (as it is related, 2 Chron. 7.) was not long preserved, and was out many years before the destruction of the Temple. For 2 Chron. 29.7. King Ahaz shut up the Temple, and 2 Chron. 35.4. King Ma∣nasseh sacrificed unto false Gods in the two Courts of the Temple. At that time, Gods service ceasing, and the Temple being shut up, how could that conti∣nuall fire be maintained upon the Altar?

The walking of two thousand paces and no more upon the Sabbath day was a Jewish superstition,* 1.611 grounded upon that Joshuah crossing Jordan kept the peo∣ple two thousand cubits from the Ark; It was not a divine rule, or a necessa∣ry Tradition.

In the sixth chapter of the same book the Cardinal saith that Jesus Christ hath preacht the kingdom of heaven and the resurrection, not contained in the an∣cient Law. As for the Kingdom of heaven, we have proved that it is clearly taught in the books of Moses. And as for the resurrection, we have shewed that Christ proved it by the words of God himself contained in the Law.

He alledgeth also the mingling of water with blood,* 1.612 for the purifying of the people, Heb. 10. of which no mention is made in the books of Moses. I answer, that Moses did so once, and made no Law about it in the Church; and by con∣sequent this ought not to be put among the Traditions, which we have to do with in this place, namely such as are Laws and Rules of religion. The same of the putting of a censer in the Ark, and of the combat of the Angel Michael with Satan for the body of Moses, which are histories not rules. Here the fault of the Cardinal is pardonable, when he(a) 1.613 saith that Moses fought with the Angel, whereas it was the Angel that fought with Satan. See the Epistle of Jude, ver. 9.(b) 1.614

CHAP. 55. Texts of the New Testament which Cardinal du Perron brings for the Traditions not contained in the Scripture.

HE brings for the Traditions these proofs from the New Testament.* 1.615 First he makes a shew of this text of 2 Thes. 2.15. Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies every doctrine given to some body. The vulgar version 1 Cor. 11.2. translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praecepta. And the Apostle, Gal. 1.14. saith that he had been zealous of the tradition of his Fathers, calling thus the Law of Moses of which he had been a zealous abettor. In that sense Scripture it self is a tradi∣tion. Thus the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23. speaking of the institution of the holy communion, I received of the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which I delivered or taught you. It is then a tradition, though it be contained in Scripture.

In this text the most advantagious sense for our Adversaries of this word Tradition is to take it for doctrines not written in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, and by consequent this text is not to the purpose. For our dif∣ference is not whether the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, but whether the Old and the New Testament contain all the doctrines necessary to salvation. And although the Apostle had said, Receive the traditions which you have learned by our word, or by the holy Scriptures, it would not follow that the things which he had told them were any thing else but what is contained in the holy Scrip∣tures;

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

for one may teach the same thing several wayes. Moreover, if one will know what those traditions or doctrines were, which Saint Paul had given by word unto the Thessalonians, let him read the fourth chapter of the first Epistle, beginning at the second verse, where he makes unto them a repetition of those things: There you shall find none of the Traditions of the Church of Rome.

In another place the Cardinal repeateth the same objection, then addeth; You must not cavill that St. Paul speaks of the Tradition unwritten at that time, but written since. For the Tradition after which and for which he pronounceth that generall precept, was a Tradition which neither then nor since was ever writ∣ten, namely the cause why the coming of Antichrist was delayed.

The Cardinals blindness is extream, to say that the causes of the delay of the coming of the Antichrist were never written, whereas they are written in the same text,* 1.616 where the Apostle saith, Only he who now letteth will let untill he be taken out of the way; And then shall that wicked one be revealed; which the Antients understand of the ruine of the Roman Empire, before the Antichrist (who was to come in his place) should be revealed. Which experience also hath confirmed. So Tertullian understands it in the book of the resurrection of the flesh, chap. 24.(a) 1.617 Only let him that holds now, hold still, untill he be abolisht. Who is that but the Roman Empire, whose departure dispersed into ten Kings will produce Antichrist, &c. Chrysostom in the fourth Sermon, upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians speaks to the same purpose, in these words,(b) 1.618 What is it that hinders him to be revealed? Some say that it is the Roman Empire, to whose opinion I rather incline. Austin in the twentieth book of the City of God, chap. 19. That which the Apostle saith, Only let him that holds now, hold till he be taken away, is not without reason esteemed to be said of the Ro∣man Empire, as if it was said, Only let him that reigneth, reign untill he be abo∣lisht. Primasius upon this place saith the same, and Ambrose in his Comment upon this text. And Hierom in the eleventh question to Algasia, where he saith that St. Paul durst not say openly that the Roman Empire must be destroyed before the Antichrist come, for fear of drawing persecution upon the Church; and upon 2 Thes. 2. he saith that the revolt that St. Paul speaks of in this place, est discessio Gentilium à Rege Romano, the revolt of the Gentiles from the Roman Emperour.

The Cardinal brings another text for Traditions; 2 Tim. 1.13. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good depositum (or that good thing committed unto thee) by the Holy Ghost. This text doth nothing for him; for the Apostle saith not that the things which Timothy had heard of St. Paul were diverse from those which he writ to him, or which are written in the holy Scripture. It is remarkable that Tertullian in the twenty fifth chapter of Prescriptions saith, that the hereticks alledged these texts for their traditions. O Timothy keep that which was com∣mitted unto thee, and again keep that which was trusted unto thee. Thus the Car∣dinal maketh himself a disciple to those hereticks.

To the same purpose Bellarmin in the fifth chapter of his book of the unwritten word, alledgeth for the Traditions our Saviours words, John 16. I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. But Tertullian in the twenty second chapter of the same book, saith, that the hereticks defend their traditions with that text.

To the same purpose the Cardinal brings these words from the second chapter of the same Epistle, ver. 2. The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who, shall be able to teach others also. To which text we make the same answer, as to the precedent, Why will he have the things which Timothy had heard to be diverse from those that are written? But with what rashness doth the Cardinal presuppose without proof that those things heard in the presence of witnesses, are the invocation

of Saints, the service of Images, the Succession of the Pope in St. Peters pri∣macy, and the like things?

He alledgeth also 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. That proof hath neither colour nor likelyhood. For the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, when it defends the truth contained in the holy Scrip∣tures, not when she adds unto Scripture. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in the be∣ginning of the Oration upon his Fathers death, calls Basil the pillar and ground of the Church. And in the Oration upon Athanasius he gives to Athanasius the same title of honour. Whereby he understands not that Basil or Athanasius had the power to give new Laws unto the Church, or to add unto her doctrine. I leave also to the judgement of the Reader, well read in the Greek tongue, whether in these words, [that thou maist know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth] the last words, the pillar and ground of truth, may not be applied unto God, rather then to the Church; supplying the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and translating thus, the house of the living God, who is the pillar and ground of truth. For to speak properly, God and true doctrine are the pillar and ground of the Church. So speaks Chryso∣stome upon 1 Tim. 3.(c) 1.619 Truth is the pillar and ground of the Church. And Irenaeus, book 3. chap. 11.(d) 1.620 The pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel.

CHAP. 56. Doctrines held in the Christian Church, which the Cardinal saith are not contained in Scripture.

BUT that upon which the Cardinal insisteth most, is to seek some doctrines in Christian religion which he holds necessary unto salvation, which yet are not found in Scripture. And he finds four of that nature. The first is the ad∣mission or acknowledgement of the Baptism of hereticks for a true and real baptism, of which no mention is made in Scripture, and yet he holds that it is a doctrine necessary to salvation.

By speaking thus he condemneth Cyprian and the whole African Church of his time to Hell, for they did err in that point. Certainly many were saved that never heard of that question.

That which he adds [that if the doctrine that both we and they hold in that point be not true, the Protestants which were baptized by Catholicks (whom they hold for hereticks) have no true Baptism] hath no strength against us, who think not that any person is excluded from salvation for not being baptized, when that happens not through his fault, but by some impediment which could not be removed. Yet it will be found that Scripture decideth that question; for we see that the circumcision of the ten tribes, that were idolaters, was received among the Jews, there being no Law that obliged them to be circumcised again. Now Circumcision was unto them that which Baptism is unto us now.

The second Tradition which he saith is not contained in Scripture,* 1.621 is the Baptism of little children. Upon which he confesseth that the Roman Church disputing against the Anabaptists, brings may texts of Scripture, which he pro∣duceth, and endeavours to confute, making himself the Advocate of the Ana∣baptists. Yet not daring to condemn his own Church, he holds those texts for good and usefull, which is sufficient to us. For what need we to prove to the Roman Church by Scripture that children ought to be baptized, since she her self baptizeth them, and dischargeth us of that labour?

The third point is the Article of the procession of the Holy Ghost,* 1.622 about which we dissent with the Grecians. Which controversie is rather imaginary, and fed by the animosity of the parties, then a true controversie. The Grecians saying that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father through the Son; and the

Latins saying that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. For I hold that he that saith that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, saith also by consequent that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. As for the manner of proceeding, it is better in such a high matter to be ignorant then too great a disputant. The Cardinal acknowledgeth that the Roman Church disputing with the Grecians, alledgeth texts of Scripture, which texts he goeth about to wea∣ken thereby disputing not with us, but with the Roman Church. By overthrowing the doctrine of his Church he makes himself incapable to dispute with us.

The fourth and last unwritten Tradition is the removing of the Sabbath day to the next day,* 1.623 that is, from the last day of the week to the first; Of which he saith that no mention is made in Scripture. The Jesuite Ribera in his Com∣ment upon the first chapter of the Revelation, expounding these words, I was in the Spirit on the Lords day, speaks thus, Here we see that the solemnity of the Sabbath hath been changed to the [now] Lords day in the time of the Apostles.

Thomas saith the same in the second lesson upon 1 Cor. 16. And Estius up∣on the same Chapter of the alledged text of the Revelation gathers, that we must not doubt but that the name and institution of the Lords day must be referred to the Apostles. And as for not observing the old Sabbath, St. Paul dispens∣eth Christians of that observation, Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come. He teacheth that Christians ought not to be con∣demned for observing no more the Jewish distinctions of meats, or the holy dayes and Sabbaths of that Church. By Acts 20.6. and 1 Cor. 16.2. it is made evident that on the first day of the week solemn Assemblies did meet, and collections were made for the poor. And though all these proofs should fail, yet observation of dayes is no point of doctrine, and is not an Article of its nature necessary to salvation. It is necessary for salvation to sanctifie the Lords day, and to be employed that day in holy actions in holy Assemblies, not because that day is of its nature better then another, but because it is ne∣cessary for salvation, not to be contentious, and not to separate from the union of the Church.

Then of these four points, as of many others, I say that either they are found in Scripture in express or equivalent terms, or by good consequence, or they are not found in Scripture. If they be found, we have what we ask; If they be not found, they are not necessary to salvation.

CHAP. 57. Of the Traditions which the Fathers allow.

WEE have brought many testimonies of the Antients, wherein, as for matter of salvation, they reject all doctrines not contained in the Scrip∣tures. To those texts the Cardinal opposeth other texts, of Tertullian, of Basil, of Epiphanius, of Austin, in which they approve unwritten traditions. But who so will narrowly examine of what kind of traditions they speak, shall find no difficulty in that seeming difference. For either they are traditions about Ecclesiastical policy and things of indifferent nature, or they are traditions grounded upon holy Scripture; For they ate traditions which the Roman Church approves not, and which consequently by the confession of our Adversaries are not Apostolical traditions, unless they will confess that they are departed from the Ordinances of the Apostles. See Tertullian in his book de corona Militis, chap. 2. & 3. And the book concerning the Holy Ghost attri∣buted to Basil, chap. 27. And(a) 1.624 Hierom in his Dialogue against the Lucife∣rians; And Austin Epist. 118, 119. There you have a great list of unwritten traditions; as to be dipt three times in Baptism, to taste in Baptism milk and

honey mingled in sign of concord; Not to wash that day nor the whole week after; to sign ones self in the forehead with the sign of the cross at every action, to pray standing from Easter to Whitsunday, to celebrate on certain anniversary dayes the passion, the resurrection, and the ascension of Christ: To pray with the face turned Eastward, the annointing with oyle, the form of prayer where∣by consecration is made: To which one may add, prayers for the dead, the ad∣mission of the Baptism of hereticks; And the tradition of which Tertullian speaks in the alledged place, that it is not lawfull for a Christian souldier to be crowned with flowers and leaves, when the army is mustering. Of which tradi∣tions some are contrary to the custom of the Apostles, as the custom of not kneeling at prayers from Easter to Whitsunday. For Acts 20.16. & 21.5. the Apostle Paul prayeth kneeling, and that a few dayes before Pentecost.

Most of these traditions are rejected by the Roman Church, although the Antients give them for Apostolical as the custom of fasting upon Wednesdayes and Fridayes, which Epiphanius in the heresie of Aerius(b) 1.625 will derive from the Apostles. The custom of tasting milk and honey. Not to wash for a whole week after Baptism. Not to fast upon the Lords day. To pray standing from Easter to Whitsunday. Never to pray but being turned Eastward. To pray for the dead as the antient Church did, which prayed not to fetch souls out of Purgatory, but that the dead might rise again to salvation, or that they might rise betimes, or that they might be but gently toucht with the purging fire of the day of the resurrection; or that in the receptacles of the souls where they slept, they might reeive some comfort.

Chrysostom Hom. 4. upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians seems to favour our Adversaries, saying that the Apostles have not taught all by Epistles, but have taught many things without writing, and that these things as well as those are worthy to be believed. But in the homily before, he sheweth evidently that he meaneth unwritten traditions not necessary to salvation. For as for things ne∣cessary to salvation so he speaks,(c) 1.626 All that is in the divine Scriptures is clear and right; All things that are necessary are therein clearly set down. And Hom. 13. upon the second Epistle to the Corinthians, he calls Scripture(d) 1.627 an exact ballance for all things, a square and a rule. And upon Psalm 95. When one saith that which is not written, the hearers mind is halting.

Besides these traditions which the Roman Church hath left, the Fathers speak of traditions that are founded in Scripture, although they be not found in ex∣press terms. As the tradition which Basil brings in the same place, that the Father and the Son must be glorified with the same glorification. For since Scripture saith that Jesus Christ is God, and that he thinks it not robbery to be equall with God his Father, and that he is one with the Father, it follows that the same glorification must be rendred unto him. Upon which we have an express text, John 5.23. That they all honour the Son as they honour the Father.

Irenaeus in the third book, chap. 4. saith, that if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, we should have recourse to tradition. But what is that tradition? Is it the invocation of Saints, the worshipping of images and relicks, the suc∣cession of the Roman Bishop in St. Peters primacy, the Communion under one kind, the celibat of the Clergy, the service in an unknown tongue, the Roman Indulgences, the Transubstantiation? Nothing of all that; but the doctrine con∣cerning the nature and Office of Christ, and the Articles of the Symbole, of which he makes an enumeration in the same place.

As for the admission of the Baptism of hereticks, Austin puts it among tra∣ditions. And yet in the first book of Baptism against the Donatists; and in the se∣cond book, chap. 14. And in the fourth book, chap. 7. And in the fifth book chap. 4. & 23. he endeavours to prove it by texts of Scripture, which he saith to be certain and clear. Whence it appears that by the unwritten things, he un∣derstands the things not contained in the holy Scriptures in express terms, but deduced from the Scriptures by consequence. And indeed we have shewed be∣fore that the admission of the Baptism of hereticks is not without foundation

in Scripture. And though it were not grounded upon it, that would not prejudice us in any thing; for the knowledge of that point is not necessary for salvation. Hierom upon 2 Thes. 2. (if these comments be his, not of Pelagius) puts Baptism among the Apostolical traditions. Apostolica traditio est quae in to∣to mundo praedicatur, ut Baptismi Sacramenta. It is an Apostolical tradition which is preacht over all the world.

In generall, almost all these traditions are either light things, of their na∣ture indifferent, and infinitely under the divine doctrine concerning faith and the service of God contained in the Scripture; or they are points contained in the Scripture, if not in express words, at least in equivalent terms, or by ne∣cessary consequence.

Note, that M. du Perron could not bring any testimony of the Antients which put among Traditions any of the doctrines about which we dissent with the Roman Church, excepting only prayers for the dead, about which the Roman Church dis∣sents with the Anctient Church, as we will shew hereafter. But they shall not find one of the Antients that puts among the Apostolical traditions, Roman Indul∣gences, or the Popes power to release souls out of Purgatory, and to give and take away Kingdoms, and to canonize Saints, or the adoration of images, or the images of the Trinity, or the title of Queen of heaven bestowed upon the Virgin Mary, or the Limbus of infants, or the celibat of Priests, or prayers in a language which he that prayeth understands not, or the publike service in an unknown lan∣guage, or the prohibition made to the people to read Scripture without an especial leave, or the communion of the cup denied to the people: for they are Papal not Apostolical traditions.

We must not dissemble that Austin in the one hundred and nineteenth Epistle complains that already in his time humane traditions did multiply, and were often preferred before the word of God. That (saith he) grieveth me much that many most wholesome precepts of divine books are neglected, and that all is full of so many presumptions; So that he is more sharply reproved that trod barefoot within the octave, then he that hath buried his understanding in drunkenness. He addeth, That men had so loaden religion with servile burdens, that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable then that of Christians.

* 1.628Wherefore the Roman Church hath rejected with just reason the traditions believed by Irenaeus, who believed that the souls separate from the bodies have hands and feet; and that the souls coming out of their bodies go not into the hea∣venly glory, but into an earthly Paradise; And that the Fathers before the pub∣lishing of the Law by Moses were without Law: And that Christ must reign a thousand years in earth: In which reign there will be feasts and bodily delights; and the traditions of Clemens Alexandrinus who believed that the Grecians were saved by Philosophy. That there is in God four hypostases. That the Angels fell by cohabitation with women. That the death of Christ no more then our afflictions, happened not by Gods will, and many the like traditions. And that of Ambrose and Tertullian, who hold that some shall rise again sooner then others. And the tradition held by the Antients that souls shall be purged by the fire of the day of judgement, of which we shall speak hereafter.

CHAP. 58. Of the prohibition of reading holy Scripture. Shifts of Cardinal du Perron.

IT is one of the accusations of his Majesty of Great Britain against the Church of Rome, that they have deprived Christians of the understanding of the holy Scripture, and forbidden the reading of it unto the simple people. This(a) 1.629 the Cardinal doth not absolutely confess; for he denieth that it is for∣bidden to the people to read the Bible in Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, that is, that the simple people are not allowed to read the Bible, but in the tongues which they understand not. They give leave to women and tradesmen to read the Hebrew Bible. He saith also that they forbid only the reading of corrupt and not approved versions. Thereby he seems to mean that the Roman Cuhrch giveth leave unto the people to read the good and approved versions. But there is no such thing. For the Roman Church approveth no version in any vulgar tongue, and there is none allowed by publike authority. If any private man hath translated the Bible into French as René Benoist Parson of St. Eustache in Paris, his work hath been presently censured and condemned by the Popes authority, as M. du Perron acknowledgeth, page 1103.

But this matter deserveth a carefull examination: for it is a new tyranny, and a custom without example in all antiquity.

It must be known then that in the Council of Trent, Prelates and Doctors in good number were appointed to make an Index or Catalogue of books, the reading whereof ought to be prohibited. That Index hath been published by the authority of Pope Pius the IV. and confirmed and augmented by Sixtus the V. and Clement the VIII.

Their first prohibition begins at the holy Scripture; of which they say in the fourth rule prefixed before that Index, that(b) 1.630 the reading thereof in the vulgar language being indifferently allowed, doth more harm then profit, by reason of the rashness of men. Wherefore they forbid the traductions of the Bible made by Authors which are not Catholick. And as for the versions made by Authors that are Catholick and approved, they permit the reading of them, so that one get a written permission from the Bishop, or from the Inquisition, or from the Parson;(c) 1.631 Adding, that who so without that permission will have a Bible, or read in it, his sins shall not be forgiven him, till he hath delivered his Bible to his Parson. Whereupon it is to be observed, that when this Decree was made, there was not any version of the Bible in Italian, or Spanish, or French, or Ger∣man, that was approved in the Roman Church. And that since that time the Pope caused no version to be made in any vulgar tongue. It is known that in all the Coun∣tries where the Inquisition reigneth, there is none to be found. To permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholick Authors, and in the mean while to give leave to none to translate it, is it not an abusive per∣mission? For it is giving leave to the people to read a book which is no where to be found, and permitting that the people read the approved versions, while they approve of no version.

Nevertheless the Popes were afraid that some would think that this permission was given in good earnest. Wherefore to that fourth rule they have added ano∣ther, that speaks more roundly, and absolutely forbids the reading of Scripture in the vulgar tongue. That prohibition is set down in the same book immediately after the forementioned rule. Thus(d) 1.632 It must be observed concerning the IV.

Rule above written, made by Pope Pius IV. of blessed memory, that by this impression or edition no new power is given to Bishops or Inquisitors, or Superiors of the Regu∣lars, to give permission to buy, read, or keep the Bible in the vulgar tongue, seeing that hitherto by the commandment and use of the holy Roman Church, and universal inquisition, power is taken from them to grant such permissions of reading or keep∣ing such vulgar Bibles, or some parts of the holy Scriptures, either of the Old or of the New Testament, printed in any vulgar language whatsoever. Or even any Summary or abridgement of the histories of the Bible, or of the books of the holy Scrip∣ture, written in any vulgar language whatsoever. This to be inviolably kept.

Nothing can be more express then that prohibition. Wherfore in the Coun∣tries where Inquisition reigneth, as in Spain, Italy, Sicily, Corsica, the East and West Indies, one shall as soon find an Alcoran as a Bible in the language of the countrey, unless some have secretly brought in a Bible from England, or Nether∣lands, or Geneva, which is a crime punishable by the fire if it be discoverd. But all kinds of unchast and profane books are impunedly read. No book forbidden but the word of God.

But Gods command is more regarded by us then that prohibition; for he recommendeth to the faithfull the reading of his word, Rev. 1.3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy. And Deut. 17.18, 19. Kings are commanded to have the book of the Law in their hand, to read in it all the dayes of their lives. Which command, if the Kings that reigned since seven or eight hundred years had kept, their crowns should not have been subjected to an outlandish Priest, and Popery had not so disfigured Chri∣stian Religion. Because in the Church of Thessalonica there might be some that could not read, the Apostle commands that his Epistle be read to all the holy bre∣thren, 1 Thes. 5.27. He praiseth Timothy, (2 Tim. 3.15.) that from a child he had known the holy Scriptures. And the Eunuch of the Queen of Candace was reading in his charet the Prophet Isaiah, Acts 8.28. The faithfull people of Berea, (Acts 17.10, 11.) having heard St. Pauls preaching, searcht the Scrip∣tures daily whether those things were so. For a Preacher that would deceive and seduce the people, should have fair play if he were allowed to alledge Scripture in his Sermons, and the people were not allowed to consult Scripture and con∣fer the text, to see whether the Preacher had faithfully alledged them.

This also is very considerable, that the Apostle St. Paul writ long Epistles to the people of Corinth, of Ephesus, of Philippi, &c. not fearing that the reading of them should do harm to those he writ them to. And St. Peter, and St. John have written Catholick Epistles to all the faithfull, and by consequent to those of this time. Why then should they not read the Epistles written to them? Why should not the things which God saith unto his people, be read by the people to which God is speaking? And whereas they that instruct the peo∣ple are sinfull men, apt to draw religion to their profit, shall the people have no way to know whether they be taught the truth? Why shall God be suspected by men, as if his word were a dangerous book, doing more harm then good, as the Tridentine Fathers speak?

The reason given for this is full of impiety. They say that it belongs to none but the learned to read Scripture. Now we thought that Scripture must be read to get learning. But these men will have a learning in Religion without Scripture, and before the knowledge of Scripture. Whereupon we would gladly know of them what kind of learning one must have before he can read the holy Scripture. Must one be learned in Greek and Hebrew? But the Popes themselves that give these rules, are unskilfull in these tongues; As Innocent the III. who deriveth(d) 1.633 the word Pascha from the passion; And the Decretal of Anacletus, who saith that Cephas signifies a head. Besides, one cannot be∣come learned in Hebrew, but by the reading of the Old Testament. Must one have read the Poets full of fabulous combats and amorous passions? But many are corrupted by those studies. Must one be versed in Philosophy? But the Apostles had not studied that kind of learning, and Philosophers have been mortall enemies

to Christian religion. They were the men that called St. Paul a babler. What then can that learning be which is requisite before the reading of Scripture? I know none, unless it be that one must be strongly forestalled with Popery as a preservative against the doctrine contained in the Scripture. But a man that believeth that the Roman Church cannot erre, shall believe also that Scripture is not a competent Judge, and that the reading thereof is not necessary. And in vain should he ask license to read Scripture in the vulgar tongue; since no Bible is found allowed by the Roman Church in the language of the countrey.

To excuse that prohibition, they alledge also the rashness of men that abuse Scripture. But because of the indiscretion of some men we must not abstain from good things, such especially as God hath commanded. By the same reason the word of God should not be preacht to the people because many abuse it. And the Bishops and Parish Priests to whom that lecture is permitted, are no more exempt from rashness then the rest of the world; For in effect all here∣sies are sprung not from the people, but from the Pastors. Few examples or none shall be found of any of the people who by reading Scripture have brought in any heresie into the Church.

But this is not the true reason of that prohibition. For if the holy Scrip∣ture were favourable unto the Roman Church, they would not hide it from the peoples eyes. Such as find themselves guilty, are afraid of the Law, and wish that there were none. Thieves will blow out the candles for fear of being per∣ceived. To the same end, to weaken the strength of this Scripture, they have forged another unwritten word more favourable unto the Pope, of which the Pope disposeth at his pleasure. To the same end, the Roman Church beareth her self as an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture. By that means she shall never be condemned by Scripture.

As for that frandulent permission to read Scripture, so that the version be made by Roman Catholicks, the Popes had just reason to revoke and disannull it. For it is a manifest impiety to give a man leave to do that which God hath commanded him; as if the Pope said to one, I give thee leave to obey God, or I permit thee to believe in Jesus Christ. By that account God shall not be obeyed unless the Pope consent to it, and cannot be served without leave. Or if he have the luck to find some servants, he shall be obliged for it to his Papal ho∣liness. Certainly to command disobedience unto God, is a less evil then to per∣mit obedience to his commandments. For he that commands that God be disobey∣ed; doth not only oppose himself unto God and contradict him, but he placeth himself above God, and grants to him, as to an inferiour, that some persons may yield him obedience.

Upon this his Majesty had said that the Antients did constrain every one to read at home continually the sacred books, which the people is now forbidden to touch without especial leave, upon pain of Anathema. The Cardinal omitting all the rest of the Fathers, answers for Chrysostom only, who many times exhorts his hearers to the reading the holy Scriptures, and saith that Chysostom did so because he had to do with learned hearers, skilled in Philosophy, and with Cour∣tiers whom by the reading of Scripture he laboured to turn away from the reading of Philosophers: But if he had brought the very texts of Chrysostom, it had been evident that he made that exhortation to tradesmen, and to the lowest and most ignorant of the people.

In the third Homily concerning Lazarus, he speaks thus, I do exhort you al∣wayes, and never give over exhorting, that not only you hearken to that I say, but also that when you are at home you diligently tend the reading of the holy Scrip∣tures; A duty which I have not ceased to press upon those that have resorted to me in private. For one must not tell me, There is but little savour in these words, and we may well be without many of these things: I am tied to my law businesses, I have my hands full with the affairs of the publick. I have my trade, I have a wife, I must provide meat for my children, I must take care of my family, I am employ∣ed in the world, and therefore it belongs not to me to read the Scriptures, but to those

that have taken their leave of the world, that dwell in the top of mountains, lead∣ing an austere life. What sayest thou man? Must thou not peruse the Scriptures because thou art distracted with many businesses? Nay, it belongs more to thee to read the Scriptures then to those [that have left the world] For they need not so much the help of Scripture, as you that are tossed among the waves of businesses, &c. Again, It is impossible, yea, I say impossible for any man to obtain salvation, unless he be perpetually imployed in the spiritual reading. And a little after, The grace of the Spirit hath so dispensed and fitted the Scriptures, that publicans, fishermen, tent-makers, Pastors and Apostles, ignorant and unlettered men can be saved by these books; least that some ideot excuse himself about the difficulty; to the end that the things herein said might be easie to perceive, and that the tradesman, the servant, the widow, and the most unlearned of men may get some profit by the hearing of that lecture. The like things he saith, in his second Homily upon St. Mathew, and in the third upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians.* 1.634 This discourse is very far from the opinion of Sixtus of Siena, a Carmelite Fryar, in the sixth book of his Library, in the 152. annotation, where he saith that to permit the read∣ing of Scripture unto Shoomakers, Fullers and Curriers, is giving holy things unto dogs, and pearls to swine.

Because the Cardinal by this answer endeavours to perswade that none but Chrysostom speaks so, and that other Fathers, Hierom especially, speak to the con∣trary, let us see what Hierom and the other Fathers say.

Hierom then in the Epitaph of Fabiola speaks thus of that holy woman;(e) 1.635 O good Jesu! with what fervour, with what study was she bent upon the divine books; as desirous to satiate her hunger with the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Psalms! And in the Epistle to Salvina(f) 1.636 Let the sacred lecture be alwayes in thy hands. And in the Epistle to Furia(g) 1.637 After the holy Scriptures, read the Treatises of learned men. Himself in the Epistle to Laeta touching the Instruction of her daughter Paula, Instead of jewels and silk, let her love the divine books; loving in them not the checkered picture of Babylonian leather, but the learnedly cor∣rect and distinct Scripture. Let her first learn the Psalms. Let her recreate her self with the Canticles. Let her learn to live well in the Proverbs of So∣lomon. Let her learn to tread worldly things under by the Ecclesiastes. Let her follow the examples of vertue and patience in Job. Thence let her pass to the Go∣spels, and have them in her hands alwayes. Let her learn the Prophets by heart: Let her abstain from all the Apocrypha.

(h) 1.638Athanasius disputing against those that held it the safer course to abstain from the Scriptures, and simply to believe, speaks thus, Shall I neglect the Scriptures? Whence then shall I get knowledge? But by what means shall I have faith? And soon after, Reverence that studious Eunuch who being set over the Queens treasure, even in his way did not leave reading.

In the Epistle to the Virgin Demetrias, which was set the one hundred forty second among Austins Epistles, chap. 23.(i) 1.639 So read the holy Scripture, that thou remember alwayes that they are the words of God.

Austin in the sixth book of his Confessions, chap. 5.(k) 1.640 That (saith he) Scripture might be easie to he read of all, and yet should keep in a deep intelligence the dignity of her secrets, &c. And in the second book of Christian doctrine, chap. 9. In these books they that fear God and the meek seek the will of God. Yea he adviseth them that cannot read, to learn them by heart.

Gregory Nazianzen in the Epitaph of his sister Gorgonia, puts among her ver∣tues, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that she acquainted her self with the word of God and turned it over.

(l) 1.641Athanasius saith that hereticks turn the people away from the Scriptures, saying that they are not accessible, but (saith he) the truth is, they flye to be condemned by them.

Wherefore also the holy Scripture was translated in all languages. Socrates lib. 4. cap. 27. And Nicephorus lib. 11. cap. 48. doth witness that Ʋlfilas had

translated Scripture in Gothick language. And Hierome in his Preface upon the four Gospels saith, that before the time of Lucian and Hesychius(m) 1.642 Scripture had been translated into the languages of many Nations. And Chrysostome in the first Homily upon St. Johns Gospel saith, that Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Per∣sians, Ethiopians, and many other Nations had St. Johns Gospel translated in their languages(n) 1.643. The same Father hath translated the New Testament and the Psalms in Armenian language. Hierome hath translated the whole Scripture in the Dalmatick tongue. Theodoret(o) 1.644 in his book of the cure of the sicknesses of the Grecians, speaks thus; The Hebrew language (so he calls the old Testament) is not only translated into Greek, but also into the tongues of the Romans and Egypti∣ans, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sarmates; in a word, in all the languages, which all the Nations continue to use. At that time they did not put the holy Scripture in the Index of the prohibited books: For they had not translated it into all languages, but that all Nations, even the most bar∣barous should read it: and they that read it, asked leave of no body, there being then no Inquisition set up, nor any penalty against those that labour to instruct themselves in Gods knowledge by his word.

In all this the end of the Pope is to keep the people in ignorance, whil'st he builds up his Empire. To the same end the Council of Trent,(p) 1.645 of all the Latin versions approveth none, but that which is commonly called the Vulgar; and they will have it authentical, with prohibition to contradict it under any pretence whatsoever. For this serveth for the raising of the Empire of the Latin Church, to establish that Bible alone which the Roman Church useth in the publick service. This they do against the authority of all the Latin Fathers that have written of that matter. Hilary upon Psal. 118.(q) 1.646 We have often given warning, that no sense which may give satisfaction, can be drawn from the Latin version.

Hierome in his Epistle to Sunia and Fretella(r) 1.647. In the New Testament, if sometimes there is any question and variety found in the Latin copies, we have recourse to the spring, even to the Greek language in which the New Testament was written. And in his Preface to Damasus upon the four Gospels(s) 1.648. If we must believe the Latin copies, let them answer me which? for there are wellnigh as many diverse exem∣plaries as there are copies. But if among many copies we must seek which of them is the true one; why do we not correct the things that have been ill translated by faulty interpreters, returning to the Greek originals? And in the Epistle to Lucinius(t) 1.649 As the purity of the books of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew books, so the purity of the books of the New Testament must be examined upon the rule of the Greek text. The same he saith in his Preface upon Joshuah, and in the Epistle to Marcella.

Austin in the second book of Christian doctrine, ch. 11(u) 1.650 Men whose natural language is Latin, have need of two other tongues for the knowledge of the holy Scri∣pture, the Hebrew and the Greek, that they may have recourse to the precedent [He∣brew and Greek] copies, when the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters brings some doubt.

It would be an infinite thing to produce the faults of the Latin vulgar version, the only approved by the Council of Trent. Sixtus Senensis Library-keeper to Pope Pius the fifth, doth freely acknowledge it, saying,(x) 1.651 Our vulgar Edition which they say to be of St. Hierome, is remote from the Greek truth in many things. And shortly after; Although this Edition be not of Hierome, and that many things that are there, agree not with the truth of the Greek text, &c. In the same place he maintains, that the Latin version of the Roman Church is not of Hierome, but a mingled version. The Jesuite Maldonat upon Luk. 16. saith the same. The

(y) 1.652 New Testament was not translated by Hierome, but only the old version hath been corrected by him in many places. And Hierome himself saith the same in his Preface to Damasus: that he doth not own it, nor greatly approve it, he sheweth in his works, where he alledgeth many texts out of the Old Testament, otherwise then they are found this day in the vulgar version: And which is more, he disputes a∣gainst it. For example, Heb. 11.21. the vulgar version which they say to be of St. Hierome, translates thus, Jacob adoravit fastigium virgae ejus, Jacob adored the end of Joseph his staffe. A text which our adversaries use to maintain the adora∣tion of creatures. But Hierome rejecteth that version in the book of the Hebrew questions upon Genesis, in these words, Israel worshipped the end of his staffe.(z) 1.653 In that place some do in vain make the world believe that Jacob worshipped the end of Josephs scepter, as if by honouring his son he had adored his power; whereas in the Hebrew text it is read quite otherwise, namely that Israel worshipped towards his beds head.

Nevertheless the Council of Trent preferrs the Vulgar version full of corrupti∣ons and depravations, before all other translations made after the Hebrew verity (such as is among others, that of Pagninus a fryer of Luca) and by consequent be∣fore the Hebrew and Greek Originals. Of which it seems that the Popes, Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth were ashamed, having since the Council of Trent publisht an edition of that Vulgar version where many things are altered, and ma∣ny faults corrected.

But Bellarmine is so rashly bold, as to offer to prefer the Latin version before the Greek and Latin Originals: as if one would make us forsake the source and send us to the myrie brook. Cardinal Ximenes Archbishop of Toledo doth worse. For in his prologue upon the Bible of Complute, he giveth a reason why he put the vulgar version between the Greek and the Hebrew texts.(a) 1.654 We have (saith he) put between both the Latin version of St. Hierome, as holding the middle between the Synagogue and the Eastern Church; like the two theeves, the one on the one side and the other on the other, and Jesus Christ between both; that is the Roman Church, for she alone is built upon the stone.

Thus that venerable Prelate revileth and debaseth the Original texts of Scri∣pture, comparing them to two thieves, and blaspheming against the holy Ghost, who hath spoken both in the Hebrew and in the Greek tongue, by the mouth of his Prophets and Apostles, and hath inspired them to write in those languages. As for the Latine version which that Cardinal compareth to Jesus Christ placed between two thieves, among a thousand corruptions it hath no good, but that wherein it is conformable with the Greek and Hebrew Originals, upon which it hath or ought to have been translated.

Out of all this it appeareth that the Roman Church forbidding the people to read the holy Scripture, opposeth Scripture, since Scripture it self recommendeth the reading of the same; and likewise opposeth the consent of all the Fathers, who are all of one mind in this point, to recommend the reading of Scripture unto all, even unto the least of the people. The evidence of this truth fetcheth from the Jesuite Salmeron these words of anger against the Popes that have forbidden rhe reading of Scripture;(b) 1.655 Wherefore hath not David chosen another rule to conduct his life then Scripture? Thy word, saith he, is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path: And whosoever hinders men to read the sacred books where the laws of God are written, exempteth them from all law, and makes them children of the Devil. And why should he commend the Thessalonians that perused the Scriptures and searcht them every day (Act. 17.) if things went so?

The ordinary excuse is, that Scripture is dark, and that the ignorant might be seduced by it. But they that speak so, not only accuse Scripture of obscurity, but of untruth also. For Scripture bears witness to it self, that it is clear and made to give light to the understanding, Psal. 19. The commandement of the Lord is pure inlightning the eyes, and Psal. 119.* 1.656 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. The books of the Prophets are of all Scripture the most obscure, yet St. Peter saith that they are like a light shining in a dark place. They accuse then Scripture of untruth, when they accuse it of darkness; and together cast a great reproach upon God, as if he had digged a pit to make men fall into it in the dark, and hidden the doctrin of salvation under obscure terms to lead men into error; like one that makes his will in ambiguous terms, purposely to sow strife among his heirs. Should the Father of light study obscurity? He that gave his Son to save his enemies, should he be envious of the salvation of his children? If Scripture must be forbidden to the people least they fall into heresie; by the same, yea by stronger reason it ought to be forbidden to Bishops and Priests, since from them, not from the people, all sorts of heresies are come: Read the Cata∣logues of ancient hereticks made by Epiphanius, Philastrius, Theodoret, Austin, &c. you shall find, that almost all the heresiarches were Clergymen, and having charge in the Church. And if reading Scripture be for none but the learned, none ought to read it, because none can be learned before he hath read it.

For these causes it belongs to those that accuse Scripture of obscurity, to look to themselves,* 1.657 least that the obscurity wherewith they charge Scripture be found in their understanding, and this sentence of the Apostle belong to them, (2 Cor. 4.3.) If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds. So the distracted maid of Seneca's wife being smitten with sudden blindness, complained that the air was dark. Men will cast their de∣fects upon God himself, and are ingenuous in finding blocks to stumble at.

But it is no wonder that our adversaries find Scripture dark, since they cannot find in it what they would find. For one hath need to have piercing eyes and a reaching wit, that will find in Scripture a commandement for sacrificing the body of Christ in the Mass, or the Invocation of Saints, or the Veneration of Images and Relicks, or the Popes succession in St. Peters primacy, or his power over the temporal, and the very crowns of Kings, or the Roman indulgences. There is no doubt, but that these Gentlemen desire that Scripture were a thousand times darker, that none might find in it their condemnation.

The Fathers are so far from that language, that Origen disputing against Celsus a Pagan, and Theodoret writing of the sicknesses of the Grecians, that is, of the Pagans, defend Scripture against this reproach of the Pagans, that it is written in a stile too simple and too familiar. The same Fathers also generally commend the perspicuity and evidence of the holy Scriptures.

Irenaeus in the second book, ch. 46.(c) 1.658 All the Prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures are open and without ambiguity, and may be heard of all alike. Tertullian calls hereticks lucifugas Scripturarum, people that fly from the light of the Scri∣ptures. The Emperour Constantine(d) 1.659 in the Council of Nice was saying, The Evangelical and the Apostolical books, and the Oracles of the Prophets teach us openly what we must believe of the divine things. Austin 9. ch. of the second book of Christian doctrin, saith much to the same purpose; In the things which are clear∣ly set down in Scripture, all things are found that concern faith and manners to live well. Epiphanius, in the heresie 69. and 76.(e) 1.660 All things are clear in the holy Scriptures to them who with a pious reason will draw near the word of God. And Chrysostome told us above, that Scripture is easie to be understood even by trades∣men and ignorant men.

To the objection that it cannot be denied, but that there are some dark texts

in Scripture, these Fathers answer that Scripture expounds her self; and that such things as are obscurely spoken in some places are plainly delivered in other places. Thus Chrysostom, Hom. 13. upon Genesis(f) 1.661 The holy Scripture ex∣pounds it self, and suffers not the hearer to go astray. And Basil in his Asceticks in his Answer to the 267. Interrogation,(g) 1.662 The things which seem to be said obscurely in some places of Scripture, are expounded by other texts clearly delivered. Austin in the second book of Christian doctrin, 9. ch. To clear the darker expressi∣ons, take the clearer passages. And 6. ch. Almost nothing can be deduced out of these dark places, but is found most clearly spoken in other places.

But above all is clear and evident the testimony of Chrysostom, hom. 3. upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians.(h) 1.663 What need is there of Sermon, seeing that all the things that are in the divine Screptures are clear and right? all that is necessary is evident there. But because you are hearers that look for delight, you will have also these things; that is, Sermons. Then he personates one of the people saying, But I know not what is contained in the divine Scriptures. Why? are they written in Hebrew or in Latin? are they set down in another but thine own language? are not the contents of it in Greek? But (answers he) there they be but obscurely. Tell me, what obscurity dost thou mean? are they not histories? knowest thou not what things there are clear, that thou mayest enquire of the obscure? There are in∣finite histories in the Scripture; tell me one among the rest. But thou canst not tell it; so that all that thou sayest are but pretences and vain babling. So did that goldenmouth chide his people when they alledged the difficulty of Scripture, to dispense themselves from the reading of it. For then it was not lawful to any not to read it: whereas now adayes to read it one must have a permission and an especial priviledge. Truly, if after the example of Chrysostom one would questi∣on diverse persons that abstain from the reading of Scripture, pretending that there are many obscure things in it; Tell me what texts of Scripture you find clear, and what dark places did ye find in it? they could not answer. They complain of the obscurity of a book where they never read one line. Indeed hardly can Scripture be clear to him that never lookt in it. Poor souls, they make use of that scruple to feed their idleness; they study ignorance under a pretence of docility. Christ asked a Doctor of the Jews,* 1.664 what is written in the Law? how readest thou? presupposing that he read the Scriptures or ought to read them. If it had been in those days the priviledge of Doctors to read Scripture, Christ to convince him of idleness and contempt, would have told him, Thou art a Doctor, and hast licence to read Scripture; thou should'st then make use of thy priviledge.

CHAP. 59. Defence of the purity and truth of Scripture against the Cardinals accusati∣ons and falsifications.

* 1.665THe boldest Chapter of the whole book of Cardinal du Perron is the 6. ch. of the fifth book, wherein by a most perverse diligence, that I say no worse, he gathers up all the texts of Scripture, which (saith he) seem to mans sense to be full of absurdity and contradiction; that so he may disswade the people from reading Scripture, and make them refer themselves to the Roman Church about the sense of those texts, as about all other difficulties.

This might have some colour, if the Church to which he sends us had made some declaration about that, or if any ecclesiastical exposition was extant, authorized by the judgement of the Church: but that is nowhere found. The Roman

Church which falsely stileth her self Universall, hath no exposition of Scripture, but of particular Doctors, who expound Scripture diversly, and there is little agree∣ment among them.

Of the pretended absurdities of Scripture which he alledgeth, some are easily resolved, as these. That it is said that God separated light from darkness, that is, the day from the night. That God created the Sun on the fourth day.* 1.666 That God took one of Adams ribs and therewith formed Eve.* 1.667 That he made to Adam and Eve clothes with beasts kins.* 1.668 That God put the rain-bow in the cloud for a sign that there should be no more a general flood.* 1.669 That after Moses there arose no Prophet like unto him.* 1.670 That Sampson killed a thousand men with the jaw-bone of an Ass. That out of a tooth of that jaw-bone he fetcht water, and many the like things, which none can find absurd but he that seeks absurdity in them, or brings the Almighty power of God in question, or doubts of the truth of his word.

He brings other objections where one cannot deny but there is some difficulty, as about the calculations of times, and some proper names which seem to be put instead of other names. By which difficulties it pleaseth God to call us to so∣briety. Every wise man if he cannot satisfie his reason, will choose rather to keep himself in silence then to contend with Gods word; and for that, will not abstain from reading Scripture, as though it were a dangerous book.

He heaps up other texts of Scripture concerning manners which seem to be scandalous, as that which is said in Ecclesiastes, chap. 2. that there is nothing better for a man, then that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good by his labour. And in the third chapter, that the death of man, and that of a beast is the same; as the one dieth so dieth the other, and herein man hath no pre∣heminence above the beast; And that a living dog is better then a dead Lion. Sen∣tences which say only that according to the course of nature, and considering nothing but the present life, a man hath nothing of all his temporal good but to use it with joy, and to eat and drink with tranquillity of mind; And that accor∣ding to the course of nature the same causes make a man and a beast to die. But the same book is full of sentences which put a great difference between the end of good and evil men; saying that God shall judge the righteous and the wicked.* 1.671 That it shall be well with them that fear God. That God shall bring every work to judgement. And he concludeth the book with this sentence, Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

He puts in the same rank some expressions of Solomons Song, as ill beseeming: Then the history of the incest of Lot with his daughters, and of Juda with Thamar and the like things. But it is not without cause that God in his word layeth open the sins of holy men, to make us acknowledge humane infirmity, and to shew that God fetcheth good out of evil. Neither is there any thing in all these, that ought to disswade a man from reading Scripture. It belongs not to us to prescribe to the Spirit of God what language he must use.

He addeth some texts, which (to his thinking) might shake the faith with scruples, as My Father is greater then I. And I go up to my God and to your God.* 1.672 And This is life eternal that they may know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, and other texts imployed by the Arians.* 1.673 But that ought not to keep the people from reading Scripture. For in the same Scripture they shall find wherewith to instruct themselves upon that point, and clear texts for the Godhead of the Son of God. As when Rom. 9. he is called God above all things blessed for evermore, and Tit. 2. Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious ap∣pearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. And by Isaiah 9. he is cal∣led the everlasting Father. And John 1. That word was God. And 1 John 5.24. Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life. And Phil. 1.6. He thought it no robbery to be equall with God.

But that which is more intolerable in that great gathering of texts, is that this Prelate falsifieth Scripture, and makes it say what it saith not, to make it absurd. He saith that it is written Gen. 2. that in the garden of Eden, among other rivers

there was both Nilus and Euphrates,* 1.674 which are above a thousand leagues asunder; but in that text there is no mention of Nilus, but of the river Gihon, even in the vulgar version. It is a Jewish fable which is found in Josephus in the first book of his Antiquities; wherein he sheweth so much ignorance, that he makes Nilus to come from the East. And I wonder what moved the Cardinal to falsifie his own Bible.

In the same place he saith that Gen. 3. God walked in the cool of the wind after noon in the garden. He finds an absurdity in these words the cool in the afternoon; which seem to say that God was cooling of himself against the heat of the afternoon. But these words cool and afternoon are not in the Hebrew; there is only in the text that Adam and Eve heard God going in the garden in the wind of the day.

In the same place he makes Scripture to say (Judges 15.) that God made a spring of water to come out of the hole whence a tooth of the Ass had been pluckt out, to give drink unto Sampson. But there is in the text that God brake a great tooth of the jaw-bone, and thence came out water; Of a fountain coming out of the hole of the jaw-bone it is not spoken, not so much as in the vulgar version. Here it will not be unseasonable to say that by the Hebrew word Leki which is translated a jaw-bone, a rock is understood, out of which God fetcht water, so named in memory of Sampsons combat happened in that place. Thus the Chaldaick Paraphrast understands it.

He adds for an apparent absurdity that (2 Chron. 21.) it is written that Elias writ to Joram King of Judah, although Elias had been taken up to heaven eight years before the reign of Joram. The absurdity which he conceiveth, is, that a man that liveth no more on earth should write to a man that liveth on earth. But these letters might be written by Eliah in his life time, and sent to Joram some years after the Prophets death.

To make Solomon speak like a prophane man and an Epicurean, he makes him say Eccles. 9.5. that the dead have no more reward yonder, as if the souls were mortal, and no salvation for them. There is according to the Hebrew, there is no more gain unto them,* 1.675 that is, to the dead: for he speaks of the profit or gain which they can get on earth. But that word yonder is an addition of M. du Perron to exclude the hope of another life.

I do not put among the falsifications, but among the oversights that which he saith in the same place, that the Levites wife died by being too much abused by the men of Jabesh, (Judges 19.) he put Jabesh for Gibeah.

But this is most insupportable, that he makes the Gospel to say, (John 15.) he that came after me was made before me. Not a word of that is found in that chapter.* 1.676 True it is, that in the first chapter there is, He that comes after me is pre∣ferred before me, or, was before me. The word made which favoureth the Arians, making Christ to be a creature, is of the addition of the vulgar version, which M. du Perron rather chose to follow, because the sense is absurd as that version makes it, then to follow the truth of the Greek text, which is the original. The small skill that this Prelate had in Greek, made him believe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie alwayes the same thing, whereof the one signifies, was made, the other hath been.

* 1.677I shut up this chapter with the sentence of Epiphanius in the heresie of the† 1.678 Ʋnlike, which is the 76. All things are clear in the divine Scripture to them that will with a godly reason approach unto the word of God, and conceiving not a devillish efficacy, do not turn themselves down into the gulfs of death.

CHAP. 60. Of Canonical and Apocryphal books. Proofs by Gods word that Tobit, Judith, the Maccabes, &c. are not Canonical.

IN this question, more then in any other, our Adversaries are at a loss;* 1.679 for they have no less against them then the word of God, reason, and the testimony of Antiquity.

As for the word of God, every one confesseth that the Church of the Jews to which the oracles of God had been committed, did not acknowledge the books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, Susanna, and Maccabes for Canonical. This is known by the testimony of Josephus book 1. against Appion, where he reckons but two and twenty books of the Old Testament,* 1.680 and saith that the books written since the time of Artaxerxes are not so worthy of evidence as the precedent. In∣deed Josephus is posterior in time unto Christ: His birth meets almost with the time of Christs death. And when he writ, the Jews were fallen already from Gods Covenant; but making an enumeration of the sacred books, he sheweth what books have been received by the Jews; not only in his time, but also in the ages that went before him.

Austin saith that the Jews hold not these books for Canonical.* 1.681 Wherefore Je∣sus Christ and his Apostles never alledge these books. And if sometimes they mention some history written in the Apocrypha, as the Feast of the dedication, John 10.22. they mention also, not seldom, histories attested by the Pagans and by the unbelieving Jews.

The book of Maccabees is is held Canonical by the Roman Church. Yet there mention is made of Alexander the Great and of his victories,* 1.682 which many Pagans had already written before the book of Maccabees was made. St. Paul alledg∣eth texts out of Menander, Aratus, Epimenides, &c. and that in a point of do∣ctrine. As that which he brings (Acts 17.) out of Aratus, that in God we live and move and have our being. As then the allegation of a book in the New Testament is not a proof that the book is Canonical; so on the other side it is an evident sign that the books in question are not Canonical, that of so great a number of books not one is alledged in the New Testament. And if the Apo∣stles have used some word or expression which is found also in some Apocrypha, it followeth not that the Apostles alledge that book; For the same word shall be be found also in Pagan authors.

There is no reason then why the books of Judith and Maccabees, &c. having never been divine nor Canonical under the Old Testament, should become holy and Canonical under the New, as if they had altered their nature. Neither can we receive the books of the Old Testament but from the Church of the Old Testa∣ment; nor have the books of the Old Testament in other esteem then the Church of the Old Testament had them.

The same is evident in that these books are not found in Hebrew. Now how unlike is it that the book of Wisdome, if it was made in Hebrew by Solomon, be not extant in Hebrew, and that ill versions have been preserved, seeing that the di∣vine works of Solomon were so precious unto the Jews? And that the Jewish Church, which then was the true Church, hath carefully preserved in their natural language the book of Hester, and the Prophecies of Jeremiah and Daniel, but suf∣fered some chapters to be lost, and not been carefull to preserve the whole books in their proper tongue? Must we say that the sacred books were more perfect among the Grecians then among the Jews, and in the versions then in the origi∣nal tongues? Which chapters added to Jeremiah and Daniel whoso will compare with the chapters that go before, shall easily perceive that not only they have no connexion with the precedent, but also that they contradict them, and that the style of both is as different as day and night.

CHAP. 61. Untruths and errors in the books called the Apocrypha.

THE strongest instance for us in this matter, is, that these books are stuffed with fables, and forged tales, and doctrines contrary to that of the Canonical books. Could we be able to receive fables and grosly devised lyes for the word of God? In this acusation we desire not to be believed without evident proofs. I will produce some of them.

Of the book of Tobith.

In the 5. chap. v. 14. the Angel Raphael doth falsly call himself Azarias of the race of the great Ananias and of the brethren of Tobit, who was of the tribe of Nephtali. Wherefore also in chap. 7. v. 3. when Raguel asked the Angel and the son of Tobit whence they were, the son of Tobit answereth for both, We are of the children of Nephtali captives in Nineve.

To say that the Angel took the name of Azarias because he was like some man of that name, doth not excuse the lye; for he that resembleth Azarias, is not Azarias. And as if that untruth were not enough, he saith that he is of To∣bits brethren, endeavouring thereby to print a false perswasion in Tobits mind, which he effected, as Tobit himself exprest it.

No more doth it serve to say that Ananias signifieth the grace or gift of God: and that the Angel meant that he was the son of the grace or gift of God: for he said himself to be of the race of the great Ananias; Now it would have been falsly and absurdly spoken to say that he was of the race of the great gift of God.

The book of Judith.

This book is manifestly fabulous. The history is related as happened after the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon; Which is expresly said in the fourth chapter, v. 2.(a) 1.683 They were newly returned from the captivity. And ch. 5. v. 18. They were led captives into a land which was not theirs, and the Temple of their God was cast to the ground, and their Cities were taken by their enemies. But now are they returned to their God, and are come up from the places where they were scattered; and have possessed Jerusalem where their Sanctuary is, and are seated in the hill countrey which was desolate.

There is in the Greek which is the orignal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth word by word, The Temple of their God was laid to the ground. Whence it appears that this history is given as happened since the captivity of Babylon, for that Temple was never pulled down, nor the people of the Jews transported, nor the countrey made desolate before that captivity. Yet that hi∣story is related as happened in the time of King Nebucadnezzar, dead long before the return of that people from the captivity.

Our adversaries think they may scape by saying that in their Latin version these words, and the temple of their God was laid to the ground are not found. As also in the same version by a notorious falsification, these words, they were newly re∣turned from captivity, have been put out, and are found no more. But (be∣sides that we must alwayes rather stand to the original text then to a version, especially to the worst version of all) there is enough remaining in that Latin version, to verifie that this story is related as happened since the return from that captivity, when the Jews were transported to Jerusalem. For in chap. 5. v. 18. after many falsifications these words remain,(b) 1.684 Many of them were led captives into a land that was not theirs, but of late being returned unto the Lord their God,

they were gathered again from the dispersion wherewith they were scattered abroad, and possess Jerusalem again. That history then is related as happened after that the people transported from Jerusalem was returned thither, in which time Ne∣buchadnezzar was dead long before.

At that time also there was no more Ninive, which had been taken and destroyed by the Medes in the time of Cyaxares, if we believe Herodotus in his first book; or by Nebuchadnezzar, if we believe the last chapter of Tobit, long before the return from the captivity. Then also there was no more Kingdom of the Medes. Media was under the Persians, and the Kingdom of Media had been abolisht many years before. Nevertheless that history of Judith, given out as happened since the return from the captivity, in chap. 1.5. maketh Ninive to be the seat of Nebuchadnezzars kingdom, though he never kept his Court there, since he pulled it down(c) 1.685 when he had taken it. And speaketh of a King Arphaxad, who never was.

It will not serve our Adversaries to say that this history happened in the time of King Manasseh who was carried away captive into Babylon; and to seek in the time of King Manasseh, a Nebuchadnezzar which cannot be found; for he was not yet born when Manasseh died. They seek also in the time of Manasseh a transpor∣tation of the people of Jerusalem, and a return of the people to Jerusalem after the captivity, which is to be found in no story. For 2 Chron. 33.11. it is said only that the Captains of the host of the King of Assyria took Manasseh among the thorns, and carried him to Babylon, but they took not Jerusalem, and the people was not led away captive; Neither is there any trace of that captivity, nor of the return from the same, in any history. Only Manasseh released out of prison returned unto his Kingdom. Besides, if this history of Judith happened in the time of Manasseh; the Temple also was ruined in his time, which is known to be false. They must also find in the same time a King Arphaxad of Media, who shall no more be found then King Nebuchadnezzar. In the time of Manasseh's imprisonment Phraortes son of Dejoces reigned in Media, of whom Herodotus speaks much in his first book. Which Phraortes was never discomfited by Nebuchadnezzar no more then Dejoces his Father, as the first chapter of Judith relates of Arphaxad. Both father and son were more antient then Nebuchadnezzar, and were both dead before Nebuchadnezzar reigned. Then reigned in Babylon either Nabopolassar Father to Nebuchadnezzar, or rather he to whom Nabopolassar succeeded.

To this add that if Manasseh had been then reigning in Jerusalem, he would not have suffered Joakim the Priest to take upon him to give the orders of war, as it is related, Judith 4.6. That would have been incroaching upon the Royal Office, and from a Priest turning a Captain; which was never done while there was a King; and they make Joakim contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, although he lived above a hundred years after that King.

Josephus in the tenth book of Antiquities chap. 4. relates exactly the things hap∣ned in Manasseh's time, but speaks not of Judith, nor of Holofernes, nor of Bethu∣lia, nor of the people of Jerusalem led away captive, nor of the Temple pulled down and built up again, which the fabulous book of Judith mentioneth.

To multiply lyes, it is said towards the end of the history, that Judith waxed old in her husbands house, being a hundred and five years old. And that there was none that made the children of Israel any more afraid in the dayes of Judith, nor a long time after her death. Let now our adversaries busie their brains to find those hundred and five years, and many more after Judiths death, in which the people of the Jews enjoyed a constant rest. Can any find, I say not a hundred and five years, but forty only of rest in Judea, beginning at the return of Ma∣nasseh from his captivity? That King having reigned but few years after his re∣lease, left the Kingdom to his son Amon, who brought Idolatry again into Judea, 2 Chron. 33.22. Where was Judith then, so much respected over all the countrey? Where was that peaceable time without trouble in Israel? To that King, killed after two years reign, succeeded the good King Josiah; who after he had reign∣ed thirty one years was killed in battle by Neco King of Aegypt. The end of his

life was the beginning of the ruines and desolations of the Jews, which never gave over, till all the Towns being taken by Nebuchadnezzar, the countrey pil∣laged, Jerusalem and the Temple razed, the people were transported into Baby∣lon; Where was then Judith? For they affirm that history to have hapened when she was in her prime. And that after this passage, she lived with his husband: And that her husband being dead, she was still of great beauty, and was woed by many lovers which she refused, and dwelt a hundred and five years in her husbands house, in a time when there was neither people nor houses in Judea, and when the countrey was a desart. Was there ever a fable more grosly patcht up?

The last verse of the book, acording to the Latin version, saith that the day of Judith's victory is received of the Hebrews among the Holy dayes, and is cele∣brated by the Jews unto this day; Which will be found false. For of that Feast of so great solemnity, no trace is sound in all the Antiquity of the Jews; not in Josephus,* 1.686 not in Philo, not in the other Josephus son to Gorion, not in the Mac∣cabees, not in Rabbi Nahasson who hath written Canons or rules of the Jewish Feasts, not in Seder Holam, not in Munster who hath written the Jews Ca∣lender.

In chap. 9. v. 2. Judith saith her self to be daughter of Simeon Jacobs second son. But in chap. 8. v. 1. her pedegree is fetcht from Salasadai son of Jacobor Israel, which is an imaginary name; for Jacob had no such son. And in the vul∣gar Latin version, which the Roman Church preferreth before the Greek origi∣nal, the absurdity is double; for in the same place it is said that she was daugh∣ter of Simeon son of Reuben: whereas every body knoweth that Simeon and Reu∣ben were brothers.

Gen. 49. Jacob dying condemneth the massacre of the Sichemites committed by Simeon and Levi, so far as to say, Cursed be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruell. But Judith chap. 9. ver. 2. & 4. praiseth and mag∣nifieth that action, as if God had set them on to do it, saying O Lord God, of my Father Simeon, to whom thou gavest a sword to take vengeance of the strangers. And soon after, Thou hast given all their spoil to be divided among thy dear children, as if the ransacking of Sichem, and the robbery committed by the sons of Jacob had been a blessing of God. In the same place speaking of Simeon and Levi, she saith, They were moved with thy zeal, and called upon thee for aid.

Also over all that history such things are attributed to Judith as are ill be∣seeming a holy and vertuous woman, as if that story had been made puposely to defame her. She tricks up her self curiously to provoke the unchaste desires of a Pagan Prince. In chap. 9. ver. 13. she craveth of God the grace of decei∣ing with her lips. In chap. 10. ver. 12. being arrested by the Assyrians, she pay∣eth them with lyes, saying that she was fled from the Hebrews, and was come to declare words of truth unto their Captain, and shew him a way whereby he might conquer the countrey without the loss of one man. And chap. 11. ver. 5. she pro∣miseth Holefernes to tell him no lye, and interposeth the name of God to lye with more colour. She praiseth the wisdom, the policy, and the valour of Holofernes; Promiseth him that he shall extermine the Nation of the Jews, because they had offended God; that God had sent her to work with him, to lead him through the midst of Judea, and set his throne in the midst of Jerusalem. Falsly adding that God had revealed her these things; which was doing the part of a false Prophetess, and faining a false revelation.

With little honesty and no small peril of her pudicity she goeth out by night, having no body to attend her but her maid. She washeth her self in a fountain in the midst of the camp of the enemies. Being called to come to Holofernes, to please him in his desires, she answereth, Who am I that I should gainsay my Lord! chap. 12. ver. 13. All that very far from the purity and integrity of a holy wo∣man.

The book called the Wisdom of Solomon.

This book is placed among the Apocrypha by Hierom, Ruffin, and a great num∣ber of Fathers, especially by the Council of Laodicea, as I will shew hereafter.

The title of the book is manifestly false; for it is none of Solomons works, who writ in Hebrew not in Greek: Now that book is extant in Greek only, and is not in the Hebrew Bible. Neither is it any thing like the style of Solomon.

Austin speaks thus of it,(a) 1.687 These two books, the one entituled the Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, are said to be of Solomon, because of some resemblance. For that opinion is constantly received that Jesus the son of Syrach did write them. It is true that Austin in the first book of the Retractations, doth retract himself in the fourth chapter for saying that those books have been written by the son of Syrach. But he saith not for that, that they are Solomons. Only he saith that many call that book the Wisdom of Solomon, speaking of it doubtfully. But in the seventeenth book of the City of God, cap. 29. he saith that the learned hold for certain that this book and Ecclesiasticus are not Solomons.

Hierom the most learned of the Fathers in such matters, in his Preface upon the books of Solomon, saith that the inscription of this book is false:(b) 1.688 Another (saith he) whose title is false, being intituled the Wisdom of Solomon. And a little after,(c) 1.689 Some writers affirm that this book is of Philo the Jew. And in the same place he saith that the style favours the Greek eloquence.

(d) 1.690Basil in the first book against Eunomius, towards the end, alledgeth the book of Wisdom of Zorobabel; And in the same book(e) 1.691 We acknowledge but three works of Solomon, even those three that we have in the Hebrew Bible.

And all the Fathers whom we shall hear hereafter, that put the book of Wis∣dom out of the rank of the Canonical Scriptures, deny by consequent that it is Solomons: And there is great difference between books that treat of matters of salvation and of Gods service, and books of plants and natural Philosophy writ∣by Solomon, which he did not write that they should be taught in the Church.

Now all that deny the book of Wisdom to be of Solomon, accuse the Author of untruth; for he saith himself to be King Solomon, chap. 9. ver. 7, 8. speaking thus unto God, Thou hast chosen me to be a King of thy people. — Thou hast com∣manded me to build a Temple upon thy holy mount. But in chap. 15. ver. 14. the Author forgetting that he had called himself King Solomon, speaks as writing in a time when the Church was opprest(f) 1.692 and kept under by her enemies; which cannot be applied to Solomons time. Had the Jesuit(g) 1.693 Salmeron considered this, he would not have said that probably this book could not have been written by any but Solomon.

We must not find it strange that those very Fathers that deny this book to be Canonical, will call it sometimes the Wisdom of Solomon; for they do but use the title of the book as custom would have it, as both we and the Roman Church call the third and fourth book of Ezra, which cannot be of Ezra, and are not recei∣ved as Canonical by the Council of Trent. This Austin saith lib. 17. de civitate Dei cap. 20.(h) 1.694 As for the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, custome hath carried it, that they be said to be Solomons; but the learned hold for certain that they are none of his.

It is evident that the book was written by a man versed in the Grecian Phi∣losophy, in that he speaks of the Solstices, chap. 7. ver. 18. and of the four mo∣ral vertues, temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence, ver. 7.

In chap. 7. ver. 25. Wisdom is called a vapour or breath of the vertue of God; wherein he speaks like an ignorant, whether he understand by the wisdom of God the Person of the Eternal Son of God, or a vertue of God, which is essential to him, and his own substance. Take it either way, is the wisdom of God a vapour? And since it is a vertue of God, how should it be a vapour proceeding from his vertue? With the like abuse in chap. 6. ver. 22. he speaks of the beginning of the nativity of Wisdom as though she were born and had a beginning.

In the same book chap. 8. ver. 15. Solomon speaks of himself as being valiant in war, of which nevertheless he never gave any proof, having never given any battel. And ver. 20. speaking of his origine, he saith, that being good he came into a body undefiled. So then he was otherwise born and composed then David his Father, who Psal. 51.7. saith Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

He cannot be excused for calling Manna the Angels food, as if Angels did eat and had need to be fed with meat; Nor for saying (chap. 10.7.) that the land of the five Cities, meaning Sodom and the other Cities of that plain, was smoaking still ever since they were consumed by fire from heaven. It is false also that five Towns were burnt in that plain; for Moses nameth but four, Sodom, Gomorrha, Adama,* 1.695 and Tseboim. The fifth which was Tsoar, was spared at the request of Lot.* 1.696 So the Author of that book saith untruly that the fire came down upon these five Towns. And it is likewise false that which he saith (chap. 12. ver. 5.) that the old inhabitants of the land of Canaan whom the Israelites expelled, were de∣vourers of mans flesh. Moses often describes the abominations of those people, but never speaks that they were man-eaters. Also in chap. 6. ver. 22. that false Solomon relates things that never hapned to the children of Israel, and coyneth histories, saying that snow and ice endured the fire and melted not.

Of the book of Ecclesiasticus.

This book is not found in the Hebrew Bible, the Bible of the Old Testament, which was read in the Synagogues. We shall also see hereafter that the Antient Christian Church did not receive it as Canonical.

This book contains many good precepts, which made the reading of it recom∣mended by many of the Antient, and by our own Church. But there are many profitable books, which ought not therefore to be ranked among the divine books, nor held for Canonical.

The Author of the book cannot be Solomon, seeing that in the forty seventh, forty eighth and the following chapters, he speaks of the reigns of Roboam, Je∣roboam, and of the Prophets Eliah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many others who lived many ages after Solomon. Before the book there is a Preface where the Author Jesus the son of Sirach saith that he came into Aegypt in the time of King Ptolomaeus Euergetes who died about seven hundred sixty two years after Solomon.

In the same Preface Jesus Grandfather to that Jesus who compiled these sen∣tences, is compared unto Solomon, and equalled in wisdom and doctrine: which is not without impiety.

In chap. 1. ver. 4. and in chap. 24. ver. 24. there is an error which our Adver∣saries approve not, namely that the Wisdom of God was created before all things, which is meer Arrianism. For Arius taught that Christ was a created God, made before other creatures. A sentence which none but distracted brains will ex∣cuse with saying that Christ was created in his humane nature; for Christ in his humane nature is not the Wisdom of the Father; and so far was he from being created before all things, that he had not assumed humane flesh when Jesus the Son of Sirach writ his book.

In chap. 46. ver. 20. it is said that Samuel prophecied after his death. So this Author makes the Prophet Samuel to say that which was said by the Devil, and puts the souls of the Saints in the power of Satan. For that the Ghost that appeared unto Saul was not the Prophet Samuel, holy Scripture testifies it in the same chapter,* 1.697 ver. 6. where it is said that God would not answer Saul, neither by Ʋrim nor by Thummim which was the ordinary oracle, nor by the Prophets. Nei∣ther is it in a Witches power to fetch the souls of Saints out of the place of their rest. The same appears by that Ghosts saying to Saul in the nineteenth verse, Thou and thy sons shall be with me to morrow. For seeing that Saul is dead despe∣rate, killing himself with his own sword, it is not credible that his soul after

death was gathered with the Saints, nor that the soul of Saul and that of Jona∣than were carried into the same place. Wherefore it must be granted that this Ghost was called Samuel, because it was like Samuel, and counterfeited him, according to the custom of the Scriptures to give unto signs and representati∣ons the name of represented things.

Austin handleth this question, and saith that though this image of Samuel said unto Saul, Thou shalt be with me, he said an untruth. Then he saith(i) 1.698 There∣fore Scripture calls with the name of Samuel an imaginary illusion made by the ma∣chinations of the Devil••, because images use to be called by the name of things whereof they are images. And finally after he hath canvassed that question on both sides, he concludeth, Let us think rather that such a thing was done by the wicked ministery of the Pythonissa or witch, which we cannot find or expound any more. See the Canon Nec mirum. Causa 26. q. 5. where it is amply proved that it was not the true Samuel, but an illusion of the Devil.

Also that book doth unworthily yea unjustly deal with the feminine sex, say∣ing that(k) 1.699 the wickedness of a man is better then the good that a woman doth, chap. 42. ver. 14.

The book of Susanna.

This history hath no truth at all. For what likelihood or possibility is in this, that a handfull of Jews newly led captive into Babylon should have, even in Ba∣bylon, Judges of their Nation, condemning to death without appeal? The Jews while they served the Romans, might have in their countrey some Judges of their own, because the Victors, after they had subdued them, had left them some kind of jurisdiction, as it is the custom of Conquerors towards the people whom they have conquered and brought under their Empire. But it will not be found that after the ruine of Jerusalem Jews led captive to Rome, had Judges of their Nation at Rome that could sentence to death without appeal.

Especially it is the height of absurdity and far out of all road of likelihood that a young stranger child, being in no Office, should make himself Judge of the ordinary Judges, and condemn them to death, with a Soveraign judgement without appeal: As if some stranger-child brought captive to London, should command the Lord Chief Justice of England to appear before him, and then sen∣tence him to death, and send him to the Gallows.

Here observe the time: for Daniel was a child in the time of the first siege laid to Jerusalem by Nebucadnezzar; Jehojakim being King in Jerusalem who was carried away captive with part of the people, among which was Daniel, as one may see in the first chapter of Daniel. That happened eleven years before the second siege, whereby Jerusalem was razed, and the rest of the people transported. That was the time of the extream depression and bondage of the Jews in Babylon; who were so far from having Offices of Judicature and delicious gardens in Baby∣lon (as it is said in that book of Joakim Susanna's husband) that they were used as bondmen in hard servitude. The Author was short in his Chronology to raise Daniel to dignity at that time, as he was afterwards when he came to age.

It is known also that in Babylon the vulgar tongue was the Chaldean, not the Greek; Yet the history of Susanna makes Daniel to speak Greek in Babylon, sitting in a judicial seat, examining Judges of capital causes. For this book makes him use Greek clinches and allusions upon the words(l) 1.700 of Mastick tree, and Holme tree, which allusions will not be found at all in the Chaldean language, or in any tongue but the Greek. And whoso affirms the contrary, doth but set forth his own ignorance. Wherefore Porphyrius the great enemy of the Chri∣stian name, having made this objection, Hierom in his Proem upon Daniel an∣swers that the book of Susanna is a fable,* 1.701 and hath no authority of holy Scrip∣ture. We will alledge his words upon the history of Bel. Pope Gelasius is ex∣press upon this, saying that the book of Susanna is Apocrypha.

The History of Bel and the Dragon.

This History is of the same stuff. The very beginning is a lye, That presently after the death of Astyages, Daniel was preferred to the table of Cyrus, honou∣red above all his friends. For when Cyrus dispossest Astyages his Grandfather from the Kingdom of Media, Cyrus was not yet Master of Babylon, and Daniel living in Babylon, was none his subjects. Neither did Cyrus conquer Babylon but about two and twenty years after the end of the reign of Astyages, as one may see by the first book of Herodotus; by Berosus alledged by Josephus, by the Chro∣nicles of Eusebius, and by the Canon of Ptolomaeus.

Hierom in his Preface upon Daniel, calls this book a Fable; and saith that it was left out by the Greek Doctors, as having no authority of holy Scripture. These are his words.

(m) 1.702Eusebius and Apollinaris have well answered Porphyrius, that the fables of Susanna, Bell, and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew text; but that they are part of the prophesie of one Habuc son of Jesu of the tribe of Levi, as it is put in the title of the same fable in the Septuagint, Where it is said That there was a Priest named Daniel son of Abda that ate at the table of the King of Babylon; whereas Scripture testifieth that Daniel and the three young men were of the tribe of Judah. Wherefore we also translating Daniel many years ago, gave a black mark to these visions, to signifie that they were not found in the Hebrew. And I wonder how some peevish men are angry with me as if I had curtaled that book, seeing that Origenes, and Eusebius, and Apollinaris, and other Ecclesiastical persons, and Greek Doctors acknowledge that these visions are not found among the Hebrews; and that they are not bound to answer Porphyrius for these books which have no authority of holy Scripture.

Some pedants(n) 1.703 give us a warning that sometimes this word fable signifieth a story, and with the same reason (likely) would suffer the Gospel to be called a fable. But they dissemble that Hierom saith, that these books have no authority of holy Scripture.

The rest of the book of Esther.

The rest of the book of Esther, contradicteth in many things the book of Esther which is in the Hebrew Bible. The true Hebrew story chap. 6. ver. 2. re∣lates that Esther was brought to King Assuerus to be Queen, in the seventh year of that King; and that she being already Queen, Mordecai discovered a conspi∣racy of two Eunuchs named Big than and Teres against the life of King Assuerus, of which he gave notice to Qeen Esther, and she to the King.

The same history is quite otherwise related in the Apocrypha book of the rest of Esther, in the first chapter. There it is said that Mordecai had a dream in the second year of King Artaxerxes, and discovered a conspiracy of two Eunuchs, Gabatha and Thara. One of the books saith Assuerus, the other saith Arta∣xerxes. The one saith that it was in the seventh year of King Assuerus, the other, that it was in the second year of Artaxerxes. And the names of the Eunuchs are different. How unlike is it that in the same book the same histo∣ry should be twice related by the same Author, and in a different way? In the sixth chapter, ver. 10. of that Apocrypha, it is said that Aman was a Macedonian, who in the true story is sad to be an Agagite, that is an Hamalekite.(o) 1.704 See Numb. 24.7. And such was the name of the Kings of Hamalec, 1 Sam. 15.20. M. du Perron answers that(p) 1.705 all the strangers in Asia were called Macedonians, which might be after Alexander in the reign of the Seleucides, but the history of Esther is many ages before. Besides Aman was no stranger in Asia, as the Cardinal esteemeth, for he was an Arabian. Now Arabia is in Asia. All that swarms with ignorance.

With the like ignorance he saith that Aman is called Macedonian in the letters

of Assuerus, (p) because the writer followed the Syriack version.(d) 1.706 But in the Syriack translation these letters are not to be found, the Interpreter having inter∣preted only the Canonical book of Esther.

But how absurd is that which is said in chap. 6. ver. 14. of the same book, that Haman would have transported the Empire of the Persians to the Macedonians? For besides that these words suppose that Haman was a Macedonian; whoso is never so little versed in History, knoweth that the Kings of Macedon at that time were petty Kings, unknown in Persia, and without any power; And that these words are no less ridiculous, then saying that such a one hath undertaken to transport the Empire of the Turks to the Prince of Parma or to the King of Algiers.

About these rests of Esther let us hear the verdict of Sixtus Senensis(q) 1.707 who hath few fellows in learning among our Adversaries; The other six chapters, saith he, unto the end of the book, have been added out of several histories, by I know not what Greek author; But especially out of the eleventh book of the Antiquities of Josephus. Then he addeth that Melito of Sardis, and Gregory Nazianzen have not reckoned that book among the sacred books, and that Athanasius hath by name rejected it as supposititious, and that it was received very late among the Christians.

Of the books of Maccabees.

The books of Maccabees swarm with fables. In the beginning of the first book the author saith, that Alexander before his death divided his kingdom among his servants: Which is contradicted by a multitude of Historians that have written of Alexan∣ders death(r) 1.708 By Diodorus Siculus, by Justin the Epitomizer of Trogus, by Quintus Curtius, Aemilius Probus, Strabo, Pausanias, Plutarchus, Appianus Alexandrinus, and many more. All relate that Alexander made no division of his Kingdom be∣fore his death, but only gave his ring unto Perdiccas: whence arose a thousand confusions among his successors.

In the first book of Maccabees, chap. 6. Antiochus Epiphanes striving to get Elimais in Persia, is beaten back by the inhabitants of the Town, then flieth to return into Babylon; and hearing the ill success of the arms of Lysias the Ge∣neral of his army against the Jews, falls sick with sorrow, and dieth in the one hundred forty ninth year of the reign of the Seleucides. But in the ninth chapter of the second book, the death of that Antiochus is quite otherwise described. That being entred into the City of Persepolis, he went about to hold the City. That be∣ing driven from thence, he came to Ecbatana, where having heard tydings of the defeat of Nicanor and Timotheus, and swelling with anger at it, he resolved to extermine the Jews, and make of Jerusalem a burying place. That in the way he fell from his chariot, and being sore bruised, worms rose out of his body, and that he dyed a stranger in the mountains. Can any two things be more diverse then these two relations of the same thing? The one speaks of the City of Ec∣batana, the other of the City of Persepolis. The one saith that he would enter into the Town, the other that he entred into it. The one that he fled to return into Babylon, the other that he came to Ecbatana, which are very different wayes. The one that he heard ill news of the defeat of Lysias; the other puts Nicanor and Timotheus instead of Lysias. The one saith that upon these ill news he fell sick for sorrow; the other that while he was threatning the Jews he felt a sore pain in his bowels, and that by the way he fell from his charret, where∣upon his flesh rotted and bred worms. He that said that he died in Persia neer Ecbatana, knew not that Ecbatana was in Media, not in Persia. It is now called Tauris.

In the first chapter of the second of the Maccabees, ver. 12. the Jews give God thanks for driving away those that had fought against the holy City in Persia. Now in Persia all the Cities were Pagan, and there was no holy City. The holy Scripture giveth that honourable name to none but Jerusalem,

although Judea had many other Cities where God was purely served.

In the same chapter the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is related the third time in a far different manner. Namely that he was stoned in the Temple of Nannaea. Now that this Antiochus is the same that is called Epiphanes, it is evident, be∣cause this is related in an Epistle where the Jews of Judea announce to the Jews of Aegypt the death of that King as a great deliverance, and signifie unto them the institution of the Feast of the Purification of the Temple upon the twenty fifth day of the moneth Casleu, which feast was instituted by Judas Maccabee a little after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is a great ignorance to think that in this Macc. 2. chap. 1. The death of Antiochus Eupator is related; For that Eupator was not killed in Persia, and never made war there, and was killed by Demetrius son of Seleucus, who took from him both his kingdom and his life. He was not stoned in a Temple, and outlived but two years his Father Antiochus Epiphanes. Neither was it in consequence of the death of Antiochus Eupator that the Fast of the purification of the Temple was instituted.

And though we should grant that this Antiochus is Antiochus Eupator, yet the untruth is evident, in that the letter which describeth the death of this Antiochus, and signifieth to the Jews of Aegypt the institution of the Feast of the purification of the Temple, is dated on the one hundred eighty eigth year of the reign of the Seleucides. But the death of Antiochus Epiphanes fell on the year one hundred forty nine, as it is related, 1 Macc. 6.16. By which account Antiochus Eupator had died thirty nine after his Fathers death, although he outlived him but two years.

It is no less against all reason to think that this Antiochus that was stoned to death was Antiochus Sidetes, dead in the one hundred seventy fourth year of the reign of the Seleucides. For the institution of the Feast of the purification of the Temple beareth not that date but some thirty five years before. And Antiochus Sidetes was not stoned to death in a Temple of Persia, and never made war in Persia. For Justin, Appian, Orosius, and(s) 1.709 Eusebius witness that he died in battell against the Parthians, being forsaken by his men. Appian addeth that being thus forsaken, he slew himself. And it would be a strange up-side-down History in the second of Maccabees, if the Au∣thor had begun his relation by Antiochus Sidetes to remount to Antiochus Epi∣phanes who came to the Kingdom about forty eight years before.

Observe also that Judas Maccabeus is one of them that writ the letter set down in the first chapter of the second of Maccabees, which is dated the one hundred eighty eighth year of the reign of the Grecians, that is some thirty six years after his death. For that this Judas that writes these letters is Judas Maccabeus it is evi∣dent, because it is he that instituted the purification of the Temple, of which he gives notice in these letters unto the Jews of Aegypt.

1 Maccab. 8. v. 6, 7, 8. it is said that the Romans had taken Antiochus the great alive, and had given to Eumenes the countreyes of India and Media. All that is false.(t) 1.710 The Romans defeated Antiochus the Great in three battels, but they never took him prisoner. They never had any thing in India, and Media was none of theirs. Their greatest Empire never went beyond Euphrates. In the time of this Antiochus the limit of the Roman Empire was Mount Taurus, which is the limit of Asia minor on the East. Indeed some passages of(x) 1.711 Latin Poets call Ethiopia India. But the absurdity should be greater yet to say, that the Romans had given to Eumenes Ethiopia, where they never possest any thing, and which was about a thousand leagues distant from the habitation of Eumenes.

For excuse they say that these things were related unto Judas, but that they were not true. That with the like untruth, Numb. 13. the spies sent to discover the land of Canaan made a false relation. And that the Evangelists relate many blas∣phemies and lies spoken against our Saviour. But all that is to no purpose; for the relation of the spies and the slanders against our Saviour are related in the Scripture as false, and are convinced of falshood. But the relation about the Romans, (1 Mac. 8.) is related as true. And the Author will have Judas Maccabeus to believe things as ridiculous, as if he had believed that Virgil was

Bishop of Islington, and had sent Embassadous to Rome about it. The most emi∣nent man among the Jews, who had the conduct of their affairs, could he have been ignorant that Media and India belonged not to the Romans? And though he had been ignorant of that, could the Author of this book be ignorant of a thing so well known unto all if he had been enlightned by the Holy Ghost?

The like stuff he gives us in the second and third verses of the same chapter, Macc. 1.8. That the Romans had conquered the Galathians, and had done great feats of arms in Galatia, and had brought the gold and silver mettals of Spain under their power. If by the Galatians he meaneth the Gaules, the Romans did not conquer them but about an hundred years after the death of Judas Macca∣beus. If by the Galatians he understands those of Asia Minor, Judas was not so ignorant but he knew that the Romans never gave any battell in Galatia. Those mettals of gold and silver in Spain are fables. The Romans never made war in Spain for that end. The Poets say that the river Tago in Spain hath golden sands, which is found now to be false. But though it were true, the Romans never got treasures that way.

But how false is that which is affirmed in the fifteenth and sixtenth verses of the same chapter, that the Romans held every day a Councell of three hundred and twenty persons, and that they committed their Government to one man eve∣ry year? for little children know that they created two Consuls, equall in sove∣raign power, every year; and that they had certain dayes which they called nefastos, upon which there was a cessation of all businesses.(y) 1.712 As for the num∣ber of the Senators, Romulus established a hundred, Tarquinius Priscus in∣creased the number of them to three hundred, and that number was yet in the time of the Gracchi which were posterior in time to Judas Maccabeus.

In the same place, ver. 14. it is observed, that none of the Romans was clad in pur∣ple to be magnified thereby. This Author knew not that the Roman Senators wore Gowns embroydered with broad flowers of purple, which they called latus clavus. And that the Knights wore small purple flowers on their Gowns, called augustus clavus. The robe of the Antient Roman Kings, and that of the Augurs called trabea, and the triumphal habit which they called toga palmata, were of purple. And the Soveraign Priests(z) 1.713 of Rome were clad in Purple. Which the Roman Em∣perors have imitated when they have taken the title of Pontifices. Whence is de∣rived the purple robe which the Roman Popes wear now.

1 Macc. 12. An excellent observation is found in this chapter. An Epistle of Arius King of Sparta to Onias High Priest of the Jews, whereby the Lacedemo∣nians say themselves to be of the stock of Abraham; as right as if I said that the Low Brittans in France are of the stock of Nicodemus. Doubtless it is from thence that the Lacedemonians were circumcised and spake Hebrew. They that had so much docility as to believe that simple tale, as Eusebius, have been deceived by(a) 1.714 Josephus, who in these things is liberal of egregious lyes: so far as to(b) 1.715 make Hercules, the great knocker of monsters, son-in-law to one of the daughters of Abraham.

In the first chapter of the second of Maccabees, ver. 19. & seq. a very strange fable is related; that when the Jews were carried away captive into Persia (he would say Chaldea or Babylon) The Priests hid the fire of the Altar in a deep well: and that Nehemiah sent to Judea by the King of Persia, sent Priests to take and to bring that fire; But they found no fire in that well, but thick water; which being poured upon the wood of the Altar turned into fire, and burnt the wood. This fable is put(c) 1.716 by M. du Perron among the unwritten traditions necessary to salvation. Yet it is rejected by the universal consent of the Rabbins, who say that this fire descended from heaven, was not in the second Temple. We have the History of Nehemiah written by himself, wherein he punctually relates all that he hath done in Jerusalem for the good of the people of the Jews; but he makes no mention of that fire, nor of that thick water, nor of that burning of the wood laid upon the Altar. Before that Nehemiah was sent by King Artaxerxes,

they were sacrificing in Jerusalem, and the Altar was set up again, as it is rela∣ted, Ezra 3.2, 3. Neither was Nehemiah come to restore the sacrifices, but to build again the walls of Jerusalem, as his history shews it. What need then of that miraculous thick water to kindle a fire which was already kindled?

In the second chapter of the second book of Maccabees, ver. 4, 5. it is said that Jeremiah the Prophet commanded that the Tabernacle, and the Ark, and the Altar of incense should be brought to him, and that he hid them in the mountain of Nebo in a pit, wherein a house was, saying to them that would mark that place, that the place should be unknown untill God had gathered again the congregation of the people, and that when the Lord would shew those things, the glory of the Lord should appear, and the cloud also, as it was shewed unto Moses. He that coyned that fable was not very learned; for who knoweth not that in Jeremiah's time there was no Tabernacle, and that instead of a Tabernacle Solomon had built a Temple, about four hundred years before Jeremiah prophecied?

The absurdity and impossibility is not less in this 2 Mac. 2.4. that Jeremiah commanded the Tabernacle and the Ark to follow him, for so it is in the Greek.(d) 1.717 How could a Tabernacle, which was not, follow Jeremiah? And to whom could Jeremiah have delivered this command? To the Jews that were slain by the Chaldeans? or to those that were reserved from the slaughter to be carried away slaves in a hard bondage? And when Jerusalem had been taken and razed, and the Temple burnt, and the vessels of the Temple, and the Ark by consequent were partly carried away, partly burnt; how could Jeremiah who was a prisoner in chains command that the Ark should be brought to him to march after him? The poor Prophet relates,* 1.718 how being odious to the people of Jerusalem, and to King Zede∣kiah, he was cast into a deep pit full of myre, and being drawn from thence, he remained in the court of the prison, and was a prisoner when the Town was taken, and both City and Temple burnt. But the victorious King of the Chaldeans fetcht Jeremiah out of prison, and commited him to the keeping of Gedaliah whom he had set over the countrey, as it is related, Jer. 34.14. Yea after he was taken out of the prison, he was bound with a chain, Jer, 40.1. and in that case carried to Rama, and thence sent to Juda, where he stayed till he went into Aegypt with part of the people. In all that time, when and to whom could Jeremiah have commanded to bring him the Ark? Where was he, to be able to save Ark from the burning of the Temple? or to get it out of the hands of the Chaldeans to hide it in a hole, and in an under-ground house fifty leagues from that place? Even in time of peace, would the High Priest have suffered that a contemptible man, odious among the people, as Jeremiah, should have taken the Ark from the Temple to transport it into an unknown place! And when he was prisoner upon a charge of treason, those Priests against whom he had prophecied would no doubt have prosecuted him for stealing the Ark away and hiding it they knew not where.

We meet with the like or rather greater absurdities and difficulties when it is question of finding that Ark again after the peoples return from the captivity, to bring it again into the Temple rebuilt by Zorobabel, about seventy years after. The Author of the second book of Maccabees saith not by whom, nor when it was found and brought to the Temple again, and of that no trace is found in any history. And no more of that which is promised, 2 Mac. 2.8. that after the finding the Ark and the Tabernacle, the cloud would cover them, and the glory of the Lord would manifest it self over them, as in the dayes of Moses. Such a miraculous manifestation would not have been omitted by Josephus who hath most exactly written the history of the Jews of that time and of the follow∣ing ages, untill the last destruction of Jerusalem. So far is Rabbi Solomon Jark•• from confirming this, that he directly contradicts it in his Comment on the first chapter of Haggai, saying that in the second Temple there was no Ark. Which is confirmed by Cornelius Tacitus, who saith that Pompey having taken Jerusalem entred into the Temple,* 1.719 and having the curiosity to enter into the Sanctuary, he found vacuam sedem & inania arcana, the place empty and nothing in the

most secret place. Which should be false, if he had found there an Ark bearing two Cherubims.

Jeremiah himself contradicts the relation of the Maccabees; for (Jer. 3.16.) speaking of the happy and peaceable state which God would give to the Jews af∣ter these desolations, he saith, And it shall come to pass when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those dayes, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord; neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they remem∣ber it, neither shall they visit it; Neither shall that be done any more. Other versions say, Neither shall it be any more. For although I willingly grant that Jeremiah in that place speaks of the vocation of the Gentiles; yet it is the custom of the Prophets, by the things happening to the Jews before the coming of Christ, ro prefigurate future spiritual things. Be sure that if Titus having taken the Temple of Jerusalem had found the Ark in it, he would not have omit∣ted to cause it to be carried before him in triumph, with the other pieces of the ornaments of the Temple, the enumeration whereof is made by Josephus in the seventh book of the Judaick war; where he saith that the golden table was carried among the pomps of the triumph, and the golden candlestick, and the book of the Law; things far inferiour in magnificence to the Ark, and to the Che∣rubims made by Solomon.

(e) 1.720Bellarmin seeing such an evident truth, and finding no likelihood of truth in saying that the Ark had been found again, after the return from the captivity of Babylon, and brought again to the Temple, hath found out another shift. He saith that the Ark is not found yet, but that it will be found in the last dayes, the next unto the day of judgement; But the Jesuite Regourd is of another mind. For indeed it were hard to say what good a guilded chest would do and an Altar of incense, and a Tabernacle of skins among the general burning of the world in the day of judgement.

(f) 1.721This Jesuite then in his fourth Demonstration saith that it is more likely that the Ark was found again after the Captivity, and was in the Temple built by Zo∣robabel. And he proveth it by the second book of Maccabees: Wherein com∣mon sense faileth him; For our difference is whether that book be fabulous. As if one proved that the fables of Ovid's Metamorphosis are true, because they are in Ovid's Metamorphosis.

2 Chron. 5.9. It is written that the barrs of the Ark remain there untill this day. An evident proof, that the Author writ the book when the Ark was yet in being, and that the part of the last chapter which speaks of the taking and ruine of Jerusalem, and the Temple, and of the deliverance granted by Cyrus, was added since by another author. In the same manner as the book of Deuteronomy, being written by Moses, the last chapter where the death of Moses is described hath been added since. The same is seen in the book of Joshuah. For if from that text one would infer (as Regourd doth) that the Ark was yet in the Temple after the return from the captivity, he must say also that the Temple hath not been ruined by the Chaldeans, and that the Ark did not stir from it.

In the fourteenth chapter of the second of the Maccabees, v. 41. & 42. Razias is praised for killing himself. He being ready to be taken on every side fell upon his sword; Choosing rather to dye manfully then to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused otherwise then beseemed his noble birth; Can one more ex∣presly commend self-murther? Is that dying vertuously? Was it vertuously done of that man to regard more the nobility of his race then Gods commandment? That which follows is no better, that he cast himself headlong from a high place, and tore his bowels with his own hands.

One hath need to be of an easie belief to believe that which is related, 2 Mac. 8.20. that eight thousand Jews gave battell to the Galatians in Baby∣lon, where they killed six score thousand Galatians. Such battells are not given in a Town. Josephus or some other Author would have spoken of it. The whole countrey of Galatia together, which is a very little countrey, cannot afford so many souldiers. And much more impossible it is, that there should be so many

Galatian soulders in Babylon, which is about five hundred leagues from Galatia. This is no less absurd then if one said that six score thousand English Souldiers in Constantinople were killed in a battell given within the Town, by eight thou∣sand Spaniards. This could not be done unless the Galatians had taken Babylon before, which they never did.

* 1.722In the end of the book this Author acknowledgeth his weakness, as he may well; and with just reason doubteth whether he hath well said. If (saith he) I have done well, and as it is fitting the story, it is that which I desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. The Spirit of God doubteth not whether he hath well said, excuseth not his style, and alledgeth not his want of power for excuse. In the vulgar version, the only approved by the Councel of Trent, the Author craveth pardon for his faults.(g) 1.723 If (saith he) I have not said as worthily as I ought, I must be pardoned. I ask then if it be convenient to the Spirit of God, who hath inspired his Prophets to write, to doubt whether he hath spoken as he ought to do, and to crave pardon of men. And as for the lowness of the style, the Spirit of God doth not trouble himself to seek an eloquent style. His end is not to tickle the ears, but to instruct the consciences. God knoweth what style is fit for his word, and simplicity is more powerfull and effectuall for his end.

M. du Perron answereth that St. Paul excuseth himself in terms more express of the style of his Epistles, when he saith 2 Cor. 11.6. Though I be ignorant in word, yet I am not so in knowledge: (for so the Cardinal translates it) Wherein he commits three notable faults.

The first, that he makes St. Paul to excuse himself for his ignorance, where∣as he rather commends his learning, saying If I be rude in speech, (or, If I speak like one of the vulgar) yet I am not rude in knowledge. He doubts not whe∣ther he hath said well; He saith not, If I have not said as I ought. He craveth no pardon.

The second fault of the Cardinal, is that he thinks that St. Paul in that text speaks of the style of his Epistles, whereas he means his ordinary speech when he taught by word of mouth.* 1.724 For as for his Epistles, they were so far from needing an excuse of their rudeness and simplicity, that the Corinthians upbraid∣ed him, (2 Cor. 10.10.) that his letters were weighty and powerfull, but his bo∣dily presence was weak and his speech contemptible.

The third fault is that he falsifieth the text of Paul, translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ignorant, whereas it signifies in this place rude and simple, like one of the common people. For although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie sometimes ignorant, yet it cannot be so taken in this place. For learning and ignorance consist not in words, but in things, in which St. Paul in the same place, affirmeth himself to be learned, saying, If I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.

M. du Perron seeing himself besieged about with so many difficulties, and per∣ceiving so many absurdities and untruths in the books of Maccabees, thought it his best course to leave all and abandon that cause, going over all those rubs with silence. But to scape, he striveth to find the like absurdities in the Canonical books; as that Elijah, eight years after he was transported to heaven, writ to Joram. That Joram begot Ozias, saith Mathew, who puts only fourteen gene∣rations where there are seventeen. And that Luke dissents from Josephus. Of which pretended absurdities, and the way to resolve these objections I have spoken above, chap. 59.

The Reader may judge by what spirit this Cardinal was led, and what account he made of the holy Scripture, since he makes use of the testimony of Josephus to shake the certainty of the words of the Evangelist St. Luke. Though there were a discord between the history of the Gospel, and that of Josephus, a Jew and no Christian, can there be any difficulty in resolving which of the two must rather be believed? Can that doubt fall into a Christian soul that belie∣veth the Gopsell?

We must not omit that the Cardinal, while he labours to shew himself an

Hebrician, shews his ignorance, saying that Onias in Hebrew signifies the strength of the people, whereas it signifieth God is my strength; and putting Onias and Onian for two names signifying the same thing, whereas Onian signifies nothing. True it is that Oniam which comes neer Onian, signifieth the people is my strength, but that name is not used among the Hebrews.

CHAP. 62. That the Cardinal attributes weak objections to us, and defends that which we do not impugne.

M. Du Perron not daring to meddle with such strong objections, puts straws in our hands instead of swords, and ascribes to us reasons which we do not use, or if we use them it is another way, and answereth objections which we never made.

He makes us say that the book of Maccabees is not an original history, but a summary. That the primitive Author was called Jason which is a profane name; And that he was a Cyrenian not a Jew. But we do not reason thus. We know that a holy man may have a name taken from the Pagans, as Apollo, Philippus, and the like. If the Etymology of the name of Jason is Greek, it signifies Physick or remedy, where there is nothing that is prophane. But if the origine be Hebrew, it is a name corrupted from the name Jesus, according to the custom of the Hebrews of that time to give to their Hebrew names a Greek or Latin inflection, turning Phinees into Phoenix, Saul into Paul, and Jesus into Jason. We know also that Cyrene was full of Jews, and that the same man might be a Jew and a Cyrenian. And such was that Simon that bore the cross of the Lord, Mark 15.21.

This is then our true Objection. The Author of the Maccabees saith that his book is an abridgement of the five books of Jason the Cyrenian. That book of Jason being not a sacred book, how can the summary of a profane book be sacted and Canonical? This is as unreasonable as if n epitome of Titus Livius or Cornelius Tacitus were made a Canonical book.

He makes us say also that the Author of the second book of the Maccabees excuseth the rudeness of his style. But we do not say that only, but we say that this Authour doubts whether he hath said well, and craves pardon, say∣ing that he could do no better. Which are things unbeseeming an Author speak∣ing by the inspiration of the Spirit of God.

CHAP. 63. That we reject not the Apocrypha because they are contrary to us; And that they are rather favourable to us.

SOme persons little versed in our Controvesies and in the reading of the Apo∣crypha, might think that we reject all these books because they are contrary to us. The following texts will shew the contrary.

In these books the Purgatory and the Limbus of the Fathers are clearly con∣demed. Wisdom 3.1. the Author speaks thus, The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. They are not then tormented in a fire.

Tobit 3.6. Tobit sore afflicted, and wishing for death, prayeth thus to God,

Command that I may be delivered out of this distress, and go to the everlasting place. Then he did not believe the Limbus of the Fathers; for our Adversaries do not hold it to be an everlasting place. No more did he believe Purgatory; for none is so sensless as to beseech God that he may be tormented in a fire. Neither can Purgatory be called an everlasting place: for our Adversaries hold that the souls come out of it after the purgation is ended, and that Purgatory shall be no more after the day of judgement.

In the Apocrypha supplement of Esther, chap. 13, ver. 13, 14. to kiss a mans feet is accounted idolatry: for Mardocheus gives this reason why he would not kiss a mans feet. I would have been content with good will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did this that I might not prefer the glo∣ry of man above the glory of God; Neither will I worship any but thee O God. Yet neither this, nor the example of Jesus Christ who gave not his feet to kiss though he was God, could hinder the Pope from giving his to kiss, not only to persons of low condition, but even to Kings and Emperours. And he causeth himself to be worshipped with a religious worship.

In the book of Baruc, chap. 6. the honours and services which the Pagans yielded to the images of their false Gods, are amply described, which are the same as the people of the Roman Church yield to the images of the Saints. In ver. 11. the Author saith that the Pagan Priests will deck with garments their Gods of gold, and silver, and wood. The same is done to the images of the Saints. That they wipe their faces because of the dust, ver. 13. The like is done to the images of the Saints. That some of those images hold a dagger, some an axe, ver. 15. Thus also the images of the Saints are armed. St. Paul with a sword, St. George with a launce, St Peter with a key like Janus, and St. Christopher with a club like Hercules. That to these images they light candles, though they can∣not see, ver. 19. The same is done to the images of the Saints. That these idols are carried upon mens shoulders; That being fallen they cannot rise again. That offerings are made unto them as to the dead. That their Priests gather those of∣ferings and make profit of them. That they sing before those images, ver. 25, & seq. What is there in all these, that is not done to the images of the Saints which the Roman Church worshippeth? Who seeth not that Popery imitates Paganism, and that the one is copied out upon the other?

2 Macc. 15.12. it is related that Judas Maccabeus saw in a dream Onias the Priest, and Jeremiah the Prophet, dead long before, praying and interceding for the people of the Jews, and watching for their defence. Of Jeremiah particu∣larly it is said that he was of a wonderfull and excellent Majesty, and that he gave to Judas a sword to fight for the people of the Jews. Nevertheless for all this neither Judas nor any of the people called upon Jeremiah or Onias. An evident proof (if that history be not fabulous) that the Jews of that time believed that the Saints in heaven intercede for men living on earth, but yet that they must not be invocated. For if one prayeth for me, it follows not that I must pray to him or defer to him a religious service. Note also, that if the relation be true, Jeremiah and Onias were not in an underground prison, which they call the Limbus of the Fathers.

In the 12^th chapter of the same book, v. 43, 44. Judas Maccabeus makes offerings and sacrifices for the dead that had defiled themselves with idolatry; and the rea∣son is added why he prayed for the dead, that he was mindfull of the resurrecti∣on. For (saith the Author) if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. Thereby it appears that Judas prayed for those dead men that they should rise unto salvation, and besought God that though they were dead polluted with Idolatry, and (as our Adversaries speak) dead in mortal sin, that God would nevertheless save them in the day of resurrection. It is then (by this Authors judgement) a vain and superfluous thing to pray, not for the resurrection, but to deliver souls out of Purgatory, as the Roman Church doth. Which also approveth not the action of Judas Maccabeus to have made prayers, and offerings for persons dead in motral sin.

In ver. 14. of the sixteenth chapter of Ecclesiasticus, there is in the Greek, which is the Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Every one shall find accord∣ing to his works. Which text being not favourable to the doctrine of merits, be∣cause it is one thing to find according to his works, another thing to find according to the merit of his works, the Bible of the Roman Church doth corrupt it with an horrible falsification; for instead of according to his works, it saith, according to the merit of his works.

So I make no doubt but that the most clear-sighted among our Adversaries with these books abolisht; And that the Council of Trent by the same authority whereby they cut off the third and the fourth book of Ezra from the Canon of the Bible, could willingly have done the same to Tobit, Judith, and the other Apo∣crypha's.

We do not then reject these books out of fear that our Adversaries use them against us, but because we are obliged to maintain the authority and purity of holy Scripture, which is lost (as far as in us lieth) when it is mingled with fables, and impious or absurd doctrines, of which these books are full. That shaketh the faith of the weak; and gives occasion of triumph and insultation to the enemies of the Christian name; for they reproach us that we receive fables for the word of God.

CHAP. 64. Belief of the Ancient Greek Church about the Canonical Books.

LEt us hear the Verdict of the Ancients upon this matter, beginning at the Greek and Eastern Church, as more ancient then the Latine and Western.

The Council of Laodicea more ancient then that of Nice,(a) 1.725 Can. 58. speaks thus, We must not say in the Church particular Psalms, nor Books not Canonical, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament. Then they add a list of the Canonical Books, where they put not Tobit, nor Judith, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Susanna, nor the History of Bel and the Dragon, nor the Mac∣cabees.

It will not serve to answer, that this was a particular Council, and that it con∣sisted only of two and thirty Bishops, since several Universal Councils have ap∣proved it, especially the Councel of Trull, Can. 2. in these words,(b) 1.726 We rati∣fie the Canons of Laodicea, of Phrygia. Wherefore the Ancient Church and all that have laboured about that Code, as Balsamon, Zonaras, Harmenopulus, have inserted it in that Council of Trull.

(c) 1.727The Jesuite Regourd answereth, that the decisions of the Church are not made all at one time. For he confesseth that at that time, that is, above three hundred years after the birth of Christ, those Books were not yet received as Canonical. And he saith, that they were received soon after. How much he is mistaken in that, we shall shew hereafter. In the mean while the Reader is desired to remem∣ber this Confession, that the Apostles, and the Church of their times did not ac∣knowledge those Books for Canonical. Will these men be wiser then the A∣postles?

Melito Bishop of Sardis, that lived near the time of the Apostles, as Eusebius relates it, in the first Book of his History, chap. 26. in an Epistle to Onesimus makes the enumeration of the Canonical Books, but makes no mention of Tobit, nor of Judith, nor of Wisdom, nor of Ecclesiasticus, nor of Maccabees. Being (saith he) returned into the East, and having stayed in the place where these things have been preached and done; I have diligently set in order the Books of the Old Testament, and have sent them to thee; Of which these are the names; Five Books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus son of Nave, the Judges, Ruth, four Books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the Psalms of Da∣vid, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Job: the

Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; A Book of twelve Prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. He follows altogether the Canon of the Hebrews, but that he inserteth in it the Book of Wisdom. Whereupon Baronius, An. 172. Sect. 5. speaks thus(d) 1.728 Meli∣to tells only the books that are in the Canon of the Hebrews. And Bellarmine in the 1. Book of the Word of God, chap. 20. saith.(e) 1.729 Many Ancients, as Melito, E∣piphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, expounding the Canon of the Old Te∣stament, have altogether followed the Canon of the Hebrews, that is, they have re∣jected the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, &c. It would be very strange if the Fa∣thers had left the Canon of the Christians to adhere unto that of the Jews. For why should they follow the Canon of the Jews, that is, that which is found in the Hebrew Bible which is the Original, but that they believed that there was none other? We have seen above, how Hierom, the most learned of all the Fathers, in his Preface upon Daniel, saith that the Fables of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon have not the authority of Holy Scriptures, because they are not in the Hebrew; wherefore he saith, that he hath given them the black mark of a spear [obelo praenotavimus] as it were to cut their throat. And more clearly yet in his Preface upon Ezra and Nehemiah.(f) 1.730 We must cast away very far, all that is not received among the Hebrews, and which is none of the four and twenty Elders. He makes an allusion to the four and twenty Elders mentioned, Rev. 4. according to which number some of them reckoned the Books of the Old Testament, as he saith himself in his Prologus galeatus, and in his Preface upon the Book of Kings.(g) 1.731 The Church acknowledgeth not the Apocrypha; we must then return to the He∣brew after which also Jesus speaketh. This Father holds all to be Apocrypha which is not found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

Origen upon the first Psalm, according to the Testimony of Eusebius in the sixth Book of his History, chap. 24. speaks thus, We must not be ignorant, that there are (as the Hebrews teach) two and twenty Books of the Old Testament, which among them is the number of their Letters. Then he makes an enumeration of those two and twenty Books conformable unto the Hebrew Bible, which is the O∣riginal Text; And to give a particular brand to the Maccabees, he saith(h) 1.732 With∣out are the Maccabees.

Eusebius in his Chronicle translated by Hierom upon the 116. Olympiad.(i) 1.733 The History of the Maccabees doth from hence reckon the reign of the Grecians, but these Books are not received among the Divine Scriptures. And in the first Book of the same Chronicles, being come to the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, and having re∣lated their History, he addeth,(k) 1.734 As far as Ezra and Nehemiah the Hebrew Scri∣ptures have been delivered by the blessed Apostles, the Disciples of the Lord Jesus, to be preached. But that which is happened and done to the Jews since, untill the In∣carnation of the Lord, Josephus relates it in his Writings of the Maccabees, and Africanus after him. He acknowledgeth that such Writings as are posteriour to Ezra, were not given to the Church by the Apostles, and that the Church did not receive them to preach them, and that they are grounded only upon the testimony of Josephus, whom he holds to be the Author of the Maccabees.

(l) 1.735The Jesuite Regourd answereth according to his custom, that if Eusebius had known the determination of the third Council of Carthage, he would have altered his language, that is, he wanted so much to be well instructed in that mat∣ter. But how could Eusebius know the determination of the third Council of Carthage which sate many years after his death? That Jesuite hath little knowledge of History.

Among the works of Athanasius, there is a Book entituled Synopsis, which M. du Perron holds to be none of the works of Athanasius. Both(m) 1.736 Bellar∣mine, and Baronius on the year 342. §. 41. receive it as genuine and true. In that book there is an enumeration of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, and the Author saith that they are two and twenty in number according to the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. Then he addeth,(n) 1.737 Besides these, there are

others also of the Old Testament, not Canonical, which are read only to the Cate∣chumeni; the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, &c. Perhaps by Esther he means the rest of Esther. Of the Mac∣cabees particularly he saith, Among these books [not Canonical] are reckoned the four Ptolemaical books of the Maccabees.

Whether that book be of Athanasius, or of some other Author, we care not, since we have an Epistle of Athanasius where that holy mans opinion is set down in express terms. All the books of the Old Testament (saith he) are two and twenty in number. Then he addeth.(o) 1.738 Besides these books there are others also which are not put in the Canon, but are propounded by the Fathers to be read by the new comers, and such as will instruct themselves in the word of piety; namely, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, &c. As for the Mac∣cabees he doth not so much as name them among the Apocrypha.

The Jesuite Regourd flieth to his ordinary shift, saying in his fourth Demon∣stration, p. 347. that then the Church had determined nothing about that mat∣ter. By speaking so he confesseth that the Apostles did not hold the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees for Canonical, and that they have determined nothing about it, which is as much as saying that the Roman Church of this time is better instructed then the Apostles. So much the Jesuite Stapleton intimateth,(p) 1.739 In the time of the Apostles (saith he) Tobit, Judith, and other books of the Old Testáment were not confirmed, having been received into the Canon by the posteriour Councils. God forbid that we should presume to be more clear-sighted then the Apostles.

Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem in his 4. Catechesis in the chapter of holy Scriptures, makes a list of the books of the Old Testament; and saith that they are but twenty two. All the others, (saith he, speaking of the Apocrypha) are cast out, and are of a second rank. In that Catalogue he puts neither Tobit, nor Judith, nor Ecclesi∣asticus, nor Wisdom, nor Susanna, nor the Maccabees. He wholly follows the Canon of the Hebrews, and declares why he doth so.

Read (saith he) these two and twenty books, and have nothing common with the Apocrypha. Again, Meditate carefully those only, whom also we read in the Church safely(q) 1.740. The Apostles and the antient Bishops, leaders of the Church, who have taught them, were far wiser then thou. Cyrillus then hath followed the Canon of the Hebrews to obey the command of the Apostles.

Gregory Nazianzen, called by excellency the Divine, hath made verses pur∣posely of that matter, which begin thus,(r) 1.741

As many books to th' Old Covenant belong As there are letters in the Holy tongue.

Then he makes an enumeration of those two and twenty books, without Tobit, Judith, Bel, Susanna, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees. It is too much peremptori∣ness to affirm without proof, as M. du Perron doth, that these verses are none of Gregories, seeing that they relish the vein of his other verses, and are inserted among them.(s) 1.742 Bellarmin receiveth them without difficulty.

Other verses we have of the same time in Iambick meeters, made by Amphi∣lochius Bishop of Iconium, which are found among those of Gregory, and are set down by Balsamon. In those verses he makes a Catalogue of the divine books, among which neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Wisdom, nor the Maccabees are found.

Epiphanius Bishop of Salamin in Cyprus, who is almost their contemporary, saith the same, in the book of weights and measures: where after he hath restrained the Canonical books to the number of twenty two, he addeth: For the two books written in rows of sentences, namely, that which is called the Pana∣retus of Solomon, and that of Jesus son of Sirach, are indeed usefull and profita∣ble, but(t) 1.743 are not put in the number of the Oracles. Wherefore also they were not put in the Ark of the Covenant. The same he saith in the heresie of the Epi∣cureans, which is the VIII; and in that of the Anomoeans or Aetians, which is

the 76. It is true that there he makes a Catalogue of the divine Scriptures, among which he puts Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, but he sets them after the Revelation, removing them from the Old Testament, which he would not have done, had he not found some difficulty in receiving them. As also in the heresie of the Epi∣picureans he saith that there is doubt made of those books. Howsoever he omits all the other books that are in question, the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, &c. They that say that Epiphanius followed the Canon of the Jews, say true; for he acknowledged no other. And they that speak so, ought to produce some other place of Epiphanius where he speaks of two sorts of Canons, and distinguisheth the Canon of the Jews from that of the Christians.

To these I add Chrysostome in the fourth Homily upon Genesis, speaking of the books of the Old Testament.(u) 1.744 All the divine Scriptures (saith he) of the Old Testament were first written in Hebrew. How comes it to pass then that the books contended about, as Judith, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees, are not found in the Hebrew, if they be divine Scriptures?

Damascenus,(x) 1.745 though much posteriour in time, must not be omitted, because our Adversaries value him much as a great Patron of the adoration of images. In the fourth book of the orthodox faith, chap. 18. he saith that there are two and twenty books in the Old Testament according to the number of the Hebrew letters. Then he makes a whole Catalogue of those books wherein he puts neither Tobit, nor Judith; nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus. Of these two last he speaks thus; The Panaret, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus(y) 1.746 are books full of vertue, and good; but they are not put in this number, and were not put in the Ark. An errour which he borrowed from Epiphanius, to be∣lieve that the sacred books were inclosed in the Ark. See 1 Kings 8.9. 2 Chron. 5.10.

CHAP. LXV. Belief of the Fathers of the Latine or Western Church about the Canoni∣cal books. And that the Cardinal doth not truly represent it.

CArdinal du Perron being cast by the judgement of the Greek Church, hath recourse to the Western Church, saying that there was never any Latine Au∣thor that had taken the licence of overthrowing the authority of the book of Mac∣cabees, before St. Hierom, and Ruffinus after him. The same he saith of the other books that are in question. If he saith true, and if the Greek Church in such an important point did differ from the Roman, it sheweth that the Greek Church was not subject unto the Roman.

The Reader may also observe the Cardinals subtilty, to have recourse to the Latin Church against the Greek, in a matter of which he knows that few Latin Fathers have written. Yet let us see what their sense was.

Hierom in his Preface upon the Proverbs of Solomon speaks thus.(a) 1.747 As the Church reads indeed the books of Judith, of Tobit, and of the Maccabees, but re∣ceiveth them not among the Canonical Scriptures: So let her read these two volumes for the edification of the Church, not to confirm the authority of the doctrines of the Church. Note that he sets forth the belief of the Church of his time as well as his own. In the same place he saith that the inscription of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon is false. And in his Prologus Galeatus,(b) 1.748 The book of Wis∣dom and that of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Pastor are not Canonical.

Ruffinus in the Exposition of the Symbole speaks thus,(c) 1.749 It must be known

that there are other books which the Antients have not called Canonical but Ec∣clesiastical, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and the other Wisdom, which is said to be of Jesus son of Sirach. Of the same rank are the book of Tobit, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. And in the New Testament the book that is called Pasto∣ral or Hermes, the Judgement of Peter. All which they would have to be read in the Church, but not to be alledged to confirm the authority of the faith. He speaks as of a thing established by the Antients, herein contradicting our Cardinal, who will perswade us that Hierom and Ruffin are the first that have spoken so.

In vain should one object here that Ruffinus is accused of heresie by Hierom, who calls him a Scorpion; for there was a mortall hatred between Hierom and Ruffinus, and they have written grievous invectives the one against the other. Yet suppose that he was an heretick. It is enough that in this point he is with Hierom, and that none of the enemies of Ruffinus did ever taxe him for putting Tobias, Judith, and the Maccabees out of the rank of the Canonical books. That which grieveth most our Adversaries, is, that Ruffinus puts the Maccabees and Judith in the same row as the book called Pastor, which is a fabulous and ridi∣culous book.

Our adversaries give us eight books of Apostolical Constitutions, which they say to be of Clement Bishop of Rome, the next successor to St. Peter: There in(d) 1.750 the second book, chap. 61. there is a Catalogue of Canonical books, where neither Tobit, nor Judith, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Wisdom, nor the Maccabees are found.

Tertullian is a hundred and fourscore years more antient then Hierom. He saith in the fourth book of his verses against Marcion, in the seventh chapter, that(e) 1.751 by the twenty four wings of the animals mentioned in the Revelation the twen∣ty four antient volumes are designed. Others reckon but twenty two: for Hie∣rom in his above mentioned Prologue saith that some did reckon four and twen∣ty books of the Old Testament, because they reckoned separately the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the History of Ruth; saying that they represent the twenty four wings of the animals. It is clear that Tertullian did not acknowledge the books of the Maccabees for Canonical Scriptures, since in the third chapter of his book de corona militis, he puts prayers and offerings for the dead among the unwritten Traditions. For in the twelfth chapter of the second of the Maccabees there is an example of it.

Hilary Bishop of Poitiers writ some fifty or sixty years before Hierom. In his Prologue of the Psalms he saith, The Law of the Old Testament is reduced to two and twenty books, that they may fit the number of the Hebrew letters. Then he makes the Catalogue of those books where he puts none of those that are que∣stioned between us and our Adversaries, and saith that this doctrine(f) 1.752 comes from the Tradition of the Antients. Here Regourd doth contradict himself, choler having disjointed his memory.(g) 1.753 He saith that Hilary receiving Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, comprehends under Daniel the hymn of the three children, Su∣sanna, and the history of Bel; and under Esther the six last chapters; forgetting that he had said in the page before that Hilary makes the Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament according to the Canon of the Jews, who never received the book of Susanna, nor the history of Bel, as also they never received more of the book of Esther then is in the Hebrew.

Philastrius Bishop of Brixia in Italy writ a little before Hierom about the year 380. In his book of heresies, in the chapter of the Apocrypha he saith that it was commanded by the Apostles that nothing should be read in the Church but the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospels, &c. comprehending all the Old Testa∣ment under the Law and the Prophets. Now it was never heard that Judith, or Susanna or the Maccabees should be either the Law or the Prophets.

Austin is express to this purpose in his second book against Gaudentius, ch. 23. where he puts the Maccabees out of the rank of the Law and the Prophets, saying,(h) 1.754 The Jews receive not that Scripture which is called the Maccabees as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms to which the Lord beareth testimony. Austin

saith plainly that God beareth no testimony to the book of Maccabees as he beareth unto the Law and the Prophets. Then the Maccabees belong neither to the Law nor to the Prophets.

But the words of Philastrius are the most remarkable of all in the ninth chapter, where he speaks of the hereticks Hermiotites and Prodianites. Among whose he∣resies he puts this,(i) 1.755 That they use the book of Wisdom of that Sirach who long after Solomon writ a book of Wisdom.

It was then a great neglience or oversight in the Cardinal to affirm that before Hierom none of the Latin or Occidental Church hath rejected the book of the Maccabees.

The Churches of Gaules, a little after Hieromes time, are witnesses on our side. For in the seventh volume of the works of Austin, there is an Epistle of Hilary Bishop of Arles to Austin; wherein Hilary saith that in Gaules they did not approve that he had used a text of Wisdom, because the book is not Canonical.(k) 1.756 They define (saith he) that this text must be omit∣ted, because it is not canonical. Now although those Gaules dissented from Austin in the point of predestination, saying that God hath nor predesti∣nated unto salvation those whom he foresaw that they should believe in Je∣sus Christ. Austin on the contrary maintaining that God hath predestinated unto salvation those unto whom he will give faith and repentance, and that the use of grace depends not from the free will of man, but from the absolute Electi∣on of God; yet those Gaules were accounted faithfull Christians in their countrey, and are called by Prosper in the precedent Epistle, servants of Christ. Chrysostome hath spoken far harder then they in that matter, and is not therefore called an heretick. These Gaules rejecting the book of Wisdom, followed the belief of the Gallican Church. Wherefore also Hilary doth not reprove them. And Austin speaks often as they do, as we shall see hereafter; although in the book of the pre∣destination of Saints, disputing against these Gaules, he indeavoureth to exalt that book of Wisdom, being grieved that he had been reproved.

I cannot but bring here a text of Gregory the I. although he lived towards the end of the sixth age; That Gregory, of all the Bishops of Rome the most esteem∣ed, in the nineteenth of his Morals, chap. 17. before he alledged a text of the Maccabees, made a preface of excuses for using a text that was not Canonical.(l) 1.757 Of which thing (saith he) we do not treat without order and reason, if we bring a testimony from books that are not Canonical, but have been publisht for the edification of the Church. Then he adds the text of the Maccabees, where Eleazar put himself to death, going under an Elephant, to destroy those that rid upon him. Upon which place Ambrosius Catharinus, a man of great learning and reputation among our Adversaries, speaks in this manner,(m) 1.758 St. Gregory moved (as I think) by the authority of St. Hierom, seems to grant that these books are not Canonical.

Cardinal du Perron bends here all his wit to avoid that blow. He saith that Gregory was yet but a Deacon when he writ that book. But if herein he spake amiss, why did he not correct that fault when he was made a Bishop? Why would he suffer that to remain among his works?

He saith(n) 1.759 also that the first draught of that Comment was made in the East, intimating that he perfected it, and writ it fair when he was returned to Rome. But what is that to the purpose? Was Gregory an hypocrite, writing among the Grecians against the sense of the Roman Church?(o) 1.760 And if he writ there but the rough draught of the book, it is like that the Grecians did not see it.

But acknowledging that these two answers have but little colour, he finds out a third shift, which overthrows the two former. He saith that Gregories words must be expounded, as supposing, not granting; as if he said; Suppose that the books were not Canonical, yet they have been written for the edification of the Church. There is in the Latin, Si ex libris licet non Canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae editis testimonium proferamus. One would think that the Cardinal had more skill in the Latin tongue, then to translate licet non

Canonicis, suppose that they were not Canonical: for licet signifieth although, not suppose. Besides the Cardinal adds the word were, which is not in the Latin. Then by that exposition he overthrows the sense of Gregory: For if Gregory declareth by these words that he holds the books of Maccabees to be Canonical (as the Cardinal will have it) to what purpose should he make excuses for al∣ledging them?

Here(p) 1.761 Regourd rejecteth the Cardinals opinion, and finds another solution which is no better. He saith that Gregory understands that the Maccabees are not Canonical according to the Canon of the Jews, although they be Canonical according to the Canon of the Christian Church.

But that is speaking against conscience; for why should Gregory forsake the Canon of the Christians to comply with the Canon of the Jews? Would he have made excuses before he alledged a text of the Maccabees, if the Christians re∣ceived that book for Canonical? Would he excuse himself to the Christians for believing as they do? Or would he excuse himself to the Jews whom he did not fear? Doth he make any mention of the Jews or of their Canon? Nay, doth he not directly say that the Maccabees are not Canonical? Who seeth not that he makes excuses to the Christians for using a book which they approved not? As indeed to mitigate them, he addeth, that although the book be not Canonical, yet it was written for the edification of the Church: which may be said of many books which are not Canonical.

The book of the wonders of Scripture which is found in the third Tome of St. Austin in the second book, chap. 33. speaks thus,(q) 1.762 That which is related the second time of the [Lions] den, and of the transportation of Habacuk, in the fable of Bel and the dragon, is not put in this rank, because it is not held to have the authority of divine Scripture.

CHAP. 66. Confutation of the Cardinals shifts.

ALL that the Cardinal opposeth to all that was said before,* 1.763 is so weak that it may be thrown down with blowing upon it.

He saith that Cyprian calls the Maccabees divine Scriptures. That Ambrose alledging the Maccabees crieth out, Moses saith as it is written in the book of the Maccabees. That Lucifer Bishop of Sardinia calls the Maccabees the holy Scripture. But none of these calls the Maccabees Canonical. He saith also that the Fathers often alledge these books saying, It is written. But who knows not that the same Fathers often alledge books as sacred which never were held Canonical? Irenaeus in the fourth book chap. 37. alledging the book of Pastor, otherwise called Hermes, saith, Bene pronuntiavit Scriptura, Scripture hath well pronounced. Clemens Alexandrinus 1. Stromaton, towards the end of the book, alledging the same book, brings forth a place of the same, which he saith to be divinely revealed. The like is found in Athanasius in the book of the Incar∣nation of the Word. Among the Popes Decretals, the first of Pope Pius the first speaks thus,(a) 1.764 In that time Hermes a Doctor of the faith and of the Scrip∣tures did shine among us. And upon that he relates the fable of an Angel ap∣pearing to Hermes in a Shepherds habit. Yet he calls that Scripture. Pope Ge∣lasius(b) 1.765 puts that book of Hermes among the Apocrypha.(c) 1.766 The Fathers of Nice in full Council alledging the book of the Assumption of Moses, say, We shall propound that which is in Scripture. Ambrose in his book of the good of death, chap. 10. alledgeth the third book of Ezra; and so doth Austin in the sixth chapter of the fourth book to Bonifacius. Yet the Roman Church puts that book among the Apocrypha.

Then he saith that Hierom hath also doubted of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But though it were so (for we could prove the contrary) what doth that to invalid that which he saith that the Church did not receive Tobit, Judith, the Maccabees, &c. among the Canonical books? Our dispute is only of the books of the Old Testament.

* 1.767He adds that Hierom hath been induced to do this, by the Jews among whom he dwelt, which is a conjecture without proof, and a crime of disloyalty and prevarication against the Christian Church, charged upon St. Hierom. Yea he goeth so far as to say that Hierom had given money to the Jews to be helped by them in the Edition of his Bible.* 1.768 Whence he will infer that Hierom endeavou∣red to please the Jews, sworn enemies to Christ, because he had need of their help in his labour.

* 1.769He saith also that Hierom being since more exactly instructed of the true sense of the Church, changed his opinion, and retracted both in general and in par∣ticular what he had said in three Prologues. And thereupon he brings some places of Hierom, which he will have us rather to regard. But there is nothing so authentical in all his works, as his Prefaces presixed before the holy Scripture, where he declareth that such is the sense of the Church. Yet let us see these places.

Hierom having said in his Prefaces before Daniel, that the(d) 1.770 fables of Su∣sanna, and Bell, and the Dragon, are not in the Hebrew, and that these books have not the authority of holy Scriptures, and being reproved for it by Ruffinus, he excuseth it in his second Apology against Ruffinus, saying, that he did not speak his sense, but what the Jews said. But he doth not retract what he had said in his Prologus Galeatus, that all that is besides the two and twenty books of the Hebrew Bible must be accounted Apocrypha. Nor what he had said in the Preface before the books of Solomon, that the Church receiveth not the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees for Canonicäl.

He brings a second testimony of Hieroms Preface upon Tobit, That the Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit from the divine Scriptures. But I see not in that any retractation. There is none of us but may say as much.

The Cardinal adds a third place maliciously clipt and corrupted. He alledgeth these words out of the same Preface, The jealousie of the Hebrews doth accuse us, and imputes to us that against their Canon we transferr the book of Tobit to Latine ears. But I judge it better to be displeasing to the judgement of the Pharisees, and to be obedient to the commandment of Bishops. By these words so clipt, one may understand Hieroms meaning to be that by receiving the book of Tobit into the Canon, he would displease the Jews to obey the Bishops: But Hierom had said a little before that the Bishops prest him earnestly to translate the book of Tobit into Latin. Then he addeth, that the Jews were displeased at that trans∣lation, but that it was better to displease them, obeying the Bishops who had desired him to bestow his labour upon it. That those Bishops should hold that book of Tobit for Canonical, he doth not mention at all.

He brings two places more of Hierom, whereby he sets Judith among the sa∣cred books, and saith that the Council of Nice hath received it among the Holy Scriptures.

For answer I have already proved by express texts that the Fathers will often attribute the title of sacred books to books not Canonical, and such as the Roman Church holds for Apocrypha. And as for that he saith that Hierom in his Preface upon Judith saith that the Council of Nice received the book of Judith among the Canonical books, he makes Hierom say more then he doth; for he doth not directly affirm that, but only relates it upon the faith of another; thereby acknowledging that himself had read no such thing, nor found it in the Council of Nice. These are his words,(e) 1.771 Among the Hebrews the book of Judith is read among the Hagiographa, a book whose authority is judged not to be very fit to confirm the things that are in controversie. Yet being written in Chaldean, it is put among the histories. But because it is read that the Council of Nice hath counted it among the holy Scriptures, I have condescended to your request. He had read some Author that

related that this had been said in the Council. But how little credence he gives to that Author, it appeareth in that he saith that this book is held to be of small authority to decide controversies. When Hierom writ so many times that the book of Judith was not Canonical, had he not read the Council of Nice? I could produce a multitude of antient witnesses that say that the Council of Nice made but twenty Canons, whom we have entire to this day; in which there is not one word of Judith. The Reader may ponder these words of Hierom upon the first of Haggai.(f) 1.772 As it is written in Judith, yet if any will receive the book of a woman. And in the eleventh Epistle to Furia.(g) 1.773 We read in Judith (if any will receive that volume) that a widow, &c. Which is more, in the said preface upon Judith he saith that(h) 1.774 the authority of the book of Judith is judged not to be very meet for confirming the emergent doubts, &c.

Finally the Cardinal alledgeth a place of Hierom in the last chapter of the book of the Ecclesiastical writers, that saith that Scripture relateth how Alexander came out of the land of Kittim; That taken out of the beginning of the Maccabees. But Hierom saith not that the Maccabees are Canonical. Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to the Emperour Lewis speaks thus:(i) 1.775 In the Scriptures it is related that the Emperour Constantine hath said, &c. He takes the word of Scripture for writings & histories.

(k) 1.776The Jesuite Regourd is storming about that question with much impatience; But in the end, truth fetcheth that confession from him, That St. Hierom deem∣ed not that in his time the Church had as yet inserted those books in the rank of the Canonical books. But it is not credible that Hierom was deceived in that point, and that he should be ignorant what books were at that time received in the Church for Canonical. And if he was overseen in this matter, at least he ought to have given order that his Preface set in the front of the Bible, (where he de∣clareth all these books to be Apocrypha) should be corrected. The same Jesuite to make the Reader merry, saith that Hierom having omitted the book of Judith, received it since after the decision of the Council of Nice: as if Hierom had writ∣ten his first works before the Council of Nice, which sate before Hierom was born, or at least when Hierom was in his first infancy; so ignorant is that Jesuite in history. Besides, the Council of Nice made no decision upon that.

From Hierom the Cardinal passeth to Hilary, who in his Prologue upon the Psalms excludeth the Maccabees, Judith, &c. from the Catalogue of the Cano∣nical books. He upbraids Hilary that he hath taken that from Origen, and hath translated it. But it is all one, since he approveth the doctrine of Origen. He saith also that when Hilary said that herein he followed the doctrine of the An∣tients, by the Antients he understands the Jews. That shift is ridiculous, and of that there is no trace in Hilary. The Christians never speak so, and acknow∣ledge not the Jews in the time of the Maccabees for their Fathers or Elders. If Hilary hath taken that from Origen, is it not evident that Origen is one of those Elders whom he hath followed?

Finally the Cardinal shuts up his discourse with four warnings. The first is,* 1.777 that the Synopsis is not of Athanasius. To which we have already answered.

The second warning is, that many Fathers of the Greek Church make Cata∣logues of the Canonical books, in which Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus,* 1.778 Wisdom (which he calls posthumous books) are omitted; And that nevertheless there is not one of those books but was used by the Fathers in quality of a sacred book. And upon that he brings many places of Greek Fathers who alledge those books, and yet call them not sacred. All that is to no purpose; for alledging a book is not receiving it for Canonical. For then we should say that Menander, Aratus and Epimenides alledged by St. Paul are Canonical Authors. We have shew∣ed also that Fathers will alledge the book of Pastor, and the third and fourth of Ezra with the like respect, although they be Apocrypha. We have shewed al∣so that this Elogie of sacred books is taken sometimes largely, and is attributed also unto books not Canonical. And what reason or sincerity is in this, after a Father hath expresly declared that such and such books are not Canonical (of which we have brought many testimonies) to go about to overthrow that

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

affirmation by some other places where those books are only alledged, but not called Canonical?

The Cardinal hath an especial flie trick about the book of the Maccabees. For that word of Maccabees is taken three wayes;* 1.779 sometimes for the Maccabees, sometimes for Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, sometimes for the seven chil∣dren martyred by Antiochus; Josephus calls them so, and hath made an express book of them, that bears that title. M. du Perron makes use of that ambiguity to deceive. Origen in the eighth book against Celsus saith that the History of the Maccabees is attested by the testimony of two whole Nations, where by the history of the Maccabees he understands, not the books intituled the Mac∣cabees, as M. du Perron takes it, but the things happened in the time of Juda Maccabeus and his brethren. He adds that Chrysostome upon Psal. 43. saith, that David in that Psalm hath prophesied the things that were to happen in the time of the Maccabees.

And Theodoret saith the like upon Romans 8. Those places say only that God had foretold the afflictions of the Church that were to come in the time of the Maccabees, that is of Juda and his brethren, but speak not of the books of Mac∣cabees, nor of their authority.

His third warning, is that the Fathers followed according to the exigence of their purpose, sometimes the primitive supputation of the Jews which is the Canon of the Hebrews, sometimes the accessory supputation of the Chri∣stians. But he confirms this with no example, but that of Origen (whom he useth to revile as a Father of errours, and an Author of no authority) and Epiphanius; Of the testimonies of these two Authors we have spoken before, and we need not repeat them here. After all, what is following the Canon of the Hebrews, but following the truth of the Hebrew Bible, and about the number of the books of the Old Testament following the Church of the Old Te∣stament, to which the Oracles of God have been committed! How can it be that a book that was not divine nor Canonical under the Old Testament, should become such under the New Testament?

But that shift is clearly confuted by Hierom in his Preface upon Daniel, where he saith that Porphyrius, the capital enemy of Jesus Christ, to invalid the certain∣ty of the Prophecies of Daniel, objecteth that Daniel by the Greek clinches up∣on names of trees, falsely presupposeth that they spoke Greek in Babylon. To which Hierom answers,* 1.780 that the book of Susanna and the history of Bel are fables, and have not Daniel for their Author, but a certain Habacuk a Levite, and that he had cut off that book long before from the Canon, setting a black mark upon it, joining himself with the Greek Doctors, who think not themselves obliged to answer Porphyrius for those books, because they are not in the Hebrew, and have not the authority of holy Scriptures: openly declaring that the books that are not in the Hebrew, are none of the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.

By the way we will observe a notorious ignorance of the Cardinal. In the fiftieth chapter of the first book,* 1.781 he saith that the same Greek Authors speaking of the books of the Old Testament, would follow according to the exigence of their pur∣pose, sometimes the primitive supputation of the Jews and the Rabbinical tradition of the Canon of Ezra, and of the books inclosed in the Ark, &c. sometimes the accessory supputation of the Christians. His calling the enumeration of the Canonical books a supputation, is a light fault. But it is intolerable that he should call it in contempt, a Rabbinical supputation, and would make us believe that the books of the Canon of Ezra (so he calls in contempt the books of the Hebrew Bible) were inclosed in the Ark of the Covenant. For not only that Ark was no more in the time of Ezra, but even while the Ark was, and in all the time from Moses to the destruction of the Temple, it will not be found that ever the sacred books were put within the Ark. Scripture is express upon that 1 Kings 8.9. There was nothing within the Ark but the two Tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb. The same is said, 2 Chron. 5.10. That which the Apostle saith, Heb. 9.4. that in the Ark there was a pot of gold which had Manna, and the

rod of Aaron, doth not contradict this: For the Apostle speaks of the time of Moses. But in the time of Solomon that Manna and that rod were no more in the Ark, nor neer it, being (as is likely) corrupted by the length of time. The Cardinal putting the books of the Canon of Ezra in the Ark was deceived by Epiphanius, who saith so much in the book of measures and weights. How could the books of the Canon of Ezra have been put in the Ark, seeing that in Ezra's time the Ark was no more?

The Cardinal sheweth how little his skill was in Hebrew, alledging a place of Origen taken out of Eusebius in the sixth book of his history, chap. 19. where Origen saith that the Hebrews called the books of Maccabees, Sarbit Sarbaneel, that is, the Scepter of the Prince of Gods children. He that at the least occa∣sions strives to set out proofs of his great learning, ought to have redrest that wronged place, and given notice to the Reader that he must read Sar bene el, and not make of three words one, and not put bane for bene.

His fourth and last observation is,* 1.782 that of those very Fathers that make a Ca∣non or Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament where the Maccabees are past over in silence, there is not one that giveth a perfect Canon or Catalogue, and that there is alwayes some defect, even by the judgement of the Ministers of Geneva. That Melito omits the book of Hester; Cyrillus, the Revelation. The Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, the book of Esther. Nazianzen, Esther and the Revelation. That Amphilochius questions the same two books. That Jose∣phus omitteth the book of Job. All these the Cardinal brings to no pur∣pose. For as for the Revelation, it is a book of the New Testament: But the question is of the books of the Old. As for the book of Esther, I suppose that Melito or Eusebius have left it out, only out of forgetfulness; And that Atha∣nasius putting Esther among the not Canonical, by Esther meant the rest of Esther. As for Josephus he was a Jew, not a Christian; Now we have to do here only with the belief of the Antient Christians. In that the Cardinal saith that of the Fathers that follow the Canon of the Hebrews there is not one that gives a perfect Canon, and that there is alwayes some defect, his memory failed him. For in the Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which Hierom gives us, no book is omitted, nor in that of Ruffinus, nor in that of Hilary, nor in that of Cyrillus of Jerusalem, who only adds to the Canon a little Epistle of Baruch. The same I say of Epiphanius in the heresie of the Epioureans, and of Damascenus; and so in many, little or no defect will be found.

He adds that St. John relates that our Saviour was present at the Feast of the dedication in winter,* 1.783 the institution whereof is related in the only history of the Maccabees. For (saith he) the history of the winter dedication was necessary to salvation, because without it the ordinary sacrifices could not be lawfull, and by consequent it had need of the attestation of a Canonical writing. I answer, that St. John alledgeth not the Maccabees, and takes them not for witnesses. Only he saith that Christ was in the Temhle at that Feast, without either approving or disproving the institution thereof. Besides it is somewhat a hard sentence, to pronounce that without the knowledge of the institution of a Feast a man could not be saved.

With the like absurdity, to prove that the books of Maccabees are Canonical,* 1.784 he saith that the Apostle to the Hebrews saith, the Martyrs were tympanized (our English version translates it, were tortured, Heb. 11.35.* 1.785) and that he took that word of tympanizing from the second of the Maccabees. And that (saith he) not in matters known by natural light, or manners; but in matter of faith. I wonder at such an impertinent reason. For that certain Martyrs have been tympanized, is not a point of faith, but an history. If a word which St. Luke or St. John useth, is found in some Pagan Author, it followeth not that such a Pa∣gan book is Canonical, although both should relate the same history. And if any had alledged in the margent of St. Luke some Pagan author, he had not thereby declared that be holds the book for Canonical.

CHAP. 67. Of the opinion of S^t. Austin concerning the Canonical books. And of the Canon of the third Council of Carthage, upon which the Cardinal grounds himself.

SAint Austin is the only of all the Fathers that speaks of this matter with so much diversity and contrariety, that it is impossible to draw any certain∣ty from his assertions.

In the second book of the Christian Doctrine, chap. 8. he makes an enumera∣tion of the Canonical books, where it is evident that he takes the word Canonical in another sense then it is taken by the other Fathers, namely for the books which the Universal Christian Church hath received for divine and sacred, and for rules of the faith. But in that place he makes many sorts of Canonical books, some of greater, some of lesser authority, which nevertheless he calls Canonical. These are his words.(a) 1.786 The industrious seeker of Canonical Scriptures must keep this rule in matter of Canonical Scriptures; to prefer the Scriptures that are re∣ceived by all the Catholick Churches to them which some Churches receive not. But as for those that are received by all the Churches, let him make more of those which more Churches and more honourable receive, then of those that are received by Churches inferiour in number and authority. But if some Scriptures be found of which some be received by the more honourable Churches, and some be received by the greater number of Churches, although he cannot find that, yet I think that they must be held in the like authority.

Now let any man judge in what uncertainties this Father intangleth mens under∣standings; if so be that to know which are the Canonical Scriptures of great or small authority, we must number and weigh the Churches. By his account, if of fifty Churches ten receive a book for Canonical, and fourty reject it, the book shall be Canonical, but of small authority. But if twenty receive it, and thirty reject it, the authority thereof shall grow a little. And if a great and famous Church receives it, and ten little Churches reject it, there he leaves mens minds ballancing. At least he ought to define what number of Churches is requisite to make a book Canonical. No doubt but that discourse of Austin is very much displeasing to our Adversaries. For why doth he not send them in that irreso∣lution unto the Pope and to the Roman Church, which in our dayes ascribes to her self the authority of defining the Canon of Scriptures? But in those dayes they did not speak so: And the Church of Africa, to which Austin did belong, was not subject unto the Roman. That good Bishop in his reception did not receive from the Bishop of Rome his letters of investiture, and did not take an oath of allegiance to him. Besides, if those books which he saith to be of less au∣thority be received as infallible, they are of soveraign authority: but if they hold them not for infallible, they are not Canonical.

Austin having given such an uncertain rule to know the Canonical books, makes a Catalogue of them, and puts among them Tobit, Judith, and the Mac∣cabees; and no wonder, since that a book may be Canonical, it is enough in his account, that it be received by some few Churches, although the greatest num∣ber of Churches reject them. And there again he plungeth mens understandings into a greater uncertainty, for while he makes that Catalogue, he doth not speci∣fie which of them are of greater, which of lesser authority; and leaveth us to count the number, and weigh the quality of Churches.

But in other places he contradicts himself; for having said in this place that the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiastious are Canonical; in other places he saith that they are not Canonical; as in the twentieth chapter of the seventeenth book of the City of God, where he speaks thus; It is found that Solomon hath prophecied in his books; of which there are three which are received with Canonical authority,

the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But the other two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, custome hath obtained that they should be called Solomons books, because of some likeness of stile. But the most learned hold it for certain that they are none of his. Then he addeth, that the Occidental Church hath received them; Not then the Oriental. But Hierom, Ruffin, Hilary, Philastius and the Gallican Chur∣ches contradict him, as we have seen.

In the same chapter he alledgeth Ecclesiasticus, then he addeth, as correcting himself, But the things that are not written in the Canon of the Jews, are not alledg∣ed with so much authority.

It is very considerable, that in that place he doth not only put the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus out of the rank of the Canonical books, against that which he had said in the second book of the Christian doctrine, chap. 8. but also by saying that the book of Wisdom is not of Solomon, he accuseth the Author of untruth, who saith himself to be Solomon: For so he speaks to God, chap. 9. ver. 7, 8. Thou hast elected me to be King of thy people. Thou hast told me that I should build thee a Temple in thy holy mountain.

He giveth the like usage to Ecclesiasticus, which he puts among the Canonical books in the second book of the Christian doctrine, chap. 8. and yet in another place he fights against that book, and confutes the doctrine of the same. For whereas the said book chap. 46.21. affirmeth that Samuel hath prophecied after his death, and lift up his voice out of the earth, though this was done by a witch and by the power of the Devil; Austin disputes against it in the second book of questions to Simplician, in the third question; declaring it a very improper thing to put the spirits of the Saints in the power of Devil, and maintaining that it was not Samuel that spake to Saul, but the Devil in the form of Samuel;(b) 1.787 In this business (saith he) there may be a more easie intelligence, and a readier way to come out of it, which is to believe that it was not truly the spirit of Samuel that was drawn out of his rest, but rather that it was some apparition and imaginary illusion made by the Devils machinations, which the Scripture calls with the name of Sa∣muel, because they use to call images with the name of things whereof they are images. And a little after he concludeth thus, Let us rather think that such a thing was done by the malicious ministery of the witch.

The same he saith in the sixth question of Dulcitius where he approveth and con∣firmeth that which he had said in his questions to Simplician. About that, See the Canon Nec mirum, in the fifth question of the twenty sixth Cause, where the do∣ctrine of Ecclesiasticus is confuted at large: And the book of the Questions of the Old Testament in the twenty seventh question, where Austin among other things saith that(c) 1.788 Saul worshipped the Devil, thinking him to be Samuel.

It is this Fathers custome when his Adversaries object unto him some place out of the Apocrypha, to answer with weakning their authority. As in the second book against Gaudentius, chap. 23. the Donatists, Circumcellions, who would kill and cast themselves headlong, defended themselves with the example of Razias who killed himself, 2 Mac. 14. Austin answereth them,(d) 1.789 The Jews receive not that Scripture which they call Maccabees, as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord beareth testimony. Thereby declaring that the Macca∣bees are books unto which the Lord doth not bear testimony. Thus in the second book of the Retractations ch. 20. retracting that which he had said after the book of Wisdom, That(e) 1.790 Manna had a taste in the mouth according to every mans will, he saith this,(f) 1.791 I remember not that this can be proved but by the book of Wis∣dom which is not received among the Jews in a Canonical authority. If Austin had received the book of Wisdom among the Canonical books, he would not have retracted that which he had alledged out of that book. And in the book of the care which must be had of the dead, chap. 15. he alledgeth Ecclesiasticus, which saith that Samuel prophecied after his death: then he addeth(g) 1.792 This book is contradicted out of the Canon of the Hebrews, because it is not found in it. He saith not that the Hebrews contradict it, but that others contradict it by the Ca∣non of the Hebrews, shewing that Christians contradict it, because they adhere to the Canon of the Hebrews.

Wherefore in the fore-alledged place against Gaudentius, after he hath said that the book of the Maccabees is none of those to which the Lord bears testimony, he addeth, that yet it is not unprofitably received, so that it be read soberly; which is a commendation bordering upon blame, to say that the book is not altogether unprofitable, and that one hath need to read it soberly, that is, that one must not adhere too much unto it.

So much is sufficient to shew that when Austin in the second book of the Christian doctrine put Judith, Wisdom, and the Maccabees among the Canonical books, he meant those Canonical books which he saith to be of small authority. Observe also that Austin writ the books of Christian doctrine being yet young, and newly received to the Episcopal Office; as one may see by his books of Re∣tractations, where he makes a review of his books according to the order of the time in which he writ them. In the second book of his Retractations, chap. 4. he hath put his books of Christian doctrine. But in chap. 43. he speaks of his books of the City of God as made a long time after. There he puts clearly Wis∣dom and Ecclesiasticus out of the number of Canonical books, correcting what he had said in the second book of the Christian doctrine. In the same fourth chap∣ter of the second book of his Retractations, he retracteth himself for attributing the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus unto Solomon, having since that time got better information.

I find a place of Austin in the thirty sixth chapter of the eighteenth book of the City of God, of which it is hard to judge. For in the same place he saith that the books of Maccabees are neither holy nor Canonical Scriptures, and yet he saith that the Church holds them for Canonical. The supputation of these times (saith he) is not found in the holy Scriptures which they call Canonical, among which the Maccabees are not. There can be nothing more express. But the following words contradict it; which not the Jews but the Church hold for Canonical, a sentence which hath alwayes been unto me suspected of falsifica∣tion.

We must not dissemble that the Gallican Churches disliked that Austin should use in his writings testimonies of books not Canonical,(h) 1.793 as Hilary Bi∣shop of Arles testifieth in his Epistle to Austin. When all is said, of what weight is Austin authority against the consent of so many Fathers more antient then he, whom we have produced before? and against the authority of the Church of the Old Testament? and against the word of God? and against himself, seeing that he contradicts himself as I have shewed by many proofs?

It remains now to speak of the Canon of the third Council of Carthage, which is the twenty fourth Canon in the Code of the African Church. About that Canon there is a dissent between the Greek and the Latin Copies. For in the La∣tin the books of the Maccabees are put among the Canonical books, but in the Greek they are omitted, and put out of the roll of the Canonical. Whereupon(i) 1.794 M. du Perron goeth about to prove that the Latin copies are to be preferred before the Greek, calling in contempt the Code of the African Church a Rapsody, because it is gathered out of the Canons of several Councils of Africa. I could demonstrate by a multitude of proofs, that hardly shall one find a book in the whole world more swarming with falsifications and corruptions then the Latin Tomes of Councils; the first especially, where that Canon is found. Besides that(k) 1.795 M. du Perron overthrows with his own hand all that he alledgeth for the Latin Copies, acknowledging that there are vices in the Latin, which he im∣puteth to the Copists or transscribers, preferring the Greek Copies before the La∣tin, as for certain Epistles (of which we shall speak in the right place) because he holds the Greek Copies of those Epistles to be more favourable to him. But that dispute is useless, since we have those two things granted, the one that the contrariety of the Copies makes this Canon doubtfull; The other, that though we would receive that Canon such as it is found in the Latin Copies, yet the autho∣rity of a Council of Carthage held within the fifth age is not sufficient to over∣throw a Council of Laodicea more antient by two hundred years, and approved

by the Universal Councils, or to outweigh the general consent of so many Fa∣thers both Greek and Latin, which we have produced; Much less to be opposed to the word of God, and to make fables to become true histories.

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.

THE Roman Church is like a sick body labouring with complicated Symp∣tomes, whereof one cannot be eased without irritating another. In the first Tome of the Councils there is a Decretal Epistle attributed to Innocent the I. directed to Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa, in which that Pope makes a list or enu∣meration of the Canonical books, conformable unto that which is established by the Council of Trent. Our Adversaries producing that Epistle in this Cause, see not what a blow they give to the authority of the Bishop of Rome; for thereby it appeareth that the Greek and Oriental Church was not subject unto the Ro∣man, since that Church had another sense then the Roman. If such was the belief of the Roman Church, how comes it to pass that the Council of Laodicea, Origen, Melito, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyrillus of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Epiphanius, and generally all the Greek Fathers, have held those books for Apocrypha, which the Roman Church held for Canonical? Why did even the Occidental Church differ from the Sea of Rome in that important point; which we have shewed by testimonies, of Ruffinus, Hilarius, Philastrius and the Gallican Churches? Or if the belief of the Bishops of Rome that went before, that Innocent was conformable unto that of Innocent, how cometh it to pass that Hie∣rom who was Secretary to Damasus a Roman Bishop, and out-lived that Innocent, was so bold as to depart from his Masters opinion? Could that man, so eminent in learning, be ignorant of the belief of the Roman Church? Here is more. For Gregory the first Bishop of Rome who writ well nigh two hundred years af∣ter that Innocent, is of contrary opinion, and holds that the Maccabees are not Canonical. And Pope(a) 1.796 Gelasius holds Susanna for Apocrypha. These Gentlemen by producing that Epistle of Innocent, shew that the decisions of the Bishops of Rome were in those dayes of very small account among strangers, and that those that belonged to the Popes family, and his very successors, did lit∣le regard them.

But to come to that Epistle, who so shall but look upon it neer hand, will acknowledge that it is an absurd and ridiculous piece, which abuseth Scri∣pture with a profane licentiousness. It is that Decretal which proveth that mar∣ried persons must not be admitted to Ecclesiastical charges, because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy: and because the Apostle said, To the clean all things are clean, but to the defiled and the unbelievers nothing is clean. As though mar∣riage were a pollution and infidelity. Also because the same Apostle said, They that are in the flesh, cannot please God. Now you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. As if the Apostle by them that are in the flesh meant married persons, and by them that are in the Spirit, the unmarried. Are these Apostolical Ora∣cles? Nay, is it not a manifest impiety and profanation of the Word of God?

In the same Epistle it is said that the Law of God prohibiteth the admitting of married persons into Ecclesiastical honours; Of which nevertheless the word of God speaks not, neither is there one word of that to be found in the whole Scripture. Wherefore also(b) 1.797 Bellarmin, after Thomas, acknowledgeth that the Celibat of Clerks is but of humane right.

The same Epistle saith that of all antiquity, and from the beginning, Priests

were commanded to abide in the Temple during the year of their service (sup∣posing that there was no women in the houses of the Temple) and that the Priests were forbidden to come near their wives all the year of their ministring. For (saith the Author of the Decretal) those ought not to be admitted to the sacri∣fices that use a carnal conjunction with their wives; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy. How many untruths and ignorances in few words? It is false that the Priests did serve by years. For as for the High Priest there was never a year but he did officiate in his Priesthood. But under him he had four and twenty courses or divisions of chief Priests that served by turns, each one a fortnight every year. It is a great errour to think that each of these chief Priests was three and twenty years without officiating. It is false also that those courses or divisions of Priests serving by turn were so from the beginning, as that Decre∣tal saith. David instituted that order about four hundred and fifty years after the first institution of the legal Priesthood, as it may be seen, 1 Chron. 24. It is false also that the Priest was separated from his wife during the time of his mini∣stration, and that there was no woman dwelling in the Temple. We have an ex∣ample of the contrary, 2 Kings 11. where it is said that Jehosheba daughter to King Joram kept Joash hid for the space of six years, with his Nurse in the Temple in the bedchamber. And of Anna, Luke saith in the first chapter, that she de∣parted not from the Temple. 1 Sam. 2. the Priests sons of Eli lay with the wo∣men that assembled at the door of the Tabernacle. And the High Priest and his children having their ordinary dwelling in the lodgdings of the Court, which made part of the Temple, we must not doubt but that their wives dwelt in the same house.

By all these it appeareth what authority that Decretal can have which is at∣tributed unto Innocent. For I can hardly believe that it is his, both because of the absurdity of the Epistle, and because the first Tome of the Councils is full of false Epistles of Popes, as it is acknowledged by the most learned of our Ad∣versaries, of which we shall hereafter give evident proofs.

Yet if it be of Innocent, we are no more obliged to believe him then Hierom, and Ruffinus, and Gregory the first, successor to that Innocent, or then the Churches both Oriental and Occidental of Innocents time, who held Judith, Wisdom, Mac∣cabees, &c. for Apocrypha, as we have proved.

It is no wonder if that Innocent was a man of little learning, for the Roman Sea was alwayes barren in learned men. In the three first ages that Sea had good Bishops and faithfull Martyrs, whose power did not reach much beyond the walls of Rome. Since that time, some ages past in which we find in that Sea pru∣dent Bishops, industrious in their temporal businesses, labouring to raise their au∣thority which was but small. But we find not one among them of exquisite learning. And alwayes that Sea was inferiour in that point to the Churches of Greece, Asia and Africa, which have had Bishops of far higher learning.

CHAP. 69. That the Popes have put their Canons and Decrees not only in the same rank as Canonical Scriptures, but above.

BEcause nothing hinders so much the progress of the Kingdom of Satan as the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, the enemy of our salvation hath bent all his strength to put it out, and used all his craft to corrupt it, and bring down its authority. He made use sometimes of the impiety of the Kings of Juda, and of the prophane negligence of the High Priests to abolish the books of the Law; so that in the beginning of the reign of Josiah it was an un∣known book, which would have been lost, had not the High Priest, looking not for it, found a copy of it hid in a corner of the Temple. Since that time he raised

Antiochus Epiphanes, who spared no endeavours to abolish all the copies of the same. We read in a hundred places of Austin, that before Constantines time the persecutors constrained the Christians to deliver to them the holy Scriptures to suppress them. Whence arose the schism of the Donatists, who denyed that Cecilian was the lawfull Bishop of Carthage, because he had been ordained (as they say) by Bishops that had delivered the sacred books to the Persecutors.

If the Popes had undertaken to abolish the holy Scriptures, they could never have compast it, because the Jews have carefully kept for us the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the Greek Churches have faithfully preserved the New Testa∣ment in Greek: And over them the Pope hath no power.

All that the Popes could do, was to forbid the reading of them unto the Na∣tions subject unto them, and to hinder the translation of that holy book into the vulgar tongues. In Italy and Spain and all the Countreys where the Inqui∣sition reigneth, it is a crime punishable with the fire, to have an Italian or a Spanish Bible. To which the Popes and his instruments have added all the possible means and arts to weaken the authority of the holy Scripture, teaching that it contains not all things necessary to salvation; that it is obscure, and that the reading of it is dangerous: Also that there is another word not written; and that the tradition of the Roman Church is more antient, more perfect, and of greater authority then the holy Scripture; And that the Church is not sub∣ject to Scripture, but Scripture to the Church, that is, to the Pope. That Scrip∣ture is not the Soveraign Judge of the points of faith, but that unto the Roman Catholick Church that judgement belongs. That from the authority of that Church the authority of Scripture depends, which is a dumb rule, and to be received on∣ly because the Church commands it.

But one of the subtilest wiles of Satan to weaken the authority of Holy Scrip∣ture, was to foist into Scripture fabulous and erroneous books, that the evi∣dent untruth and absurdity of those books might bring in question the truth of the other books divinely inspired, and that by mingling of false coyn the good gold might be suspected, and the whole Scripture lose credence in mens minds.

The malice and rash profaneness of those whom Satan hath employed in that work, is come so far as to go about to put the Decretal Epistles of the Popes among the Canonical books, which if they could have compassed, we should have the Scriptures increased by one half and above, and the sacred books indited by the Spirit of God, should have been matcht with ridiculous pieces, which many times want common sense.

In the Roman Decree in the ninteenth Distinction, the Canon In Canonicis, beareth this inscription, Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistolae connume∣rantur, that is, The Decretal Epistles of the Popes are reckoned among the Ca∣nonical Scriptures. And that proved by a testimony of(a) 1.798 Austin wickedly falsified.

About the year of our Lord 865. Hinckmarus Archbishop of Rhemes made diffi∣culty to obey Pope Nicolas the I. and spake of the Decretals of the Popes with contempt, saying that they are not inserted in the Code of the Canons of the Church, as not being of the like authority. Against that Hinckmarus, Pope Nicolas in the time of King Charles the Bald disputes with a proud language, in an Epistle to the Bishops of the Gallican Church; where he saith that(b) 1.799 there is a Chapter of Pope Innocent, by whose authority it is taught that the Old and the New Testament ought to be received, although they be not inserted within the Canons of the Fathers. Whence he inferreth, that if the Old and the New Testament must be received, not because they are annexed to the Code of the Ca∣nons, but because the holy Pope Innocent hath pronounced his sentence that they must be received, by the same reason the Popes Decretals ought to be received, though they be not inserted in the Code of the Canons, because among them there is a Chap∣ter of the holy Pope Leon, who commands us so to keep in force the Decretals of the Apostolical Sea, that if any sin against them, he may know that he shall not be pardoned. What is all that but a company of blasphemies heaped up with a

bestial stupidity, and destitute of common sense? For what can be more absurd then that Decree of Innocent, which commands that the Old and the New Testa∣ment be received, as if it had been a doubtfull thing whether they must be re∣ceived, unless he had pronounced his sentence in their favour? Or can there be a greater impiety, then to conclude that the Old and the New Testament must be received, because such is the Popes sentence? And that must be, although the books of the Old and the New Testament be not annext unto the Canons of these Roman Church, which presupposeth that the conjunction of Scripture with those Canons was able to add unto Scripture some authority. A thing so far from truth, that rather, if any thing could take authority from Scripture, it should be that association of the Canons of the Roman Church with the sacred books. Was there no stronger reason then the Popes authority to oblige us to receive Scripture? But what, They could speak no better for their end, which is to equal the Popes Decretals unto the word of God: for so they ground both upon the same authority. Finally, to fill up the measure of impiety, that Pope saith that if any disobey the Popes Canons, it shall not be forgiven him. For the offences against God Laws are pardoned, but the offences against the Popes Laws are not pardoned, as being far more grievous sins, and committed against a greater Master; the reason whereof is given by Pope Damasus, Causa 15. Qu. 1. Can. Violatores: The inscription of that Canon is, In Spiritum Sanctum blasphe∣mant qui sacros Canones violant. They that transgress the holy Canons, blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. Wherefore that sin is unpardonable.

To this language is conformable that of Gregory the first in his Epistle to An∣toninus Subdeacon, wherein he complains of a certain Honoratus,(c) 1.800 who (saith he) not only hath neglected Gods commandments, but hath despised our writings. Here is the language of the servant of servants. Here is the Apostolical humility.

Bellarmin in the second book of the Councils, chap. 12. maintains that the Popes Canons are Canonical Scriptures.(d) 1.801 The Popes Canons (saith he) in their way, are and may be called holy and Canonical Scriptures. And truly if it be so that the Decrees of Popes give authority to Scripture, and that the Pope is Judge of Controversies, not the Scripture; we must grant that the Popes decrees have more authority then the Canonical Scriptures, and must be inserted in the Bible rather then the Epistles of the Apostle St. Paul. For (if these men must be be∣lieved) the Pope is the only head of the Universal Church, which St. Paul was not.

Hinckmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his book of fifty five chapters, alledgeth very often this sentence of Pope Hilary, who saith, that(e) 1.802 the sin committed against the Ordinances of the holy Traditions, is not a lesser sin then rashly presuming to outrage the Lord himself. Again,(f) 1.803 It is not lawfull to any to violate the divine constitutions, and the Decrees of the Apostolick Sea.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cap. Novit. Extra. de Ju∣diciis.
• * 1.2

  Salmeron. Tom. 13. tertia parte in Epi. Pauli disp 2. p. 172. Congregatio canum vel avium Eccle∣sia aliquo mo∣do dici potest.
• * 1.3

  Matth. 18.
• * 1.4

  Luke 10.
• (a) 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.6

  Non enim revera Domi∣ni corpus est quod cum il∣lo non erit in aeternum.
• (c) 1.7

  Quicun∣que de ipso capite à Scri∣pturis sanctis dissentium, etiamsi in om∣nibus locis in∣veniantur in quibus Eccle∣sia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia.
• (d) 1.8

  Nunquam à Diabolo Ecclesia seducitur praedestinata & electa ante mundi constitutionem.
• (e) 1.9

  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 mem∣bra damnata.
• (a) 1.10

  Ecclesia tota hic acci∣pienda est non solum ex parte qua per∣egrinatur in terris, verum etiam ex illa quae in coelis.
• (b) 1.11

  De toto mundo electa est Ecclesia, & mortifica∣ta à terrena vita.
• (c) 1.12

  Ecclesiam dupliciter posse dici, & eam quae non habet macu∣lam & ru∣gam, & eam quae in Christi nomine absque plenis per∣fectisque vir∣tutibus con∣gregatur.
• (d) 1.13

  Salmeron. Tom. 13. Disp. 1. ex Epist. Pauli, p. 173.
• (e) 1.14

  Ecclesiae duae potissimum sunt partes, quarum altera triumphans, altera militans vocatur, &c. Jam in Ec∣clesia militante duo sunt hominum genera, bonorum & improborum.
• (a) 1.15

  Quod sponsa, id est Ecclesia ele∣ctorum, prae∣destinata est à Deo ante sa∣cula.
• (b) 1.16

  Electo∣rum Ecclesia de gentibus congregata.
• (a) 1.17

  Sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum per∣mansuris con∣structam, nul∣lis hujus vitae persecutioni∣bus superan∣dam, ipse su∣per quem aedi∣ficata est evi∣denter osten∣dit, cum ait, Portae infero∣rum non prae∣valebunt ad∣versus eam.
• (b) 1.18

  Hic plane gravissimus erit incursus; sed ab hoc quoque Ecclesiam electorum veritas liberabit.
• (c) 1.19

  San∣ctam omnium electorum Ecclesiam conscriptam in coelis.
• (d) 1.20

  Ʋt in illo constitueret unam sanctam Ecclesiam electorum omnium matrem.
• * 1.21

  August. En∣chirid. c. 11. Haec ergo quae in sanctis Angelis & virtutibus Dei est Ec∣clesia.
• * 1.22

  See 2 Cor. 1.22. & Rom. 8.15.
• * 1.23

  Hos. 4.6.
• * 1.24

  Mat. 7.1.
• * 1.25

  Pag. 669.
• (a) 1.26

  Psuedo Christum & Pseudo Apo∣stolum & do∣losum operari∣um. Epistola Fir∣miliani quae est 75. inter Epistolas Cy∣priani, §. 21. & 22.
• * 1.27

  Pag. 63.
• (a) 1.28

  Ecclesia non apparebit, impiis perse∣cutoribus ul∣tra modum. saevientibus.
• (b) 1.29

  Ipsa est quae aliquan∣do obscuratur & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum.
• (c) 1.30

  Ecclesia adhuc in illa mortalitate carnis consti∣tuta, propter ipsam muta∣bi••itatem, Lu∣nae nomine in Scripturis significatur.
• (d) 1.31

  Obscura videtur Ecclesia in tempo•••• peregrinationis suae.
• (e) 1.32

  Videtur sicut Luna deficere, sed non defici••; Obumbrari po∣test, deficere non potest.
• (f) 1.33

  Sed & ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laici; unusquisque enim de sua fide vivit.
• (g) 1.34

  Vos pa∣rietum amor cepit; malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedi∣ficiisque ve∣neramini. Male sub hoc nomen pacis ingeritis. Montes mihi & lacus & & carceres & voragines sunt tutiores.
• (a) 1.35

  Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae.
• * 1.36

  See Sixtus Senensis editi∣onis Venetae, pag. 220. where he speaks thus. Genuinus ac proprius hu∣jus literae sensus & ex∣positio sit De∣um posuisse Soli taberna∣culum in coe∣lo.
• * 1.37

  Note.
• * 1.38

  Jer. 18.18.
• * 1.39

  Augustin. lib. questio∣num in Exo∣dum quaes. 46. Notan∣dum est quemad∣modum illud totum malum quod populus fecit ipsi Aaroni tribuatur.
• * 1.40

  Chap. 9.
• * 1.41

  The Eng∣lish version saith not shall, but should, to shew that it is a Com∣mandment, not a Pro∣mise.
• * 1.42

  The Eng∣lish version hath all things.
• * 1.43

  Sanctam Ecclesiam de sanctis in aeternum per∣mansuris con∣structam, nul∣lis hujus vitae persecutioni∣bus superan∣dam, ipse su∣per quem aedi∣ficata est, evi∣denter osten∣dit, cum ait, Portae infero∣rum non prae∣valebunt ad∣versus eam.
• (a) 1.44

  Primi qui seriò pri∣matum Ro∣mani Pontifi∣cis oppugna∣runt, videntur fuisse Graeci, anno, 39. &c.
• (b) 1.45

  Quasi Romanae Ec∣clesiae Conci∣lia ulla Le∣gem praefixe∣rint, &c.
• (c) 1.46

  Sedes Apostolica so∣la rescindit quod praeter ordinem congregatio Synodica putaverit usurpandum.
• (d) 1.47

  Andrad. lib. 2. Defens. fidei Tri∣dentinae. Liquet minimè eos errasse, qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnúnquam in Legibus dispensare à Paulo & primis quatuor Conciliis.
• (a) 1.48

  That Book is found in the third Tome of the Coun∣cils after the Council of Nicea.
• † 1.49

  Sacram imaginem Domini nostri Jesu Christi aequo honore cum libro sanctorum Evangeliorum adorari de∣cernimus.
• * 1.50

  In Latin dignum est.
• * 1.51

  See Sigonius de regno Ita∣liae, Platina, Anastasius, Luitprand. Stella, &c.
• * 1.52

  Dist. 2. de Consec. Can. Ego Berenga∣rius.
• * 1.53

  It seems they meant sensibly.
• * 1.54

  Baron. Ann. 1076.
• * 1.55

  This is seen in their life, written by St. Antonin Archbishop of Florence.
• * 1.56

  Concil. Con∣stant. Sess. XI.
• * 1.57

  Juramen∣tum contra Eccclesiae uti∣litatem prae∣stitum non tenet.
• * 1.58

  Dixerunt se audivisse quod Joan∣nes Hus dix∣isset quod in∣dulgentiae Pa∣pae & Epis∣copi non va∣lent nisi Deus indulgeat.
• * 1.59

  Sanctissimus & Beatissi∣mus, qui ha∣bet coeleste ar∣bitrium, qui est Dominus in terris, Suc∣cessor Petri, Christus Do∣mini, Domi∣nus Univer∣si, Regum Pa∣ter, Orbis lu∣men, Summus Pontifex.
• * 1.60

  Veniret non ut faceret voluntatem suam sed voluntatem Domini Papae qui misit eum.
• * 1.61

  Officiales ad pedes San∣ctissimi Domi∣ni nostri, ta∣ctis sacrosan∣ctis Scriptu∣ris, praestite∣runt corpora∣le juramen∣tum.
• * 1.62

  Psal. 72.
• * 1.63

  Of the In∣terdict, See Cardinal To∣let of the In∣stitution of Priests, Book 1. chap. 15. And Ema∣nuel Sa in A∣phorismis in Verbo Inter∣dictum. Westmonast. & Matth. Paris in vita Johannis.
• * 1.64

  See Nicole Gyles in the life of Lewis the XII. fol. 134. & 135.
• * 1.65

  Optima poeni∣tentia nova vita.
• * 1.66

  Certum est in in manu Ec∣clesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statu∣ere Articulos fidei.
• * 1.67

  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.
• * 1.68

  Bibliothecae lib. 7.
• * 1.69

  Verum etsi ea quam dixi∣mus modera∣tione usi fu∣erimus, loca tamen ad octo millia annota∣ta atque emendata à nobis sunt.
• † 1.70

  Deus voluit nonnulla in ejus lucubra∣tionibus hu∣manae imbecil∣litatis extare vestigia. Voluit sancta Synodus ad hanc Latinam editionem amplectendam nos arctare, non quidem simpliciter, sed dummodo esset à vitils quae in eam ir∣repserunt, & ab omnibus mendis & erroribus emaculata atque repurgata.
• * 1.71

  Editionis Ve∣netae, p. 240.
• * 1.72

  Session XXV.
• * 1.73

  Index libro∣rum prohibito∣rum.

  That Index hath been often print∣ed; Once at Collen, by Goswin Co∣lin, an. 1618.
• * 1.74

  Printed at Paris, by Toussain De∣nis, in Saint James-street neer Saint Yues Chap∣pel, an. 1521.
• * 1.75

  Et nota di∣ligenter quod ejusmodi gra∣tiae & dis∣pensationes non conce∣duntur pau∣peribus quia non sunt, ideo non possunt consolari.
• (a) 1.76

  Curia Romana sine pecunia nihil dat; ipsae ma••uium impositiones & Spiritus S. dona venduntur, nec remis∣sio peccatorum nisi nummatis impenditur.
• * 1.77

  Cardinal Tolet. lib. 2. Institut. Sa∣cerdotal. re∣lates that Bull.
• (a) 1.78

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.79

  Dicunt quod ex Scri∣pturis non potest inveni∣ri veritas. Non enim per literas tradi∣tam illam sed per vivam vocem.
• (c) 1.80

  Lib. de verbo Dei non scripto. c. 8. §. Acce∣dat.
• (d) 1.81

  Non om∣nia volunt il∣los revelasse; quaedam enim palam & universis, quaedam secreto & paucis demandasse.
• (e) 1.82

  Omnes insipientissi∣mi haeretici qui se Christi∣anos vocant, audacias fig∣mentorum su∣orum quas maxime ex∣horret sensus humanus, hac occasione Evangelicae sententiae co∣lorare solent, Adhuc habeo multa vobis dicere.
• (f) 1.83

  Bellarm lib. de verbo Dei non scri∣pto. c. 5. §. Ad primum; & cap. 11. §. hora.
• (g) 1.84

  Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem vertuntur ipsa∣rum Scripturarum, quasi non posset inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem.
• (a) 1.85

  Vadiani cogitatio te carnali finge∣bant Deum ad similitudinem corruptibilis hominis.
• (b) 1.86

  Deut. 4.15. & 16.
• (a) 1.87

  Habent imagines quasdam de∣pictas, quas∣dam de reli∣qua materia fabricatas, di∣centes esse formam fa∣ctam à Pila∣to.
• (b) 1.88

  Imagi∣nesque & su∣am & ejus∣dem meretri∣cis Discipu∣lis suis praebebat adorandam.
• (c) 1.89

  Sectae Carpocratis traditur fuisse socia quaedam Marcellina quae colebat imagines Jesu, & Pauli, & Pythagorae, eas adorando incensumque ponendo.
• (d) 1.90

  Novi multos esse Sepulchrorum & Picturarum adoratores.
• (e) 1.91

  Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos, non in Sanctis Codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt; nec mirum fi à pingentibus fingentes decepti sunt.
• (f) 1.92

  Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas esse non debere, ne quod coli∣tur aut ado∣ratur, in pari∣etibus pinga∣tur.
• (g) 1.93

  Apud Hieron. Tom. 2.
• (h) 1.94

  Cur er∣go Moses in cremo simula∣chrum ex aere fecit?
• (i) 1.95

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (k) 1.96

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.97

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.98

  August. in Psalm. 113.
• (a) 1.99

  Simoni∣anae discipli∣nae Magia Angelis servi∣ens.
• (b) 1.100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• (c) 1.101

  Ex his videas The∣odoretum haud feliciter (ejus pace dictum sit) assecutum esse Pauli verbo∣rum sensum.
• (d) 1.102

  Frilstra eis [daemoni∣bus] hunc de∣tulit hono∣rem, ut quo∣niam nullus Deus miscetur homini (quod Platonem dixisse perhi∣bent) isti ad Deos perse∣rant pre∣ces nostras.
• (e) 1.103

  Avus tuus O Asclepi, medicinae primus inventor, omnia nunc hominibus adjumenta praestans nu∣mine suo quae antea solebat medicinae arte praebere.
• (f) 1.104

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.105

  Apud Miles. 11. Regina coeli, sive tu Ceres.
• (b) 1.106

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.107

  Res ina∣nimata jure naturae ado∣rari potest.
• (b) 1.108

  Vasquez lib. 3. de Ado∣ratione, Disp. 1. cap. 2.
• (a) 1.109

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.110

  Iterum quaerendum est utrum praeceptum homini sit si∣ne peccato esse. Aut enim non potest & praeceptum non est; aut quia praecep∣tum est potest. Nam cur prae∣ciperetur quod fieri om∣nino non po∣test?
• (b) 1.111

  August. lib. de cor∣ruptione & 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.
• (a) 1.112

  They used to say Jura, perjura; secretum pro∣dere noli.
• (b) 1.113

  Licet ju∣dici compe∣tenti de hu∣jusmodi per∣sonarum erro∣ribus inqui∣rere, & alias contra eos de∣bitè proce∣dere, eos∣demque puni∣re, quantum justitia sua∣debit, si suos errores revo∣care pertina∣citer recusa∣verint, etiamsi de salvo conductu consisi ad locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi.
• * 1.114

  Ne discipu∣lis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Ha∣bent artifici∣um quo prius persuadent quam edo∣ceant. Veritas autem docen∣do persua∣det & sua∣dendo docet.
• (a) 1.115

  Pag. 241. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.116

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.117

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.118

  Pag. 146. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.119

  Du Per∣ron Book 6. chap. 1. p. 1080.
• (c) 1.120

  Bellar∣min. lib. 1. de justificatione c. 7. §. judicium. Fides distinguitur contra scientiam, & melius per ignorantiam quam per notiti∣am definitur.
• (a) 1.121

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.122

  Arguunt nos quod sta∣tiones ple∣rumque in vesperam producamus, quod etiam xerophagias observemus si••cantes ci∣bum ab omni carne & om∣ni jurulentia.
• (c) 1.123

  Lex & Prophetae us∣que ad Jo∣hannem; Itaque de cae∣tero jejunan∣dum ex arbitrio, non ex imperio novae disciplinae pro temporibus & edusis uniuscujusque. Sic & Apostolos observass nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum & in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum.
• (d) 1.124

  Praedam∣nans jam hae∣reti os perpe∣tuam absti∣nentiam prae∣cepturos ad destruenda & despicien∣da opera cre∣atoris.
• (a) 1.125

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.126

  Non permittitur mulieri in Ec∣clesia loqui; sed nec tinge∣re, nec offerre.
• (c) 1.127

  Ipsae mulieres hae∣reticae quàm procaces, quae audeant doce∣re, forsitan & tingere!
• * 1.128

  Pag. 90.
• (a) 1.129

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.130

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.131

  Si verbi & carnis una natura est, quomodo cum ver∣bum 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.
• (a) 1.132

  Ore in∣digno Christi corpus accipi∣unt, sangui∣nem autem nostrae re∣dempti∣onis, &c.
• (b) 1.133

  Nulla ibi de Sacer∣dote sacrifi∣cante mentio habetur, ut planè quod generalitèr dictum esse apparet, ad Sacerdotes restringi mini∣mè debere sa∣tis intelligi possit.
• (a) 1.134

  Glossa Extravagan∣tes Cum in∣ter. Papa vo∣catur Domi∣nus Deus noster & sae∣pe alibi: Concil. La∣ter. ult. Sess. 9. Ma∣jestatis tuae divine con∣spectus.
• (b) 1.135

  This 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.
• (a) 1.136

  Ch. 70. Disjungunt viros à no∣l••ntibus faemi∣nis.
• (a) 1.137

  Ovid. Fastor.
• (b) 1.138

  Ovid. Epist. Med. Ardet ut ad magnos pinea taeda Deos. Cicero Of∣fic. 3. Omni∣bus vicis sta∣tuae & ad eas thus & cerci. Tertul. Apol. c. 42. Thura non emimus; Si Arabiae quaerantur, sciant Sabaei, &c.
• (c) 1.139

  Num mentis suae compos putandus est qui authori & datori luminis candelarum ac cercorum munus offert pro-munere?
• † 1.140

  Excalcea∣torum est hae∣resis quae ex∣calceatos am∣bulare debere hominos asse∣rit, &c.
• (a) 1.141

  Circuit cauponas re∣ligio mendi∣cans.
• (b) 1.142

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.143

  Apud Lacedaemo∣nas solemni∣tas maxima est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.144

  See Ovid. Fast. 4.
• (c) 1.145

  Ovid. Fast. 5. Mense malum Maio nubere vulgus ait.
• (d) 1.146

  Ovid. Fast. 2. Festus & Varro de lin∣gua Latina.
• † 1.147

  Fenestella. c. 2. V••ber. Max. lib. 1.
• * 1.148

  The French call it the day of Kings. The Lord of misrule in Christmass is also a trace of the Sa∣turnals at that time of the year. Horat. Sat 7. lib. 2. Age li∣bertate De∣cembri.
• (a) 1.149

  Consulto introductum videtur ut quae erant Gentilitiae superstitionis officia, eadem veri Dei cul∣tui sanctifi∣cata in verae Religionis cultum im∣penderentur.
• (b) 1.150

  Si Genti∣les faciebant, multo magis facere debe∣mus, &c.
• (a) 1.151

  In the 4. chap. of the 4. obser∣vation of the 2. book, p. 726 and in many other places.
• * 1.152

  So the Kings words are re∣lated by the Cardinal, in the 4. ob∣servation of the second book.
• (a) 1.153

  Bellar. lib. 5. de verbo Dei, c. 9. initio capitis. Judex difficultatum non potest esse Scriptura.
• (b) 1.154

  The Je∣suit Arnova, that writ against this Author about the French Con∣fession of Faith, saith §. 19. That the Prote∣stants will abuse a dumb rule, shak∣ing off the yoak of In∣terpreters.
• (c) 1.155

  Bellar. lib. 4. de Ver∣bo Dei Scripto. c. 12. §. Dico secundo, Scripturam etsi non est facta praeci∣pue ut sit re∣gula fidei, esse tamen re∣gulam non totalem, sed partialem.
• (d) 1.156

  Matth. 10.40.
• (e) 1.157

  §. Pro∣batur. Debuit D••us judicem ali∣quem Eccle∣siae providere, at iste judex non potest esse Scriptura.
• (f) 1.158

  Ecclesiam non esse ex Christi volun∣tate Scriptu∣ris alligatam, sed vivo ac perpetuo Spi∣ritus Sancti testimonio.
• (g) 1.159

  Christus Ecclesiam su∣am à charta∣ceis scriptis pendere no∣luit.
• (i) 1.160

  §. Nunc de Etsi Ecclesiae ac Scripturae authoritas à Deo sit, illa tamen Ecclesiae antiquior est atque adeo dignior, siquidem Scriptura propter Ecclesiam contexta est.
• (k) 1.161

  §. Septimo. Non mirum si Scriptura Ecclesiae Dei quae Spiritum habet subjiciatur.
• (h) 1.162

  Huius Scripturae praestantia, multis parti∣bus superat scripturas quas nobis in membranis Apostoli reli∣querunt.
• (l) 1.163

  Scriptura ad causarum auditionem surda, ad examen stupida, ad proprie dictae sententiae dictionem vicaria Dei judicis perinepta est.
• (n) 1.164

  Dixi & dico, non tam ipsius fidei re∣gulam in se esse Scripturam, quam ipsarum Scripturarum regulam esse fidem Ecclesiae.
• (m) 1.165

  Scripturam arcano Dei judicio esse velut lapidem offensionis & in tentationem pedibus insi∣pientium; ut qui velint ea solae niti, facillime impingant & errent.
• (a) 1.166

  Tanquam in sublimi se∣de constituta est, cui servi∣at omnis in∣tellectus.
• (b) 1.167

  Puto quod in Chri∣sti verbis po∣tius Ecclesi∣am quaerere debemus qui veritas est & optimè no∣vit corpus suum.
• (c) 1.168

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.169

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.170

  In his Book against the Confes∣sion of Faith of the French Churches upon the 5. Article.
• (b) 1.171

  Salme∣ron 2. Prole∣gom. §. Alte∣ra. Adde my∣sticorum & spiritualium sensuum va∣rietates quod est nutibus & signis obscu∣rius loqui, pe∣rinde atque muti faciunt & histrio∣nes.
• (c) 1.172

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.173

  Bellar. lib. 4. de Verbo Dei. cap. 12. Scri∣pturae finem proprium & praecipuum non fuisse ut esset regula fidei.
• (e) 1.174

  Stapl. lib. 2. de Authoritate Scripturae Dixi & dico non tam ipsi∣us sidei regu∣lam in se esse Scripturam quàm ipsa∣rum Scriptu∣rarum regu∣lam esse fi∣dem Ecclesiae.
• (f) 1.175

  Quic∣quid ille de suis sactis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scriben∣dum illis tan∣quam suis manibus im∣peravit.
• (a) 1.176

  In Cano∣nicis Scriptu∣ris Ecclesi∣arum Catho∣licarum quam plurium au∣thoritatem se∣quatur. In eis quae non reci∣piuntur ab omn••bus prae∣ponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt.
• (b) 1.177

  Gerson Tom. 1. pag. 523.
• † 1.178

  There is in the Text no prophesie, &c. 2. Pet. 1.20.
• (a) 1.179

  Papa dis∣pensat in Evangelio in∣terpretando ipsum.
• (b) 1.180

  Quaedam in Scripturis tam manifesta sunt, ut potius auditorem quam exposi∣torem deside∣rent.
• (c) 1.181

  Sicut non eget interprete Sinite utra∣que crescere usque ad messem, quia cum egeret interprete, ip∣se Dominus interpretatus est.
• * 1.182

  Mark 4.10.
• * 1.183

  Luke 22.31.
• (a) 1.184

  Quae si in Scripturis non inveni∣rentur, nullo modo esset un∣de aperiren∣tur clausa, & illustra∣rentur obscu∣ra.
• (b) 1.185

  Ad ob∣scuriores lo∣cutiones il∣lustrandas de manifestiori∣bus sumantur exempla.
• * 1.186

  Note.
• (c) 1.187

  In his quae apertè posita sunt in Scripturis, in∣veniuntur il∣la omnia quae continent fi∣dem moresque vivendi.
• (d) 1.188

  Porro specialiter ost••nsum est ut ea macta∣ret & man∣ducaret. Illi soli jussum est ut rete plenum piscibus-ad littus trahe∣ret. 1 Cor. 2.
• (e) 1.189

  §. Prae∣tere•• & §. Item.
• (f) 1.190

  Dist. 82. Can. Propo∣suisti.
• * 1.191

  That book of Adrian is found in the third Tome of the Coun∣cils.
• (a) 1.192

  Hier. contra Luci∣fer.
• * 1.193

  Pag. 21.
• (b) 1.194

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.195

  In his quae apertè in Scriptura posi∣ta sunt, inve∣niuntur illa omnia quae continent fi∣dem moresque vivendi.
• * 1.196

  Eph. 1. Matth. 10.
• * 1.197

  Pag. 674.
• (a) 1.198

  Last ch. of the Com∣munion un∣der the two kinds. p. 1109, & 1115.
• (b) 1.199

  Vasquez Tom. 3. Disput. 260. num. 60. Licet conce∣deremus hoc suisse Apo∣stolicum prae∣ceptum, ni∣bilominus Ecclesia & summus Pontifex po∣tuerunt illud justis de cau∣sis abrogare. Neque enim major fuit potestas Apo∣stolorum quam Eccle∣siae & Pon∣tificis in fe∣rendis prae∣ceptis.
• (c) 1.200

  Minime vero majores nostri religione, & pietate praestantes haec Apostolorum; & quam plurima alia decreta refigere in animum induxissent, nisi intellexissent, &c.
• (d) 1.201

  Liquet minime illos errasse qui dixerunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare à Paulo, & quatuor Conciliis.
• (e) 1.202

  Hanc concupiscentiam quam aliquando Aposto∣lus peccatum appellat, sancta Synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod ve∣rè & propriè in renatis peccatum sit.
• (f) 1.203

  Thomas 2a 2•• qu. 1. Art. 13. Ad solam au∣thoritatem summi Ponti∣ficis pertinet nova edito Symboli.
• (g) 1.204

  Cum cer∣tum sit non omniae: quae Apostoli in∣stituerunt, jure divino esse instituta.
• (h) 1.205

  Pontifex potest dispen∣sare in vocis & juramen∣tis quae Deus ipse jussit reddi, & quorum so∣lutio est de jure divino.
• (i) 1.206

  Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia, & pro∣hibendo vir∣tutes, tene∣retur Eccle∣sia credere vi∣tia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.
• (k) 1.207

  Can. 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.
• * 1.208

  2 Tim. 2.19.
• (a) 1.209

  Pag. 191. Ad idoneum signum tria necessaria esse viden∣tur. Ʋt sit verum, ut sit manifestum, ut alteri non quadret.
• (b) 1.210

  In 2^am 2^a Disp. 1. Quaest. 5. Punct. 7.
• (a) 1.211

  Lib. 3. de Ecclesia mi∣litante. c. 2. §. Nostra.
• * 1.212

  Salmer. in Epist. Paul. Disput. 4. §. Inter. Hoc signum verbo Dei ac ratio∣ne fulcien∣dum.
• (a) 1.213

  Ecclesiam suam demon∣strent, si pos∣sunt, non in sermonibus & rumoribus Afrorum, &c. sed in prae∣scripto Legis, in Propheta∣rum paerdictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, &c. in ipsius Pa∣storis voci∣bus, &c. hoc est, in omni∣bus canonicis sanctorum li∣brorum au∣thoritatibus.
• (b) 1.214

  Ʋtrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non∣nisi divina∣rum Scriptu∣rarum ca∣nonicis libris ostendant.
• (c) 1.215

  Judicet cum Christo Apostolus, quia & in A∣postolo ipse loquitur Christus.
• (d) 1.216

  Excel∣lentiae Cano∣nicae authori∣tas tanquam in sede qua∣dam sublimi∣tèr constituta, cui serviat omnis fidelis & quivis in∣tellectus.
• (e) 1.217

  Antea multis modis ostendebant quae esset Ec∣clesia Christi, & quae Gen∣tilitas; nunc autem nullo modo cog∣n••scitur nisi tantummodo per Scriptu∣ram.
• (a) 1.218

  Singuli quique coe∣tus haeretico∣rum se potis∣simum Chri∣stianos & suam esse Ca∣tholicam Ec∣clesiam putat.
• (b) 1.219

  In tan∣tum se Ca∣tholicos esse judicant ut nos ipsos titu∣lo haereticae appellationis infament.
• (c) 1.220

  Cypr. Ep. 37. Nova∣tianus sibi vult Ecclesiae Catholicae au∣thoritatem & veritatem vindicare.
• (d) 1.221

  Christia∣norum cum sint haereses plures atque omnes se Ca∣tholicos vide∣ri velint.
• (a) 1.222

  §. Sunt omnes. Ut Ecclesia sit Catholica, in∣primis requi∣ritur ut non excludat ulla tempora, loca, vel hominum genera, in quo distingui∣tur à Syna∣goga.
• (b) 1.223

  Salmer. Tom. XIII. Disp. 1. in Epist. Pauli. §. Tertio. Dicitur Ca∣tholica, ••oc est universalis, in quo primum differt à Sy∣nagoga.
• (c) 1.224

  Ipsa est Ecclesia Ca∣tholica, unde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Graece appel∣latur, quod per totum ter∣rarum orbem diffunditur.
• (d) 1.225

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.226

  Non so∣lum Catholicae transmarinae, verum etiam Catholicae Africanae.
• (f) 1.227

  Lib. 1. fol. 9. Catho∣lica fides, id est, universa∣lis fides, non universalis dicitur quod universi eam teneant, sed quod universi eam habere teneantur.
• (g) 1.228

  Ecclesia Catholica di∣citur ex eo quia univer∣saliter perfe∣cta est, & in nullo claudicat.
• (h) 1.229

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.230

  Chap. 19. & 61. of M. du Per∣rons book.
• (i) 1.231

  Non con∣siderat ab illa radice Orientalium Ecclesiarum se esse prae∣cisam, unde Evangelium in Africam venit.
• (k) 1.232

  Graecia ubi fides orta est.
• (l) 1.233

  Perfe∣ctus Scri∣pturarum Canon, sibi∣què ad om∣nia satis superque suf∣ficiens.
• (m) 1.234

  Dupli∣ci modo fidem suam mu∣nire debet; Primo scilicet divina legis authoritate, tum deinde Catholicae Ecclesiae traditione.
• (n) 1.235

  Sed ne∣que semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impug∣nandae sunt, sed novitiae recentesque tantummodo, cum primum scilicet exoriuntur. Caeterum dilatae & inveteratae haereses nequaquam hac viâ aggrediendae sunt, &c. Illas anti∣quiores nisi aut sola si opus est scripturarum authoritate convincere, aut certe jam antiquitus universalibus sacerdotum Ca∣tholicorum Conciliis convictas damnatasque vitare.
• (o) 1.236

  Concil. Chalced. Can. 28.
• (p) 1.237

  Synod. Laod Can. 58.
• (q) 1.238

  Concil. Gangr. Can. 4.
• (r) 1.239

  Concil. Trull. Can. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (s) 1.240

  Concil. Trull. Can. 13. & Can. 55.
• (t) 1.241

  5. Book. chap 18. & 1. Book. chap. 50.
• (a) 1.242

  The Council of Lions hath practised it against Fri∣derick the II. and the Council of Constance against Fri∣derick of Austria. Sess. XX.
• (b) 1.243

  Emanuel Sa Aphoris∣mis, verbo Episcopus. Toletus. lib. 5. Instr. Sacer∣dotum. c. 37. Bellar. l. 2. de amiss. gra∣tiae. c. 18. § dicet. Tit. 8. de Concess. Praebendarum Can. propu∣suit In Glos∣sa & dist. 34. Can. Lectur. in Gloss. & Can. Sunt quid. Caus. 25. qu. 1. In Glossa.
• (a) 1.244

  Ipsa eo∣rum Doctri∣nacum Apo∣stolica com∣parata, ex di∣versitate & contrarietate sua pronunci∣abit neque Apostoli ali∣cujus esse ne∣que Apostolici.
• (b) 1.245

  Ad hanc itaque for∣mam provoca∣buntur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authorem su∣um proserant, ut multo poste∣riores, quae de∣nique quoti∣die instituun∣tur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minus A∣postolicae re∣putantur pro consanguini∣tate doctrinae.
• (c) 1.246

  Sic omnes primae & om∣nes Apostoli∣cae, dum unam omnium pro∣bant unitatem communicatio pacis & com∣miseratio hospitalitatis, quae jura non alia ratio re∣git quam ejusdem Sa∣cramenti una traditio.
• (d) 1.247

  Ire∣naeus, lib. 4. chap. 43. Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedire opor∣tet; his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episco∣patus succes∣sione charissi∣mae veritatis certum donum secundum placitum Pa∣tris accepe∣runt.
• (e) 1.248

  Ego sum haeres Aposto∣lorum; si∣cut caverunt testamento, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adjuraverunt, ita teneo. Vos certe exhaeredaverunt semper & abdicaverunt, ut extra∣neos & inimicos. Ʋnde autem extranei & inimici Apostolis haeretici nisi ex diversitate Doctrinae?
• (f) 1.249

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.250

  Athanas. in Decret. Synodi Ni∣ceae contra Arianos. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.251

  Ambr. lib. 1. de poenitentia, cap. 6. Non habet Petri haereditatem, qui fidem Petri non habet.
• (i) 1.252

  Ab omnibus absistendum qui absistunt à principali suc∣cessione.
• (k) 1.253

  Quis sanctum du∣bitet esse quem apex tantae digni∣tatis extol∣lit? In quo si desint bona acquisita per meritum, sufficiunt quae à loci praedecessore praestantur.
• (l) 1.254

  Bernard. de conversi∣sione Paul, Serm. 1. Domine, Je∣su! quia sunt in perse∣cutione tua primi, qui vi∣dentur in Ec∣clesia prima∣tum diligere, gerere princi∣patum.
• (m) 1.255

  Dissi∣mulemus nos quoque neces∣se est & sile∣amus inte∣rim, maxime{que} de Praelatis nostris, Magi∣stris Ecclesia∣rum.
• (n) 1.256

  Iniqui∣tas progressa est a seniori∣bus judicibus, Vicariis tuis.
• (o) 1.257

  Ministri Christi sunt & serviunt Antichristo; Honorati in∣cedunt de bo∣nis Domini qui Domino honorem non deferunt.
• (p) 1.258

  Successores omnes cupiunt esse, imitatores pauci.
• (q) 1.259

  Parum est nostris vigilibus quod non servant nos, nisi & perdant. Superest ut reveletur homo peccati, Filius perditionis.
• (r) 1.260

  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.
• (s) 1.261

  Epist. 125. Bestia illa de Apocalypsi cui da∣tum est os loquens blasphemiam, & bellum gerere cum sanctis, Petri Cathedram occupat tanquam leo paratus ad praedam.
• (t) 1.262

  Omnia quae praedicta sunt fiunt. Rex superbiae prope est, & (quod dici nefas est) sa∣cerdotum est praeparatus exercitus.
• (u) 1.263

  Sedendo super Cathe∣dram Moysis legem Dei docent, ergo per illos Deus docet. Sua vero si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere.
• (a) 1.264

  In this Authors Book of the Vocation of Pastors.
• (b) 1.265

  That Oath is set down in the end of the foresaid Book of the Vocation of Pastors.
• (c) 1.266

  Codex Canonum Ec∣clesiae Afri∣canae, Can. 69. Hieron. Dialogo ad∣versus Luci∣feranos. Syn. Nicena, Can. 8. de Catha∣ris & Cleri∣cis conversis ad fidem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.267

  Balsa∣mon ad mar∣ginem Cano∣nis Niceni 8. ex Tharasio qui Nicenae secundae Sy∣nodo praese∣dit.
• * 1.268

  Mat. 21.23.
• * 1.269

  Act. 4.7.
• (a) 1.270

  Sicut in aliqua (verbi gratia) civi∣tate ubi non∣dum Christi∣ani nati sunt, si accedat ali∣quis & doce∣re in ipiat, laboret, in∣struat, addu∣cat ad fidem, & ipse postmodum iis quos docuit Princeps & Episcopus fiat, &c.
• (b) 1.271

  ut ergo cresceret plebs & multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est & Evangelizare & baptizare, & Scripturas in Ecclesia. explanare.
• * 1.272

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.273

  Acts 16.14.
• (b) 1.274

  Acts 17.11.
• (c) 1.275

  Acts 2.41.
• * 1.276

  Eph. 1.
• † 1.277

  See Conci∣lium Melden∣se. cap. 54.
• (a) 1.278

  Causa 12. qu. 1. Can. Dile∣ctissimis. Communis usus omnium quae sunt in hoc mundo esse debuit; sed per ini∣quitatem ali∣us hoc dixit esse suum & alius istud, & sic inter mortales facta est divi∣sio. Denique quidam Gra•• corum sapien∣tissimus haec ita sciens esse communia debere, ait amicorum communia esse omnia. In omnibus autem sine dubio sunt conjuges.
• (b) 1.279

  Clemens Jacobo fratri Domini, Epis∣copo Episco∣porum, re∣genti Hebrae∣orum sanctam Ecclesiam quae est Ierosoly∣mis, sed & omnes Ecclesi∣as quae ubique Dei provi∣dentiā funda∣tae sunt.
• (c) 1.280

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.281

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.282

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.283

  Etenim de qua re agitur cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Brevissimè dicam, de summa rei Christianae. Id enim quaeritur, Debeatne Ecclesia di∣utius consistere, an vero dissolvi & concidere? Quid enim aliud est quaerere an oporteat ab aedificio fundamentum removere? &c.
• (g) 1.284

  Obser∣vandum est, licet sorte non sit de jure di∣vino Roma∣num Pontifi∣cem, ut Ro∣manum. Pon∣tificem, Petro succedere; ta∣men id ad fi∣dem Catholi∣cam pertinere. Non enim est idem aliquid esse de fide & de juredivino. Nec enim de jure divino fuit ut Paulus habe∣ret penulam; est tamen hoc ipsum de fide Paulum ha∣buisse penu∣lam. Et si au∣tem Roma∣num Pontifi∣cum succedere Petio non ha∣beatur expres∣sè in Scriptu∣ris, &c.
• (a) 1.285

  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 Ce∣remonies in the 5. Secti∣on, ch. 3. Caesar Ponti∣ficis pedes in reverentiam Salvatoris devotè oscu∣latur. And a little after, Caesar iterum genu fleetens auri massam ad Pedes Pontificis of∣fert, habetque vèrba ad Pontificem, gratias agens pro honorè suscepto.
• (b) 1.286

  Bellar. de noris Ec∣clesiae, c. 8. §. Addo ulti∣mo, quod Ecclesiae illae Patriarchales per longa tempora ha∣buerint Epi∣scopos mani∣festos baereti∣cos, unde interrupta est successio ve∣terum Pasto∣rum.
• (c) 1.287

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.288

  Hieron. in Fortunatiano.
• (e) 1.289

  Baron, an. 537. §. 14. Leo 2. Epist. ad Constantin. Imp.
• (f) 1.290

  Oper. 55. capi∣tum, c. 48. pag. 308.
• (g) 1.291

  Ep. 93. inter Episto∣las Augusti∣ni, & Au∣gust. lib. 1. in Julianum.
• (h) 1.292

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.293

  Liberati Breviarium, c. 22.
• (k) 1.294

  Quem dabis mihi de tota maxima urbe qui te in Papam recepe∣rit, pretio seu spepretii non intervenien∣te?
• (l) 1.295

  Malis artibus Pon∣tificatum a∣deptus est.
• (m) 1.296

  Plati∣na, Stella, Si∣gonius de regno Italiae, lib. 6. Baron. An. 897. §. 2.
• (n) 1.297

  Levit. 19.22. Psal. 15.
• (o) 1.298

  1 Sam. 14.44.
• (p) 1.299

  Heb. 6.10.
• (q) 1.300

  Hos Roma∣na Eccle∣sia passa est Tyrannos Thusciae Principes, Dominantes sive pecuniis sive armis po∣pulo cleroque Romano; per quos intrusi in Cathedram Petri solium Christi sunt homines monstruousi, vitae turpissimae.
• (r) 1.301

  Quae tunc facies Ecclesiae Romanae? quam foedis∣sima, cum Ro∣mae domina∣rentur poten∣tissimae aeque ac sordidissimae meretrices, quarum ar∣bitrio muta∣rentur sedes, darentur Episcopi, & quod auditu horrendum & infandum est, intrude∣rentur in se∣dem Petri ea∣rum amasii pseudoponti∣fices qui non sunt nisi ad confignanda tanta tempo∣ra in Cata∣logo Roma∣norum Ponti∣ficum scripti!
• (s) 1.302

  Hoc uno hoc saeculum infelix, quod per annos fere 150. Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute ma∣jorum pror∣sus defece∣runt; Apo∣tactici Apo∣stacique po∣tius quàm Apostolici.
• (t) 1.303

  An. 925. §. 9, 10, & 11. Vidisti Lector, cujus autho∣ritate Ponti∣ficis (si tamen ille Pontifex dicendus) id primum fuerat intro∣ductum in Ecclesiam Dei. Johann. X. quo tur∣pior nullus, cujus sicut ingressus in cathedram Petri infamissimus, itá & exitus nesandissimus.
• (u) 1.304

  Baron. an. 931. §. 1.
• (x) 1.305

  Baro∣nius. an. 935. §. 4.
• (y) 1.306

  Fasciculus, Temp. Tandem cum uxore cujusdam se oblectans à Diabolo in tempore percuti∣tur & sine poenitentia moritur. Eadem habet Luitprandus.
• (z) 1.307

  O lu∣genda Roma quae nostris majoribus clara patrum lumina pro∣tulisti, nostris temporibus monstrosas tenebras futu∣ris seculis famosas effu∣disti!
• (a) 1.308

  Num ta∣libus homi∣num monstris ignominia plenis, scientia divinarum rerum vacuis, innumeros sacerdotes Dei per or∣bem terrarum scientia & vitae merito conspicuos subjici decretum est? Doleo Ecclesiam tam foede deturpatam esse ab iis qui eam regunt.
• (b) 1.309

  Quid hunc Reverendi Patres, in sublimi solio residentem veste purpurea & aurea radiantem, quid hunc esse censetis? Nimirum si charitate destituitur, solaque scientia inflatur, Antichristus est in solio Dei residens.
• (c) 1.310

  Marti∣nus in Chro∣nico. Galfridus in Supplemento. Sigertus, Platina, Stella, Onuphrius, Fasciculus temporum & alii plures.
• (d) 1.311

  p. 625. of his Book against the Mystery of iniquity.
• (e) 1.312

  Damian. Epist. ad Ni∣col. 2. Ponti∣ficem.
• (f) 1.313

  Glaber saith, that Sylvester was 12. years old when he was elected; but Baronius saith that he was but ten.
• (g) 1.314

  Eo tunc Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambitione, non dico sanctita∣te vitae & doctrina va∣leret, is tan∣tum dignita∣tis gradum, bonis oppres∣sis & rejectis, obtineret, &c. § 3. & 4.
• (h) 1.315

  Johannes Romanam occupat se∣dem, qui non legitimè vocatus à Deo sedet, sed ma∣lis artibus ascendit ad ipsam. Baron. An. 1027. § 13. & §. 7.
• (i) 1.316

  Baronius, Platina, Fasciculus, Coesseteau, p. 625.
• (k) 1.317

  Platina in Gregor. VI. Henricus II. in Italiam cum magno exercitu veniens, habita Synodo, cum Benedictum nonum, Sylvestrum tertium, Gregorium sextum tanquam tria teterrima monstra abdicare se magistratur coegisset.
• (l) 1.318

  Pag 628. of his Book against the Mysterie of Ini∣quity, of M. du Plessis.
• (m) 1.319

  Flatina in Damaso II. Damasus II. Pontificatum per vim obti∣net nullo cleri populi∣que consensu. Adeo enim inolevenat hic mos ut jam cuique ambitioso li∣ceret Petri se∣dem invadere.
• (n) 1.320

  Vide Dist. 82. Can. Pres∣byter, & ibid. Glos∣sam.
• (o) 1.321

  Non ignoras quin cum à poeni∣tentibus terras, pos∣sessiones agro∣rum videlicet accipimus, juxta men∣suram mune∣ris eis de quantitate poenitentiae relaxamus. Baron. an. 1055. §. 9. & seq.
• (p) 1.322

  Otho Frisingensis Chron. lib. 6. cap. 34. Leo Ostien∣sis lib. 3. Chron. Cassin. c. 20.
• (q) 1.323

  Causa 15. q. 6. Canone Ju∣ratos. Juratos milites Hugoni Comiti ne ipsi quandiu excommunicatus est serviant prohibeto. Coeffeteau p. 716. & 732. & 3. & 6. Vide Helmondi Historiam Sclavonicam, & Albertum Krantzium & Sigisbertum.
• (r) 1.324

  Abbas, Fuggerus, Platina, Ʋ••pergensis.
• (s) 1.325

  Matth. Paris in Hen∣rico I. Ra∣nulph. in Polych on l. 7. c. 7. Westmonaster.
• (t) 1.326

  Naucle∣rus 2 vol. Gen. 40. Bergomensis in Supplem. Chron ad ann. 1160. Petrus Justi∣ni••nus l. 2. rerum Vene∣tarum. Sa∣bellicus, l. 7. Decad. 5. Azor. insti∣tut. moral. part. 2. l. 5. c. 43. Bard in victoria na∣vali, p. 140. & 141.
• (u) 1.327

  Ranul∣phus Poly chronico Ro∣ger. Annal. Baron. an. 1191.
• (x) 1.328

  Platina in Bonifacio VIII Paul. Emilius, Krantzius, Du Tillet, Nicol. Gil. in the life of Philip. Fasciculus Temp. Ra∣nulphus Po∣lychronico, l. 7. c. 39.
• * 1.329

  Anno 1315.
• (y) 1.330

  Platina in Joh. XXIII. Largitione usus Pontifex creatur.
• (z) 1.331

  These instructions were prepa∣red at the Council of Senes, print∣ed at Paris, an. 1612. Sanctissimus & beatissi∣mus, qui ha∣bet coelester ar∣bitrium, qui est Dominus in terris, Suc∣cessor Petri, Christus Do∣mini, Domi∣nus Ʋniversi, Regum Pater, orbis lumen, &c.
• (a) 1.332

  Onuphri∣us, Panuinus, Supplemento Platinae in Marcello. II.
• (b) 1.333

  See the first book of the Sacred Ceremonies, Sect. 1.
• (a) 1.334

  Cum an∣tiquae consue∣tudinis sit ut novus Ponti∣fex galerum cui velit su∣um largiatur, eum juveni cuidam cui Innocentio nomen, do∣navit, quique quod in familia simiae curam gereret, Simiae etiam post adeptam dignitatem nomen retinuit, &c.
• (b) 1.335

  That Lady was Catherine de Bourbon, Dutchess of Bar, sister to Henry the IV. of France. Of that Prin∣cess this Author was Chaplain, and God made use of him to keep her to the last breath in the Protestant profession, opposing continually this du Perron, who in her life, and in her death, was her perpetual tempter to make her turn Papist.
• (c) 1.336

  Here the Author doth tax du Perron, who was known to be pandar to Henry the IV. Whereupon a Pasquil went about when du Perron was made Cardinal, that if du Perron was made Cardinal for his good services, there was hope that La Varenne (the Kings chief Pandar) should once be made Pope.
• (d) 1.337

  Liber. 1. Sacr. Cere∣mon. sect. 10. cap. 8.
• * 1.338

  See the first Book of Sa∣cred Cere∣monies, Sect. 8.
• (a) 1.339

  Ariano∣rum venenum non jam por∣tiunculam quandam sed pene orbem totum conta∣minaverat, adeo ut pro∣pè cunctis Latini sermo∣nis Episcopis partim vi partim fraude deceptis, &c.
• (b) 1.340

  Ecclesia non parieti∣bus consistit, sed dogma∣tum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est ubi vera fides est. Caeterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti, parietes om∣nes Ecclesia∣rum hîc haere∣tici posside∣bant. Ante viginti an∣nos, omnes Ecclesias ha•• haeretici pos∣sidebant; Ec∣clesia autem illic vera erat, ubi vera fides erat.
• (c) 1.341

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉?
• (d) 1.342

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.343

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.344

  Tom. 2. pag. 246. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.345

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• (h) 1.346

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.347

  Nolite gloriari in multitudine, quia non multi∣tudo sed causa damnationem vel justificationem adducit.
• (k) 1.348

  Neque hoc nos move∣re debet quia multi diabolo consentiunt, & pauci Do∣minum se∣quuntur, quia & fru∣mentum in comparati∣one palcarum valde pauci∣orem habet numerum.
• (l) 1.349

  Quod tunc corpus ejus in turba patiebatur, hoc patitur Ecclesia ejus; à turbis premitur, à paucis tangitur.
• (a) 1.350

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.351

  Florus. Cicero de Divinatione.
• (c) 1.352

  Adjici∣ent praeterea multa de au∣thoritate cu∣jusque do∣ctoris haereti∣ci, illos maxi∣mè doctrinae suae fidem confirmasse, mortuos sus∣citasse, debi∣les refirmas∣se, &c.
• (d) 1.353

  Christus temerariam signorum & virtutum fidem ostendit ut etiam inter pseudo••-Christos facillimam.
• (e) 1.354

  Ob∣servandum est quod virtutes dicuntur operantes hi qui non habent Evangelii veritatem.
• (f) 1.355

  Nunc autem signorum operatio omnino levata est, magis autem apúd eos invenitur qui falsi sunt Christiani, sieri.
• (g) 1.356

  Quaedam miracula etiam scoleratos homines facere, qualia sancti facere non possunt, nec tamen potiore loco apud Deum esse arbitrandi sunt.
• (h) 1.357

  Nam de exclusione daemonum & de potentia miraculorum, quoniam ple∣rique talia non faciunt, & tamen ad regnum Dei pertinent, plerique au∣tem faciunt & non perti∣nent, nec nostri nec vestri de∣bem gloriari.
• * 1.358

  Prosper li∣bro Senten∣tiarum ex Augusti∣no, Sent. XII. Imitatores Magistri debent esse Discipuli, non in faciendis miraculis quae nemo exigit, sed in custodi∣enda humilitate & patientia ad quae Dominus nos suo invitat exemplo.
• * 1.359

  1 Thes. 1.8.
• (a) 1.360

  Actis Concilii Ephesini. Vos probatos Ro∣manae religio∣nis Sacerdotes manifesto ar∣gumento de∣clarate.
• (b) 1.361

  Gregor. Hist. l. 2. §. 27. Syagrius Romanorum Rex Aegidii filius, ad civi∣tatem Sues∣sionis sedem habuit, & l. 2. c. 33. Gundobal∣dus Burgun∣dionibus leges mitiores in∣stituit ne Ro∣manos oppri∣merent. Et appendice c. 78. Har∣cardus ex ge∣nere Franco∣rum, Rauli∣nus ex genere Romano, Tril∣libaldus Pa∣tricius ex ge∣nere Burgun∣dionum.
• * 1.362

  Joh. 8.
• * 1.363

  Joh. 4.
• (a) 1.364

  Jam si longa aetas authoritatem religionis fa∣ciat, servan∣da est tot se∣culis fides, & sequendi nobis paren∣tes qui felici∣ter secuti sunt suos, &c. Optimis Principes, Pa∣tres patriae, reveremini annos meos in quos me pius ritus adduxit ut utar Ceremonijs avitis, &c. Hic cultus in leges meas orbem redegit, haec sacra Annibalem à moenibus, à Capitolio Senones repulerunt. Ad hoc ergo servata sum ut longaeva reprehendar? sera & contume∣liosa est emendatio senectutis.
• (b) 1.365

  A quibus si persuasionis ejus rationem requiras, nul∣lum possunt reddere; sed ad majorum judicia con∣fugiunt, quod illi sapientes fuerint.
• (a) 1.366

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.367

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.368

  Quam∣vis ergo san∣ctus sit ali∣quis post Apostolos, quamvis di∣sertus sit, non habet autho∣ritatem.
• (d) 1.369

  Non prae∣cipiendi au∣thoritate, sed proficiendi exercitatione scribuntur à nobis. Libe∣rum ibi habet Lector auditoris judicium quo vel approbet quod placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit. Non me movet authoritas Cy∣priani. The authority of Cyprian moves me not. And he gives for reason, that he is not greater then the Apo∣stle Peter. See the 9. Dist. Can. Ego solus Alphons. de Castro Franciscan. cap. 7. lib. 1. de haeresib. hath ga∣thered many the like passages.
• (a) 1.370

  Hodie jubentur te∣neri usque ad ultimum iota, ut infra. dist. 15. cap. ult.
• (b) 1.371

  Sanctis∣simos Patres in interpreta∣tione Scr∣ptura non semp••r in omnibus Ca∣tholica sequi∣tur Ecclesia.
• (c) 1.372

  Ex his videas Theo∣doretum hand felicite•• (eius pace dictum sit) affecu¦tum esse Pauli verborum sensum.
• (d) 1.373

  §. Sunt tamen; & §. S. Anto∣nius. Justini, Ire∣naei, Epipha∣nii, Oecume∣nii sententi∣am non video quo pacto ab errore possi∣mus defende∣re.
• (e) 1.374

  Lib. 6. de Conciliis c. 13. Scri∣pta Patrum non sunt re∣gula, nec ha∣bent au∣thoritatem obligandi.
• (f) 1.375

  In libris sanctorum Doctorum quos authenticè legit Ecclesia, nonnunquam inveniun∣tur quaedam prava vel haeretica.
• (g) 1.376

  Ʋt Augustinum, Basilium, &c. taceam, quorum non sumus semper opinionibus addicti.
• (h) 1.377

  Nullus detestetur novum Scri∣pturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis docto∣ribus, &c. Non enim alligavit Deus exposi∣tionem Scri∣pturarum priscorum Doctorum sensibus, &c.
• (i) 1.378

  Pudet dicere quae de optimis scriptoribus hoc loco di∣cturus sum, adeo sunt non modo falsa sed pudenda & absurda — Me ta∣men cogit di∣cere veritas.
• (k) 1.379

  Multa disputavit Cyprianus cum Cornelio Papa, Origi∣nes cum Afri∣cano, &c.
• (l) 1.380

  He would say John.
• (*) 1.381

  Salme∣ron Prolig. 2. §. Quin∣ta. Nam dum quisque eo∣rum diversi ab alio unum locum ex∣ponit imo etiam unus & idem va∣rio modo.
• (m) 1.382

  Respon∣demus locum ab authorita∣te esse infir∣mum, &c. Ibid. Deni{que} contra hanc quam objici∣unt multitu∣dinem re∣spondemus in verbo Dei, Exod. 23. In judicio plu∣rimorum non acquiesces sententiae ut à vero declines. Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii I. sententiam quae sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiam infantibus necessariam.
• (m) 1.383

  Respon∣demus locum ab authorita∣te esse infir∣mum, &c. Ibid. Deni{que} contra hanc quam objici∣unt multitu∣dinem re∣spondemus in verbo Dei, Exod. 23. In judicio plu∣rimorum non acquiesces sententiae ut à vero declines. Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii I. sententiam quae sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiam infantibus necessariam.
• (n) 1.384

  Cornelius Mus. Episc. Bitontinus in Epist. ad Rom. c. 14. Quem pro Deo habemus in his quae Dei sunt quicquid ipse dixerit tanquam Deum audire debe∣mus: Ego ut ingenuè fatear) plus uni summo Pontifici crederem in his quae mysteria fidei tangunt quam mille Augustinis, Hieronimis, Gregoriis, ne dicam Ricardis, Scotis, Gulielmis. Credo enim & scio quod summus Pontifex in his quae fi∣dei sunt errare non potest quoniam authoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectam in Pontifice residet.
• (o) 1.385

  De prae∣sentia Christi in Euchari∣stia, Disp. 6. q. 3. Puncto 11. §. quod si.
• (p) 1.386

  Minime mirum est si unus aut al∣ter aut etiam aliqui ex vt∣teribus minus considerate & rectè hac de re sense∣rint & scrip∣serint.
• (q) 1.387

  §. Prae∣terea & seq.
• (r) 1.388

  Chryso∣stomi inter∣pretationem multo magis probo quam illum Au∣gustini.
• * 1.389

  Infra c. 55.
• (a) 1.390

  Missam facio Augu∣stini & In∣nocentii I. sententiam quae sexcen∣tos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistiam etiam infan∣tibus necessa∣riam.
• (b) 1.391

  Novissi∣mè corpore & sanguine Christi confir∣matur infans ut ejus possit esse membrum qui pro eo passus est.
• (c) 1.392

  Nicol. de Lyra in Joh 6. &c. Jeremias Pa∣triarch. Const. lib. ad Ger∣manos.
• (d) 1.393

  Francis. Alvarez. hist. Aethiop. c 20.
• (e) 1.394

  Can. 22. Concil. Chal∣cedon.
• (f) 1.395

  Those Letters are inserted in the Codex of the Canons of the Afri∣can Church, and in the first To••e of the Coun∣cils, in the end of the sixth Coun∣cil of Car∣thage, and in Balsamon, and Zonaras.
• (g) 1.396

  Sunt subduriuscu∣la, praecupuè vero quae di∣cunt Patres de non mit∣tendis Lega∣tis in Afri∣cam.
• (h) 1.397

  Respon∣demus Afri∣canos Patres ex ignorantia deceptos, p. 476.
• (i) 1.398

  Justin. Apol. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (k) 1.399

  Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.400

  Angeli qui ad filios hominum de coelo ruerunt; item l. 5. Am∣bros. de bono mortis.
• (m) 1.401

  Ambros. l. 1. de Virgi∣nibus; Castitas Angelū facit; qui eam ser∣vavit, sanctus Angelus est; qui perdidit, Diabolus.
• (n) 1.402

  Tertul. lib. de Idolo∣lat. c. 11. Taceo de per∣jurio, quando ne jurare qui∣dem licet. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 4. Hieron in Mat 5. Chry∣sostom. Hom. 8. & 9. in Acta Victor. ••ticensis, l. 3. Nazianz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sub finem Athan. lib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Justin. Dial. cum Try∣phone, p 239. & 307. Vide Sixtum Se∣nens lib. 6. Annot. 26.
• (o) 1.403

  Ne{que} pati quicquam po∣test anima so∣la sine stabili materia.
• (p) 1.404

  Animam per se separatam ignis nunquam attigerit, nec tenebrae quidem ei molestae fuerint, utpote quae oculis caret.
• (q) 1.405

  Ne{que} animam sine carne, ne{que} carnem sine anima, cum sint sibi gestorum operum consortio copulatae, sine consortio vel poena esse vel praemii.
• (r) 1.406

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (s) 1.407

  Corpus & sanguinem Christs dici∣mus illud quod de fructibusterrae acceptum, & prece mystica consecratum.
• (t) 1.408

  In the Buckler of the Faith, Sect. 86.
• (u) 1.409

  In the third contro∣versie of the seventh book.
• (x) 1.410

  Parvulos non regenera∣tos, ad aeter∣nam mortem; alios autem regeneratos ad aeternam vitam duci de hac vita.
• (y) 1.411

  Nec est ullus ulli me∣dius locus ut possit esse nisi cum Dia∣bolo qui non est cum Christo. Hinc & ipse Do∣minus volens auferre de cordibus malè credentium istam nescio quam medie∣tatem quam conantur qui∣dam parvulis non baptizatis tribuere, &c. ait, Qui me∣cum non est, adversum me est.
• (z) 1.412

  Firmis∣simè tene, & nullatenus dubites, non solum homines ratione uten∣tes, verum etiam parvu∣los qui sive in uteris matrum vivere incipiunt & ibi moriuntur, sive cum de matribus nati sine Sacramento sancti Baptismatis de hoc saeculo transeunt, ignis aeterni sempiterno supplicio puniendos.
• (a) 1.413

  Nonnulli prius praesenti vitae subtrabuntur, quam ad profe••enda bona malave merita activae vitae perveniant. Quos quia à culpa originis, Sacramenta salutis non liberant, & hîc ex proprio nihil egerant, & illuc ad tormenta perveniunt.
• (b) 1.414

  Solus Christus homo factus, manens Deus, peccatum nullum habuit unquam, ne{que} sumpsit carnem peccati, quamvis de natura carnis peccati.
• (c) 1.415

  Maria ex Adam mortua prop∣ter peccatum; Adam mor∣tuus propter peccatum.
• (d) 1.416

  Christus sicut nullum à reatu libe∣rum reperit, ita pro libe∣randis omni∣bus venit.
• (d) 1.417

  Solus per omnia ex natis de foemina D. Je∣sus terrenae contagia cor∣ruptela, im∣maculati partus novi∣tate, non sen∣serit.
• (e) 1.418

  Ab ori∣ginali nemo nexu liber extitit, ne∣que ipsa ge∣netrix Re∣demptoris.
• (f) 1.419

  Virgo tamen ipsa unde assumptus est Christus, in iniquitatibus concepta est, & in peccatis concepit eam mater ejus, & cum originali peccato nata est, quia & ipsa in Adam peccavit.
• (g) 1.420

  Quisquis esse vel fuisse in hac vita aliquem hominem vel ali∣quos putat, excepto uno Mediatore Dei & hominum, quibus necessaria non fuerit romissio peccatorum, contrarius est di∣vinae Scripturae.
• (h) 1.421

  Sixtus IV. in Bulla cum Praecu∣celsa.
• (i) 1.422

  Salmeron in c. 5. Ep. ad Rom. Disp. 51. Vasques in 3^am Thomae, Tom. 2. Disp. 117. c. 1. Bellarm. De amiss. gratiae, & statu pecca∣ti. lib 4. c. 15.
• (k) 1.423

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.424

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.425

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (n) 1.426

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (o) 1.427

  Cum constet primum mandatum ita con∣tineri, Non sint tibi Dii alieni praeter me. Deinde Non facies tibi similitudinem ullam, &c. Tertium, Non sumes nomen Domini tui in vanum.
• (p) 1.428

  Unum cole Deum, ne jures vana per ipsum. Un seul Dieu tu adoreras & aimeras parfaitement. Dieu en vain ne jureras ni de pensee seulement. See the Hours of our Lady, & the Catechism of the Je∣suits.
• (q) 1.429

  Aposto∣lis dicit suf∣ficere solius fidei justifi∣cationem.
• (r) 1.430

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (s) 1.431

  Quia nemo legem servat, ideo dictum est quod solâ fide justificandi essent creden∣tes.
• (t) 1.432

  Ut sola fide benedice∣rentur gentes in Christo.
• (u) 1.433

  Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera Legis justificari sese putant justificatione Abrabae, cum videant Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum?
• (x) 1.434

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (y) 1.435

  Ecce sine operibus justificatur ex fide, & quicquid illi legali posset observatione conferri totum credulitas sola donavit.
• (a) 1.436

  Justin Martyr Dia∣logo de Try∣phone. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vide eundem Dialogum, p. 213.
• (b) 1.437

  Clemens Stro∣maton, lib. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.438

  Justin Dialogo in Tryph. p. 260. & 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.439

  Idem ibid. p. 279. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.440

  Clem. l. 2. Stroma∣ton. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.441

  Pag. 171. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.442

  Strom. l. 4. p. 217. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.443

  Strom. l. 5. p. 252. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.444

  Strom. l. 6.
• (k) 1.445

  Lib. 5. p. 227. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.446

  In omni∣bus autē sunt sine dubio & conjuges.
• (m) 1.447

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.448

  Lib. 2. contra Mar∣cionem, c. 16. Quis negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est?
• (n) 1.449

  Lib. de anima, c. 55, 56, 57, 58.
• (o) 1.450

  Lib. 3. in Mark c. 24.
• (p) 1.451

  Lib. de Baptismo, c. 15. & 18.
• (q) 1.452

  Accep∣tum panem & distribu∣tum discipulis corpus suum fecit, dicendo Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est figura corpo∣ris mei.
• (r) 1.453

  Panem corpus suum appellans, ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse.
• (s) 1.454

  In the book with∣out either head or tail, entituled, Examination of the book of M. du Plessis, fol. 951. and in the book of the Eucharist, against the same, book 2. chap. 7.
• (t) 1.455

  The whole pas∣sage is al∣ledged by Sixtus Senen∣sis, book 6. annotation, 66.
• (u) 1.456

  Fol. 959.
• (x) 1.457

  Fol. 956.
• (y) 1.458

  Perron against King James, fol. 961.
• (z) 1.459

  Lib. 2. c. 62. Cha∣racterem corporis in quo etiam adaptantur custodire eundem; & c. 65. Per hoc manifestis∣simè declara∣tum est & perseverare animas, & non de corpo∣re in corpus transire, & habere homi∣nis figuram.
• (a) 1.460

  Ergone non dicam vera constan∣tius? & habet anima oculum, & habet lin∣guam, & ha∣bet digitum, & habet caetera similia corporis membra, & haec tota est corporis similitudo & non corpus.
• (b) 1.461

  Manifestum est quia & Discipulorum Christi propter quos & operatus est Dominus, animae abibunt in invisibilem locum definitum eis à Deo, & ibi usque ad resurrectionem commorabuntur.
• (c) 1.462

  Si plena∣rio Concilio aut alia rati∣one fuisset edoctus, mu∣tasset senten∣tiam; & for∣tasse factum est, sed nesci∣mus. Et Epist. 48. Correxisse cum istam sententiam non inveni∣tur, &c.
• (d) 1.463

  Dionysius in Cypriani & Africanae Sy∣nodi dogma consentiens de haereticis re∣baptizandis, ad diversos plurimas misit Epistolas.
• (e) 1.464

  Athan. p. 178. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.465

  Greg. Naz. Homi∣lia. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.466

  Greg. Naz. Ep. ad Procupium. quae in Pa∣ris. codice est §. in Basi∣liensi. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.467

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.468

  Greg. Epitaphio Basilii. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (k) 1.469

  Vide & regularum breviorum interrogat. 233. c. 302.
• (l) 1.470

  Regularum breviorum interrog. 302.
• (m) 1.471

  Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 10. Opi∣nionem nobis naturalis sibi in passione doloris inve∣nit. Ibid In quem quamvis aut ictus incide∣ret, aut vul∣nus discende∣ret, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec impetum pas∣sionis, non ta∣men dolorem passionis inferrent; Ʋt telum ali∣quod aut aquam per∣forans, aut ign••m com∣pungens, aut aera vulne∣rans.
• (n) 1.472

  Ibid. Virtus corpo∣ris sine sensu poenae vim poenae in so desaevientis excepit.
• (o) 1.473

  Ibid. Christus cum cibum & potum accepit, non necessitati sed consuetudini tribuit. Vide Sixtum Senensem lib. 5. Annot. 186. & ipsum Hilarium in Ps. 68.
• (p) 1.474

  Hilar. in Matth. Can. 3. Transeat calix à me, id est quo modo à me bibitur, ita ab iis bibatur sine spei diffidentia, sine sensu doloris, sine metu mortis.
• (q) 1.475

  Si in judicii severitatem capaxilla Dei Virgo ventura est, desiderare quis audebit à Deo judicari?
• (r) 1.476

  Hillar. in Matth. Can. 5. Animarum species sive obtinentium corpora, sive exulantium, corpoream tamen naturae substantiam sor∣tiuntur.
• (s) 1.477

  Euseb. lib. 7. Historiae cap. 7.
• (t) 1.478

  Lib. 7. praepat. Evang. c. 6.
• (u) 1.479

  Am∣bros. in Ps. 118. Serm. 3. & 20. Omnes opor∣tet per ignem probari qui∣cunque ad Paradisum redire deside∣rant, &c. Omnes opor∣tet transire per flammas, sive Johannes Evangelista sit, sive ille sit Petrus.
• (x) 1.480

  Ambros. in Ps. 8. Qui non veniunt ad primam resurrectionem, sed ad secundam reservantur, isti urentur donec impleant tempus inter primam & secundam resurrectionem.
• (y) 1.481

  Reges à solo Papa ex∣communican∣tur & censu∣ris ligantur.
• (z) 1.482

  Ambros. lib. 2. de Pa∣triarcha A∣braham, c 4. Consideremus primum, quia Abraham ante Legem Moisi & an∣te Evangeliū suit; nondum interdictum adulterium videbatur. Poena crimi∣nis ex tempore Legis est, quae crimen inhibuit, nec ante Legem ullius rei damnatio est, sed ex Lege. Non ergo in Legem commisit Abraham, sed Legem praevenit. Deus in Paradiso licet conjugium laudaverit, non adulterium damnaverat.
• (a) 1.483

  August. Ep. 107. & lib 28. de civitate Dei, & saepe alibi.
• (b) 1.484

  Idem. lib. 4. de Ge∣nesi ad literam.
• (c) 1.485

  Idem lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae orthodoxae, c. 34. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & pictu∣rarum adoratores.
• (d) 1.486

  Bellar. de Pontifice, lib. 1. cap. 10.
• (e) 1.487

  Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 109.
• (f) 1.488

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.489

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.490

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.491

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (k) 1.492

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.493

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.494

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (n) 1.495

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (o) 1.496

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (p) 1.497

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (q) 1.498

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (r) 1.499

  Oratio∣ne 3. de re∣surrectione Christi.
• (s) 1.500

  Lib. 2. Philosophiae seu de ani∣ma, c. 6.
• (t) 1.501

  Orat. 1. de resur∣rectione Do∣mini.
• (u) 1.502

  Lib. 4. de studio. Theologiae, c. 5.
• (x) 1.503

  Epiph. haeresi Alo∣gorum, quae est 51. p••g. 446 Tom. 1.
• (y) 1.504

  Cassian. lib. 10. c. 3.
• (z) 1.505

  Idem Collatione 17. cap. 19.
• (a) 1.506

  Idem Collat. 21. c 5.
• (b) 1.507

  Hieron. Praefat. in Danielem.
• (c) 1.508

  Praefa. in Proverb. Salom. & prologo Ga∣leato.
• (d) 1.509

  In c. 1. Habak. Ab∣surdum est ad hoc Dei deducere Ma∣jestatem, ut sciat per mo∣menta singula quot nascan∣tur culices quotve mori∣antur.
• (e) 1.510

  Apolo∣gia pro libris in Jovinia∣num.
• (f) 1.511

  Tom 1. Concil. Hi∣eronymus durior fuit bigamis, ita ut nisi lenius cum co aga∣tur, vix possi∣mus illu à re∣prehensorum criminationi∣bus liberare.
• (g) 1.512

  Bellar. l. 2. de Pon∣tifice, c. 8.
• (h) 1.513

  Idem l. 1. de Cleri∣cis, c. 4. §. Contra.
• * 1.514

  Epist. ad Evagrium.
• (i) 1.515

  Aut in∣tegra Sacra∣menta perci∣piant, aut ab integris arce∣antur: quia divisio unius ejusdem{que} mysterii sine grandi sacri∣legio non po∣test provenire.
• (k) 1.516

  Institu∣tion. divin. lib. 4. c. 14.
• (l) 1.517

  Idem. lib. 3.
• (m) 1.518

  lib. 7. c. 20.
• (n) 1.519

  Lib. 2. cap. 9.
• (o) 1.520

  Lib. 2. divin. in∣stitut. c. 5.
• (p) 1.521

  Hier. Epist. 65. ad Pam.
• (q) 1.522

  Lib. 2.
• (r) 1.523

  Hieron. Prologo Ga∣leato. Et praefatione in lib. Salo∣monis. Ruf∣finus in Ex∣positione Symboli Concilii Laodicensis.
• (s) 1.524

  Aug. l. 2. de doctrina Christiana. Chrysost. Hom. in 2 Thes. 2. & in Psal. 95.
• (t) 1.525

  Chrysost. 3. Hom. de Lazaro. Hieron. Ep. ad Laetam.
• (u) 1.526

  Conc. Eliber. Can. 36. Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas esse non debere, ne quod adoratur in parietibus pingatur. August. de consensu Evangelico, l. 1. c. 20. Sic omnino errare merentur qui Christum & Apostolos ejus non in sanctis codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 17. Epiphan. Ep. ad Johannem Ierosolom.
• (x) 1.527

  Clemens Alex. Pro∣treptico. Tertul. in Hermoge∣nem.
• (y) 1.528

  Ambr. l. 4. Sacram. cap. 5. Fac nobis hanc oblationem a∣scriptam rati∣onabilem ac∣ceptabilem, quod est figu∣ra corporis Christi.
• (z) 1.529

  Tertul. in Marcion. l. 3. c. 19. & l 4 c. 40. Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, figura corpo∣ris mei.
• (a) 1.530

  August. in Adiman∣tum. c. 12. Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret sig∣num corporis ••ui. Codex Can. Eccl. Afric. Can. 37. Cypr. Epist. in Aquarios. Theod. Dial. 1. & 2.
• (b) 1.531

  Origen. l. 5. contra Celsum. Justin Mart. Apol. 2. Aug. l. 4. de Trinit. c. 3. Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.532

  Vigil. l. 4. contra Eutych. Quando in terra fuit, non erat utique in coelo; & nunc quia in coelo est, non est utique in terra.
• (d) 1.533

  August. in c. 6. Joh. & Tract. 26. in 1 Joh. & libro sententiarum Prosperi. Qui discordat à Christo, non manducat carnem ejus. Epiph. haeresi 42. Aug. l. 2. contra Epist. Parmeniani. Basil. Epist. ad Amphiloch.
• (a) 1.534

  Orat. in Julian. & Orat. de so∣rore Gorgon.
• (b) 1.535

  Aug. de Spiritu & a∣nima, & lib. de cura pro mortuis. c. 13 Hier. Epitap. Nepotiani.
• (c) 1.536

  Aug. de vanitate se∣culi. tom. 9. c. 1. serm. 4. de Conses. mortuorum. serm. 18. de verbis Apo∣stoli. serm. 232. adver. ebrietatem. Lib. de meritis peccat. & de remiss. c. 28. Hypognost. l. 5.
• (d) 1.537

  Tertul. Apol. c. 48. Nysse. Orat. 3. de resur. Christi. Chrysost. Hom. 39. in 1 ad Cor.
• (e) 1.538

  Hieron. lib. 1. in Jo. vinian. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae.
• (f) 1.539

  See the Epistles of Sidonius A∣pollinaris to the Bishops of Gaules.
• (g) 1.540

  Irenaeus apud Euse∣bium Victo∣rem increpat. Epist. Synodi Africanae ad Caelestinum subiecta co∣dici Cano∣num Eccle∣siae Africanae.
• (h) 1.541

  Formula juramenti Episcoporum in Pontifi∣cali.
• (i) 1.542

  See the Epistles of Leo 1. and other ancient Popes.
• (l) 1.543

  Codex Canonum Eccles. A∣fricanae cap. 135. The∣oph. Pascha. Epistolae. Euseb. de vita Constantini. l. 2. c. 67. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Ruff. l. 1. c. 1.
• (k) 1.544

  Theodo∣ret de haeres. c. de Nesto∣rio. Basil. ep. 10. Nazian. Orat. de A∣thanas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.545

  Leo Epist. 23. Omnes man∣suetudinem vestram cum genutibus & lacrymis supplicant sacerdotes, generalem Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam cele∣brari. Can. 28. Concil. Chalced.
• (n) 1.546

  Dicen∣dum quod ante tempora beati Gregorii modicus vel nullus usus fuit indulgen∣tiarum. Nunc autem crebre∣scit earum usus.
• (o) 1.547

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.548

  Greg. de Valentia Analys. l. 5. c. 3. in titulo Scripturam non esse suffi∣cientem regu∣lam fidei.
• (b) 1.549

  Salmer. Tom. 13. Disp. 8. §. Quinto opus. Hoc litteris consignari minimè debuerat, ut servaretur praeceptum Christi, Nolite dare sanctum cani∣bus.
• (c) 1.550

  Coster. Praefat. Enchirid. In ea tamen omnia contineri valde impudenter affirmare non verentur, &c. A Christo videtur cautum ne omnia fidei dogmata Scriptis commendarentu••, dum ait, Nolite dare sanctum canibus.
• (d) 1.551

  Tho∣mas 2a. 2^ae. quaest. 1. art. 10. Ad solam authoritatem summi Ponti∣ficis pertinet nova editio symboli.
• (e) 1.552

  Andrad. Romanos Pontifices multa defini∣endo quae an∣te latitabant, symbolum fi∣dei augere consuevisse.
• (f) 1.553

  Salmer. Tom. XIII. part. 3. Disp. 6. §. Est ergo. Doctrina fidei admittit additionem in essentialibus.
• (g) 1.554

  Salmer. ibid. §. Tertio varia. Hinc colligi potest non omnia tradita esse ab Apostolis, sed ea quae tunc temporis necessaria & quae ad salutem credentium idonea erant.
• (h) 1.555

  Lib. de Monogam. c. 2.
• (i) 1.556

  Bellar. l. de verbo Dei non scripto, c. 3.
• (k) 1.557

  Strom. l. 1. & 6.
• (l) 1.558

  Strom. 6.
• (m) 1.559

  Sess. IV. Pari pietatis affectu & reverentiā.
• (n) 1.560

  Hujus Scripturae praestantia multis parti∣bus superat Scripturas quas nobis in membranis Apostoli reli∣querunt, &c.
• (o) 1.561

  §. Secun∣da. Traditio est scriptura antiquer.
• (p) 1.562

  Scriptura dubiorum quae pullula∣bant judex esse non pote∣rat, &c. Tum quia difficilis est & quia muta est, &c. Non mittitur ad Scripturas quae instar nasi cerci du∣cuntur, quo quis vult, &c.
• (q) 1.563

  Salmer. 2. Proleg. §. Septimo. Non mirum si Ecclesiae Dei quae Spi∣ritum habet, subjiciatur Scriptura.
• (r) 1.564

  In Indice titulorum, l. 5. c. 5. Eccle∣siam non esse ex voluntate Christi Scri¦pturae al∣ligatam.
• (s) 1.565

  Christus nec Ecclesiam à chartaceis Scriptis pen∣dere, nec membranis sua mysteria committere voluit.
• (t) 1.566

  Stapl. Dixi & di∣co, non tam ipsius fidei regulam in se esse Scriptu∣ram, quam ipsarum Scripturarum regulam esse fidem Eccle∣siae.
• (u) 1.567

  Innoc. III. Extra. de biga∣mis, c. Quia circa. Postulasti per sedem Apostolicam edoceri si Presbyteri plures concubinas habentes, bigami censeantur. Ad quod duximus respondendum quod cum irregularitatem non incurrerint cum eis tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis poteris dispensare.
• (x) 1.568

  Navar. Tom. 2. cap. ad inferendam 23. qu. 3. de defensione proximi, c. 35. §. Decimum. Responden∣dum est crimen Sodomiae non comprehendi in criminibus quae irregularitatem inducunt.
• (y) 1.569

  Hier. in Ps 98. Omne quod loqui∣mur, debemus affirmare de Scripturis sanctis.
• (z) 1.570

  Aug l. de unitate Ec∣clesiae. Aufe∣rantur illa de medio quae adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis Ca∣nonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus.
• (a) 1.571

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.572

  Aug. de consensu E∣vangelista∣rum. l 1. c. ult.
• (c) 1.573

  Idem Tract. 49. in Johan. Evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & fecisse & dixisse quae scripta non sunt; electa autem sunt quae scribe∣rentur quae saluti creden∣tium sufficere videbantur.
• (d) 1.574

  Johan. l. 12. c. 69.
• * 1.575

  Pag. 783.
• (e) 1.576

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In have trans∣figured.
• (f) 1.577

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.578

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.579

  Theo∣phylact. in Ep. ad Ga∣lat. Neque enim si con∣traria solum praedicaverin•• praeter id quod ipsi evangeliza∣vimus, hoc est, si pluscu∣lum quippiam adjecerint.
• (i) 1.580

  Hoc prius credimus non esse quod ul∣tra credere debeamus.
• (i) 1.581

  Hoc prius credimus non esse quod ul∣tra credere debeamus.
• (k) 1.582

  Nihil ul∣tra scire, om∣nia scire est.
• * 1.583

  Pag. 803.
• (a) 1.584

  Cap. 22. Adoro Scrip∣turae plenitu∣dinem.
• (b) 1.585

  Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est scrip∣tum, time at Vae illud ad∣jicientibus aut detrahen∣tibus destina∣tum.
• (c) 1.586

  The∣odoret. Hist. Eccles. 1. cap. 7.
• (d) 1.587

  Bellar. l. de verbo Dei non scri∣pto. cap. 11.
• (e) 1.588

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.589

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;
• (g) 1.590

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.591

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• (i) 1.592

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (k) 1.593

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.594

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.595

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (n) 1.596

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (o) 1.597

  Sed & alia quae abs{que} authoritate & testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt at{que} confingunt, percutit gladius Dei.
• (p) 1.598

  Ecclesia Christi non est egressa de fi∣nibus suis, id est, de Scrip∣turis sanctis.
• (q) 1.599

  Quae non sunt scripta, reji∣cimus.
• (r) 1.600

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (s) 1.601

  Per solas Scripturas potes plenam Dei intellige∣re volunta∣tem.
• (t) 1.602

  In his quae aperto posita sunt in Scriptura, in∣veniuntar illa omnia quae continent fi∣dem moresque vivendi.
• (u) 1.603

  Quaeque aperta & ma∣nifesta deliga∣mus, quae si in sanctis Scrip∣turis non in∣venirentur, nullo modo esset unde aperirentur clausa & il∣lustrarentur obscura.
• (x) 1.604

  §. nunc jam. Scriptu∣ra tradit om∣nem verita∣tem, arcet ab omni vitio, stimulat ad omne opus bo∣num, &c.
• (y) 1.605

  Scrip∣tura sic est à Spiritu San∣cto concin∣nata at{que} con∣texta, ut om∣nibus locis, temporibus, personis, difficultatibus, periculis, morbis, malis pellendis, bonis accersendis, erroribus jugulandis, dogmatibus sta∣tuendis, sit accommodata.
• (z) 1.606

  § Respondeo. Non est de rebus quae pendent à divina voluntate aliquid asseren∣dum, nisi Deus ipse in Scripturis sanctis tale aliquid revelaverit.
• * 1.607

  Pag. 774,
• * 1.608

  Gen. 47.9.
• * 1.609

  Mat. 22.32.
• * 1.610

  2 Tim. 3.
• * 1.611

  Pag. 778. Josh. 3.4.
• * 1.612

  Pag. 803.
• (a) 1.613

  Book 3. chap. 6. p. 104.
• (b) 1.614

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.615

  Pag. 754.
• * 1.616

  2 Thes. 2.7.
• (a) 1.617

  Tantum qui nunc te∣net teneat, do∣nec de medio fiat, quis nisi Romanus Sta∣tus cujus ab∣scessio in de∣cem reges di∣spersa Anti∣christum superducit?
• (b) 1.618

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.619

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.620

  Columna & firmamen∣tum Ecclesiae Evangelium.
• * 1.621

  Pag. 809.
• * 1.622

  Pag. 816.
• * 1.623

  Pag. 819.
• (a) 1.624

  Nam & multa alia quae per tra∣ditionem in Ecclesia ob∣servantur, &c. Velut in Baptismo ter caput merge∣re, lactis & mellis prae∣gustare con∣cordiam. See also the Epistle to Lucian.
• (b) 1.625

  Epiphan. heresi 75. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.626

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (d) 1.627

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.628

  Iren. l. 2. c. 62. & l. 5. c. 5. & l. 4. c. 30. & l. 5. c. 12, 14. & 35.
• (a) 1.629

  Du Perro in the last book, ch. 4. p. 1095, &c
• (b) 1.630

  Index libror. pro∣hibitorum cum Regulis confectis per patres à Sy∣nodo Triden∣tina delectos Regula IV. Cum experi∣mento mani∣festum sit si Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimi∣ne permittan∣tur, plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilita∣tis oriri, hac in parte, judi∣cio Episcopi vel inquisito∣ris stetur ut cum consilio Parochi vel Consessarii bibliorum à Catholicis au∣thoribus ver∣sorum lectio∣nem in lingua vulgari con∣cedere possint, &c.
• (c) 1.631

  Qui ubiquè tali facultate ea legere vel ha∣bere prae∣sumpserit, nisi prius Bibliis ordinario redditis, peccatorum absolutionem percipere non possit.
• (d) 1.632

  Animad∣vertendum est circa supra scriptam quartam regulam felicis recordationis Pii Papae IV. nullam per hanc impres∣sionem aut editionem de novo tribus facultatum Episcopis vel Inquisitoribus vel Regularium superioribus, concedendi licentiam emendi, legendi, aut retinendi Biblia vulgari lingua editarum hactenus mandato & usu sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, & universalis Inquisitionis sublata eis fuerit facultas concedendi hujusmodi licentiam legendi vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria, aut alias sacrae Scripturae, tam Novi quam Veteris Testamenti partes, quavis vulgari lingua editas, &c.
• (d) 1.633

  Innoc. III. Serm. 1. in Conc. La∣teran. Tom. IV. Concil. gen.
• * 1.634

  Perron p. 1056.
• (e) 1.635

  Jesu Bone, quo illa fervore, quo studio intenta erat divinis voluminibus!
• (f) 1.636

  Semper in manibus tuis sit divina lectio.
• (g) 1.637

  Post Scripturas sanctas, do∣ctorum homi∣num tractatus lege.
• (h) 1.638

  Athanas. Tomo 2. pag. 248. Edit Paris.
• (i) 1.639

  Ita Scrip∣turas sanctas lege, ut semper memineris Dei illa ver∣ba esse.
• (k) 1.640

  Authori∣tas quae & om∣nibus ad le∣gendum esset in promptu, et secreti sui dignitatem in intellectu profundo servaret.
• (l) 1.641

  Athan. Tom. 2. 148. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (m) 1.642

  Multa∣rum gentium linguis Scrip∣tura translata.
• (n) 1.643

  Sixtus Sen. l. 6. An. 152.
• (o) 1.644

  Serm. 5. de natura ho∣minis. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (p) 1.645

  Con. Trid. Sess. 4. Sa∣crosancta Sy∣nodus statuit & declarat ut haec ipsa vetus & vul∣gata editio &c. pro au∣thentica habe∣atur, & ut eam nemo quovis prae∣textu rejicere audeat aut praesumat.
• (q) 1.646

  Littera Lamed fre∣quenter ad∣monuimus non posse satisfa∣ctionem intel∣ligentiae ex Latinitatis translatione praestari.
• (r) 1.647

  In Novo Testamento si quando apud Latinos quae∣stio exoritur, & est inter exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad fontem Graeci sermonis quo novum scriptum est Testamen∣tum.
• (s) 1.648

  Si Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus? tot enim pene sunt exemplaria, quot codices; sin autem veritas est quaerenda de pluribus, cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes quae à vitiosis interpretibus male sunt reddita corrigimus?
• (t) 1.649

  Ut enim veterum fides de Hebraeis voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum Graeci ser∣monis normam desiderat.
• (u) 1.650

  Latinae linguae homines duabus aliis ad Scripturarum divinarum cognitionem habent opus, Hebraea scilicer & Graeca, ut ad pracedentia exemplaria recurratur, si quam dubitationem attulerit Latinorum in∣terpretum infinita varietas.
• (x) 1.651

  Vulgata nostra editio quae Hieronymi esse dicitur, in multis à Graeca veritate distat.
• (y) 1.652

  Novum Testamentum ab Hieronymo conversum non esse, sed veterem tan∣tum versio∣nem multis in locis emenda∣tam.
• (z) 1.653

  Et ado∣ravit Israel contrà sum∣mitatem virgae ejus: & in hoc loco quidam frustra suadent adorasse Jacob summitatem sceptri Joseph, quod videlicet honorans filium, potestatem ejus adoraverit, cum in Hebraeo multo aliter legatur, Et adoravit (inquit) Israel ad caput lectuli.
• (a) 1.654

  Mediam autem inter has Latinam beati Hierony∣mi translatio∣nem velut in∣ter Synagogam & Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus, tanquam duos hinc & inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam Ecclesiam.
• (b) 1.655

  Salmeron Prolog. 7. §. Praeterea. Et qui à sa∣cris arcet li∣bris, in quibus leges Dei sunt conscriptae, exleges & fi∣lios Belial fa∣cit homines.
• * 1.656

  2 Pet. 1.19.
• * 1.657

  Note.
• (c) 1.658

  Irenaeus. Universae Scripturae Propheticae et Evangelicae in aperto, ut sine ambigui∣tate & simi∣liter ab omni∣bus audiri possint.
• (d) 1.659

  Theodo∣ret l. 1. hist. c. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.660

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.661

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.662

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (h) 1.663

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.664

  Luk. 10.
• * 1.665

  Pag. 1099.
• * 1.666

  Gen. 2.
• * 1.667

  Gen. 3.
• * 1.668

  Gen. 9.
• * 1.669

  Deut. 34.
• * 1.670

  Judg. 14.
• * 1.671

  Eccles. 3.17.8.12.12.14.12.13.
• * 1.672

  John 14.
• * 1.673

  John 17.
• * 1.674

  Note. A notorious falsification of the Car∣dinal to dis∣grace Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.675

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.676

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.677

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.678

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.679

  M. du Perron handleth this question in the first book ch. 50. p. 439, & seq. Rom. 3.2.
• * 1.680

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.681

  Aug. l. 18. de Civitate Dei cap. 36. & contra secun∣dam Epist. Gaudent. cap. 23.
• * 1.682

  Du Perron chap. 30. l. 1. p. 440, & seq.
• (a) 1.683

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.684

  Plurimi eorum captivi abducti sunt in terram non suam; Nuper. autem reversi ad Dominum Deum suum ex dispersione qua dispersi fuerant, adu∣nati sunt, &c. & ite∣rum possident Jerusalem.
• (c) 1.685

  This is very expresly affirmed in the end of Tobits book.
• * 1.686

  Seder Holam, hoc est, ordo seculi seu Chronicon.
• (a) 1.687

  lib. de doctrina, Christiana cap. 8. Hi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, & alius qui Ec∣clesiasticus inseribitur, de quadam simi∣litudine So∣lomonis esse dicuntur. Nam Jesu fi∣lius Sirach eo; scripsisse constantissimè perhibetur.
• (b) 1.688

  Alius pseudepigra∣phus qui Sa∣pientia Solo∣mon is inscri∣bitur
• (c) 1.689

  Nonnulli scriptorum veterum hanc esse Philonis Judaei affir∣mant.
• (d) 1.690

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.691

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (f) 1.692

  There in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, im∣perium exer∣centes.
• (g) 1.693

  Salmeron Proleg. 9. Can. 3. Li∣brum Sapien∣tiae ab alio quam Salo∣mone scribi non potuisse valde proba∣bile est.
• (h) 1.694

  Alii duo quorum unus Sapientia, al∣ter Ecclesia∣sticus dicitur, propter elo∣quii nonnul∣lam similitu∣dinem, ut Sa∣lomonis di∣cantur, obti∣nuit consue∣tudo; Non autem esse ip∣us non dubi∣tant doctiores.
• * 1.695

  Deut. 29.24.
• * 1.696

  Gen. 19.20.
• * 1.697

  2 Sam. 28.6.
• (i) 1.698

  Aug. l. 2. questionum ad Simplici∣anum qu. 3. Et forte hoc quod cum illa imago Samu∣elis Saulem praediceret moriturum, dixit etiam secum futu∣rum, quod uti{que} falsum est. Et paulo ante. Imaginariam illusionem Diaboli ma∣chinationibus factam prop∣terea Scrip∣tura nomine Samuelis appellat, quiae solent imagi∣nes rerum ea∣rum nomini∣bus appellari; quarum ima∣gines sunt.
• (k) 1.699

  This may bear a good sense in the English version which goes thus, Better is the churlish∣ness of a man then a courte∣ous woman.
• (l) 1.700

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.701

  Can. Sanct•• Romana. Dist. 15.
• (m) 1.702

  Cui & Eusebius & Apollinaris pari sententia responderunt, Susannae, Belis{que} ac Draconis fa∣bulas non contineri in Hebraico, &c. Unde & nos ante plurimos annos cum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo praeno∣tavimus, sig∣nificantos eas in Hebraico non haberi; & miror quos∣dam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indig∣nari mihi quasi ego decurtaverim librum, cum Origenes, &c. & doctores Graeciae fate∣antur non haberi apud Hebraeos, nec se debere respondere P••rphyrio pro his quae nul∣lam Scripturae authoritatem habent.
• (n) 1.703

  Regourd in his Demonstr. p. 337.
• (o) 1.704

  Josephus l. 11. c. 6. saith that he was an Hamalekite.
• (p) 1.705

  Du Perron chap. 88. p. 628. & 629. Du Perron. p. Ibid.
• (d) 1.706

  Du Per∣ron. p. ibid.
• (q) 1.707

  Bibliothe∣cae lib. 1.
• (r) 1.708

  Diodor. Sicul. lib. 17. & 18. Justin lib. 12. & 13. Currius l. 10. Aemil. Prob. in vita Eu∣menis. Strabo l. 17. Pausa∣nias Atticis, Plutar. vit. Alex. Appi∣an. de bello Syriaco.
• (s) 1.709

  Euseb. Chron. Arsa∣ces Parthus Antiochum Sidetem in∣terfecit.
• (t) 1.710

  See Hie∣rom on Da∣niel. Zosimus, Justin, Titus Livius l. 37. Appian in Syriacis.
• (x) 1.711

  Virgil. 4. Georg. lo∣quens de Nilo, Us{que} coloratis amnis devex∣us ab Indis.
• (y) 1.712

  Dionys. Halicar. l. 2. & 3. Plut. in Gracchis. Florus Epit. Livian. l. 60.
• (z) 1.713

  Ov. Fast. 4. Illic purpu∣rea canus cum veste sacordos. Minutius Felix. Sacer∣dotum hono∣res & purpu∣ras despici∣unt.
• (a) 1.714

  Josep. Antiq. l 13. c. 9. Euseb. Ch••onol. Olymp. 141.
• (b) 1.715

  Josep. Antiq. l. 1. c. 16.
• (c) 1.716

  Book 1. chap. 2. pag. 777.
• (d) 1.717

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.718

  Jer. 38.28.
• * 1.719

  Histor. l. V.
• (e) 1.720

  Lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 15. § Respondeo potuisse.
• (f) 1.721

  P. 538. & 540.
• * 1.722

  2 Macc. 15.38.
• (g) 1.723

  Si minus digne, conce∣dendum est mihi. And the French ver∣sion appro∣ved by the Jesuites of Lovain. Si je n'ay pas dit comme je devois, il me le faur pardonner.
• * 1.724

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.725

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.726

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.727

  Regourd 4. Demonst. p. 327.
• (d) 1.728

  Melito ex Canone He∣braeorum tan∣tum quos re∣citat libros recensuit.
• (e) 1.729

  Multi veterum in Canone expo∣nendo Testa∣menti Veteris, aperte secuti sunt Hebraeos.
• (f) 1.730

  Quae non habentur apud illos [Hebrae∣os] nec de vi∣ginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjici∣enda.
• (g) 1.731

  Apocry∣pha nescit Ecclesia. Ad Hebraeos igi∣tur recurren∣dum ést, unde & Dominus loquitur.
• (h) 1.732

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.733

  Maccabae∣orum historia Hebraea hic Graecorum supputat reg∣num. Verum hi••libri inter divinas scrip∣turas non re∣cipiuntur.
• (k) 1.734

  In codice Graeco Scali∣geri, pag. 44. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.735

  Demonstr. 4. p. 349.
• (m) 1.736

  Bellar. l. 1 de verbo Dei 4 c.. §. ex Graecis.
• (n) 1.737

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• (o) 1.738

  Athana∣sii Epist. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tom. 2. p. 920. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Hunc eun∣dem locum invenies apud Balsamonem, edit. nova Parisiensi. p. 921. & 922.
• (p) 1.739

  Stapl. de Authorit. Scripturae, l. 2. c. 4. §. 14. p. 360. Cur (inquam) Sapientiam, Ecclesiasti∣cum, Tobiam, Judith, & alios Veteris Testamenti li∣bros Aposto∣lorum tempo∣ribus non confirmatos, sed à posteri∣oribus Conci∣liis in Cano∣nem receptos, eo nomine rejiciendos affirmas?
• (q) 1.740

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (r) 1.741

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (s) 1.742

  Lib. 1. de verbo Dei, cap. 4. §. Ex Graecis.
• (t) 1.743

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (u) 1.744

  Pag. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (x) 1.745

  An. 750.
• (y) 1.746

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.747

  Sicut er∣go Judith & Tobiae & Maccabaeo∣rum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Ca∣nonicas Scrip∣turas non re∣cipit; sic & haec duo volu∣mina, Sapien∣tiam Solo∣monis & Jesu filii Si∣rach, legat ad ae dificatio∣nem plebis, non ad autho∣ritatem Ec∣clesiasticorum dogmatum confirman∣dam.
• (b) 1.748

  Sapientia quae vulgo Solomonis inscribitur & Iesu filii Sirach liber, & Iudith & Tobias & Pastor non sunt in Canone.
• (c) 1.749

  Sciendum ta∣men est quod & alii libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici à majoribus appellati sunt, ut est Sapientia Solomonis, & illa Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiae, & Judith, & Maccabaeorum libri, &c.
• (d) 1.750

  In editio∣ne Latina Bovii Tomo Concil. 1.
• (e) 1.751

  Alarum numerus an∣tiqua volu∣mina signat, Esse satis circa viginti quatuor ista.
• (f) 1.752

  Ita se∣cundum tra∣ditiones vete∣rum.
• (g) 1.753

  In the fourth de∣monstration, p. 354. & 355.
• (h) 1.754

  E•• hanc quidem Scri∣pturam quae appellatur Maccabaeo∣rum, non ha∣bent Iudaei, sicut Legem, Prophetas & Psalmos qui∣bus Deus te∣stimonium perhibet.
• (i) 1.755

  Hi Sapi∣entiae libro utuntur Si∣rach illius qui scripsit post Solomo∣nem, id est post mulla tempora li∣brum unum Sapientiae.
• (k) 1.756

  Illud eti∣am testimoni∣um quod po∣suisti Raptus est ne mali∣tia mutaret intellectum ejus, tan∣quam non Canonicum definiunt omittendum.
• (l) 1.757

  Qua de re non inor∣dinate agi∣mus si ex li∣bris licet non Canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae edi∣tis, testimo∣nium profe∣ramus.
• (m) 1.758

  Cathar. Opusc. de lib. Canoni∣cis, col. 302. B. Gregorius authoritate (ut opinor) Hieronymi motus vide∣tur concedere illos non esse Canonicos.
• (n) 1.759

  Du Perron. p. 441.
• (o) 1.760

  Baron. an. 586 §. 25. & An. 593. §. 72. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 46. Indict. 13.
• (p) 1.761

  Demon∣str. 4. p. 350.
• (q) 1.762

  De lacu vero & Abacak translato in Belis & Dra∣conis fabula in hoc ordine non ponitur, quod in au∣thoritate di∣vinae Scrip∣turae non habetur.
• * 1.763

  Pag. 441.
• (a) 1.764

  Istis temporibus Hermes Do∣ctor fidei & Scripturarum effulsit.
• (b) 1.765

  Dist. 15. Can. Sancta Romana.
• (c) 1.766

  Gelas. Cysicen. Concilii Ni∣ceni l. 2. c. 18. p. 546. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.767

  Page 442.
• * 1.768

  Page 443.
• * 1.769

  Page 443.
• (d) 1.770

  Susanne Belisque ac draconis fa∣bulas non contineri in Hebraico.
• (e) 1.771

  Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter hagiographa legitur, cujus authoritas ad roboranda illa quae in con∣tentionem veniunt mi∣nus idonea judicatur, &c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero san∣ctarum Sc••ip∣turarum legi∣tur compu∣tasse, acquievi postulationi vestrae.
• (f) 1.772

  Et in Judith, si quis tamen li∣brum vult re∣cipere mulie∣ris.
• (g) 1.773

  Legimus in Judith (si cui tamen placet volu∣men recipere) viduam con∣fectam jeju∣niis, &c.
• (h) 1.774

  Libri Ju∣dith authori∣tas ad robo∣randailla quae in contentio nem vemunt, minus idonea judicatur.
• (i) 1.775

  In Scrip∣turis narratur Constanti∣nus Impera∣tor divisse.
• (k) 1.776

  Pag. 345.
• * 1.777

  Page 441. & seq.
• * 1.778

  Page 444.
• * 1.779

  Page 446.
• * 1.780

  The text of Hierom we have before set in the Margent, chap. 65.
• * 1.781

  Page 446. of the first Edi∣tion.
• * 1.782

  Page 448.
• * 1.783

  John 10.
• * 1.784

  Page 449.
• * 1.785

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 1.786

  In Cano∣nicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quampluri∣um authorita∣tem sequatur, &c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut cas quae ab omnibus acci∣piuntur Ec∣clesiis Catho∣licis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. In cis vero quae non accipiun∣tur ab omni∣bus praeponi eas quas plu∣res graviores∣que accipiunt.
• (b) 1.787

  In hoc facto potest esse alius fa∣cilior intelle∣ctus & expe∣ditior exitus, ut non recte spiritum Sa∣muelis exita∣tum à requie sua credamus, sed aliquod phantasma & imagina∣riam illusio∣nem Diaboli, &c.
• (c) 1.788

  Putans Samuelem, adoravit Di∣abolum.
• (d) 1.789

  Et hanc quidem Scripturam quae appella∣tur Macca∣baeorum, non habent Judaei sicut Legem, & Prophetas, & Psalmos, quibus Domi∣nus testimoni∣um perhibet.
• (e) 1.790

  Wisd. 16.
• (f) 1.791

  Non mihi occurrit unde possit probari ni••i in libro Sapientiae quem Judaei non recipiunt in authorita∣tem Canoni∣cam.
• (g) 1.792

  Huic libro ex Canone H••braeorum qui in ei non est contradi∣citur.
• (h) 1.793

  See the place of Hi∣lary above, chap. 56.
• (i) 1.794

  Chap. 50. book 1. in the beginning. page 346.
• (k) 1.795

  Pag. 436.
• (a) 1.796

  Can. San∣cti Rom. Dist. 15.
• (b) 1.797

  Lib. de Clericis, c. 18. §: Ac Thomas. Nunc brevi∣ter proban∣dum est non jure divino sed humano duntaxat pro∣bibitum esse conjugium. Thomas 2.2. qu. 38. Art. 11.
• (a) 1.798

  Ex Au∣gust. l. 2. de Doctrina Christ. c. 8. Ubi pro quae Aposto∣licas sedes habere & Epistolas ac∣cipere me∣ruerunt, Gratianus legit, quas Apostolicae sedes habere & ab eo ac∣cipere meru∣erunt.
• (b) 1.799

  Can. Si Romanorum Dist. 19. Capitulum sancti Inno∣centii Papae cujus autho∣ritate docea∣tur à nobis utrum{que} Te∣stamentum esse recipien∣dum, quan∣quam in ipsis paternis Ca∣nonibus nul∣lum eorum ex toto continea∣tur insertum, &c. Si Vetus Novumque Testamentum sunt recipien∣da, non quod codici Cano∣num ex toto videantur annexa, sed quod de his recipiendi sancti, Papae Innocentii prolata vide∣atur esse sen∣tentia, &c.
• (c) 1.800

  Lib. 2. Epist. 16. non solum mandata Dei negligens, sed & scripta nostra con∣temnens.
• (d) 1.801

  §. Dico Duo Canones Pontificum suo modo sunt & dici possunt Scrip∣ta sacra & Canonica.
• (e) 1.802

  Cap. 18. & 36. Non minus in sanctarum traditionum sanctiones quam in ip∣sius Domini injuriam de∣linquitur.
• (f) 1.803

  Cap. 27.