The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Preface
THE PREFACE. Occaſion of Cardinal du Perron's Book. Anſwer to the two Prefaces, which he premiſeth before his Book. Iudgement of the Book, Wit, and Capacity of the ſaid Cardinal.
THE late King James of glorious memory,Occaſion of Monſieur du Perron his Book. moved with the zeal of Gods houſe, had by an example beyond all examples, conſecrated his Pen to the defence of Gods Cauſe. In which good warfare he was free from the niceneſs of Alexander the Great, who diſdained to enter the Liſts of the Olympick race, unleſs he had Kings for his Antagoniſts. This great King was not aſhamed to deſcend from the height of his dignities to run this race, holding it not a leſſening of his greatneſs, to take upon him a Labour by which God is honoured: Whereby he hath ſtirred againſt himſelf a multitude of Writers, like a cloud of humble Bees, that either buz without ſtinging, or break their ſting when they make bold to uſe it. Cardinal du Perron would have his part in that glory of meaſuring his Pen with the Royal, to raiſe his reputation by the greatneſs of his adverſary: But the honour of the Combate remained on his Majeſties ſide. That Prelate in the Aſſembly of the States held at Paris made a long Oration to aſſert the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, whom he affirmed to be depoſable by the Biſhop of Rome; ſaying, that the Apoſtles command,Rom. 13.1. Let every ſoul be ſubject unto the higher powers, was but proviſional, and for a time. And among his aſſertions, ſome were offenſive to the perſon of His Majeſty of Great Britain, and prejudicial to his State. Of which Oration he ſent a Copy to the King, as if he had preſented him with a nettle to ſting him.
Hereupon his Majeſty undertook the refutation of that Oration, by a Book, in which the Cardinals reaſons are overthrown, his allegations convinced of falſhood, and the independency of the Crowns of Kings is maintained with great ſolidity.
That Royal Book being ſhort and ſtrong, and concerning the Cardinals credit very near, the world did look for a ſhort anſwer from him. But he choſe rather to ſwallow the affront quietly, and condemned himſelf to a perpetual ſilence; ſeeking other occaſions to ſhew his ſufficiency to the King, to whom he writ by the mediation of M. Caſaubon, that he admired the vertues and rare conditions duplicate page duplicate page of his Majeſty; and that to expreſs the Character of a perfectly accompliſhed Prince, he wanted nothing but the title and name of Catholick.
This Prince not uſed to be rocked with offenſive praiſes, thought himſelf obliged to ſhew to the Cardinal, that the title of Catholick, as well as that of King, belonged to him by right: And with his Royal Pen writ a Treatiſe, wherein to appropriate that title unto him, he giveth a touch to the moſt part of our Controverſies, ſaying among other things, that he believes all the doctrines neceſſary to ſalvation, which have been univerſally received in the Primitive Church, of the five firſt Ages after Chriſt. That this Book might have a larger courſe, his Majeſty would have it in Latine, making uſe for it of the Learned pen of Mr. Caſaubon.
The Cardinal having received that Book, thought it a fair occaſion to publiſh ſeveral pieces which he had in his Study, ſupplying what was wanting to them to anſwer the Kings Book; which being Latin, and ſpread among Forreign Nations, reaſon and the nature of the Work required that Monſieur du Perron ſhould have anſwered in Latin. Wherein finding himſelf ſhort, not for want of learning, but of exerciſe, he contented himſelf to anſwer in French. Many years he hath ſpent in licking that Bear; for the great deſire he had to ſatisfie others, kept him from ſatisfying himſelf. I living then in Paris, was told by thoſe that often viſited the Cardinal, and by thoſe that reſorted to his Printer Antony Steven, that the Author had many times torn his own work, like another Saturnus that devoured his own children; That Book was like Penelope's web, which ſhe did only to undo it, ſo that it was always to begin anew; and ſo he would have continued ſtill, entertaining the people with the expectation of that Book, if he had lived longer: For that he might not be obliged to an anſwer, he would not ſuffer the Book to ſee the light, till himſelf could ſee it no more. Thus that Book is a child that oweth his life to the death of his Father. In the end, being on his death bed, he delivered into the hands of his friends and heirs his whole Manuſcript to make it publique after his death.
Anſwer to the firſt Preface.In the beginning of the Book he put two Prefaces, whereof the one is an Epiſtle to Mr. Caſaubon. The firſt perfection of it is, that there is almoſt no mention in it of the Word of God: It treateth altogether of the word Catholick. A word which now adays is given as the principal mark of the true Church: They will have that to be the true Church which is called Catholick, that is univerſal: And yet Heretical Churches have always aſſumed that title. And the Greek Church, an enemy to the Roman, and more ancient then it, yet at this time takes that title. It is a great abuſe to make names the marks of things. The marks of a good horſe, or of a vertuous man, are not words, but things; the marks alſo of the true Church muſt ſerve to make her goodneſs known: But this word Catholick, or Ʋniverſal, imports no goodneſs, and doth not ſignifie any vertue or perfection of the Church, but only noteth her extent. As in matter of coyns, the broadeſt pieces are many times the moſt ſuſpected; ſo for the Church the breadth and the large extent is no proof of purity. But if you take this word of Catholick Church for orthodox and pure in the Faith, as the Fathers take it very often, the Church of the Apoſtles reduced to one upper room, or fled into a deſart, was nevertheleſs the Catholick Church.
Herein eſpecially appears, how vain und unreaſonable is the diſpute about this term of Catholick, that ſeveral particular Churches are contending which of them muſt be called Catholick or Ʋniverſal; for it is as if Aſia, Europe and Africk were contending which of them muſt be called the univerſal world. All the Texts which Monſieur du Perron alledgeth out of the Fathers to this purpoſe are to no purpoſe; for the Fathers, by the Catholick Church underſtood all the Churches of the Eaſt, of the Weſt, and of the South; as thoſe of Greece, Aſia, Syria, Egypt, Africk, Italy, Gauls, &c. which at that time were orthodox, and made up one body, but now are ſeparated, and have loſt their former communion. Wherefore none of thoſe ſeparated parts can be now called Catholick. Neither hath the Roman Church any more right to challenge that title, then the Greek or the Syrian, from which the Roman is deſcended. In three of the four firſt Ages, if a ſtranger travelling through Syria or Egypt, had asked where the Catholick Church was, no body would have ſhewed him the Roman; for every particular Church called it ſelf Catholick, that is, orthodox, and embracing that faith which ought to be univerſal.
In the ſecond place the Cardinal ſpeaks of thoſe things which the Fathers hold as neceſſary or uſefull, ſaying that they muſt be received according to the proportion of the belief which the Fathers have beſtowed upon them. A diſpute altogether uſeleſs, before he hath ſpecified thoſe points controverted among us which have been believed by the Fathers, as uſefull or neceſſary.
In the third place, he enumerates ſeveral kinds of neceſſity. An abſolute and a conditional neceſſity; A neceſſity of medium, and another of precept: A neceſſity of ſpecial, and another of general belief; A neceſſity of act, and a neceſsity of approbation. All theſe diſtinctions of neceſſity he heaps up without neceſſity, rather to ſet out his Learning then to inſtruct the Reader. For we give him free leave to ſpecifie a hundred ſeveral ſorts of neceſſity, ſince they do us no harm, and decide no controverſie.
He adds a fourth obſervation, whereby he declareth who are thoſe Antients to whoſe judgement we ought to ſubject our ſelves: Thoſe are (in his opinion) the Fathers that have written in the time of the four firſt Councils, that is, from the year of our Lord, 325. unto the year 451. the ſpace of 126. years. As for the three firſt Ages, he ſaith, That we have but few books of that date, and that in them the face of the ancient doctrine, and practice of the Church cannot be ſeen wholly repreſented. He holds then that the Fathers of the three firſt Ages are not ſuch as can decide our controverſies. Thus the Cardinal uſeth the Fathers of the firſt and pureſt Antiquity, undervaluing them as men unfit to judge of our differences. Yet have we theſe Authors of that time, Juſtin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Origen, Minutius Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Euſebius: Out of whole writings, better then from thoſe that came ſince, one may learn what was the face and the doctrine of the Chriſtian Church near the Apoſtles time: Yea, I ſay, that thoſe that writ ſince, cannot be underſtood but by the help of theſe firſt: for the Fathers of the following ages often alledge the ancienter Fathers, and borrow their terms.
But the Cardinal leaveth them out, becauſe in ſome points they are far more expreſs againſt Popety then thoſe of the following Ages, as in the Invocation of the Saints, the veneration of Images, the Popes Primacy over the univerſal Church, and the celibat of Eccleſiaſtical perſons. For we ſhall ſhew in this Book how Monſieur du Perron †M. du Perron, 19. ch. of the 5. Book, p. 1009. And p. 994. he confeſſeth that even in Auſtins time the Church had not yet pronounced any deciſion upon this, whether the Saints enjoy the ſight of God before the laſt judgement.acknowledgeth that the Fathers of thoſe firſt ages ſpeak only of the interceſſion of Saints, but of their invocation not at all, and that there is not the leaſt trace among them of that cuſtom of praying to the Saints. For ſome of them ſay, that the Saints pray for us, but never ſay that we muſt pray to them. Likewiſe he acknowledgeth,*Pag. 712. that the Paſtours of the Church were married untill Conſtantines time, which is a ſpace of three hundred years. We ſhall ſhew alſo in the right place, that even our adverſaries confeſs, that in the firſt Ages the Pope was little acknowledged, and the Roman Church was not much regarded. And as for Images, not only they had no veneration,†See the 7. Book, 2. Controverſie, and 2. ch. of this work. but it was even a crime to be a Picture-drawer, or a Statuary, and thoſe Trades were abominable among the Chriſtians. It is not then without reaſon that Monſieur du Perron will not ſubmit himſelf to the judgement of the Fathers of the three firſt Ages: Not that the following ages may be more favourable to him, but the multitude and unmeaſurable length of their writings is fitter for finding of ſhifts, and fewer perſons are skilfull in them.
Yet to make that rejection of the Fathers before the four firſt Councels more ſpecious, he ſaith, that to his thinking, his Majeſty of Great Britain had conſented to confine himſelf to the Fathers of the four firſt Councils. He ſhould have produced the Kings words. For I maintain that this cannot be found. True it is (as Monſieur du Perron addeth) that the King hath extended that space to the five firſt Ages. But he that will have his belief examined by the Fathers of the five firſt ages, doth not exclude the three fitſt, but includeth them within that ſpace.
In the fifth place Monſieur du Perron declareth, how he would have the conſent of the Fathers to be taken, namely, that a doctrine is held by the univerſal conſent of the Fathers, when ſome of the moſt eminent affirm a thing, and the others are ſilent about it. But I hope to ſhew†1 Book ch. 47, 48, & 49. in this Book that the Roman Church of this time oppoſeth not only every Father by himſelf, but alſo the conſent of a great number of Fathers. And though they make a flouriſh of the names of Fathers to amuſe the people, yet really they make little reckoning of them. Beſides if one Father, yea, if two or three Fathers of the fourth or fifth age, have ſaid ſomething, of which no trace be found in the precedent ages, I ſee nothing that obliges us to believe that all the precedent ages have believed the ſame.
All that vexation which this Cardinal gives to himſelf comes hence, that he will not ſtand to the judgement of the Holy Scripture, but looks for other Judges then the Word of God, to caſt the Readers underſtanding into an inextricable labyrinth. For the writings of the Fathers are Greek and Latin Books, endleſs for length, and infinite for number, of which therefore the common people can have no knowledge. Alſo among the Books aſcribed to the Fathers many are ſuppoſititious, whoſe falſity is hard to be known: and of the ſenſe of the Text of the Fathers there is as much contention as of the ſenſe of the Holy Scripture, if not more: In which contention, if the Roman Church be judge of the ſenſe of the Fathers, ſhe will be ſure to overcome. Conſider alſo, that the Fathers diſſent among themſelves in many things; and in their differences we are not told which of them we muſt adhere unto, nor how many Fathers are requiſite to eſtabliſh an article of Faith. Moreover, ſucceſſion of times altereth the doctrine, and changeth the cuſtoms: So that many words uſed by the ancients have loſt their ſignification. The words of Sacrifice, of Pope, of Maſs, of Purgatory, of Satisfaction, of prayer for the dead, of indulgence, and the like, are now turned into another ſenſe, and ſignifie no more what they ſignified in old time. And after all, the Fathers are men ſubject to err, whom therefore the Roman Church doth condemn in a thouſand things, and the Fathers themſelves will not be believed but as much as they ſpeak according to Scripture; upon which, as the only infallible rule, they will have their writings examined.
And here admire the notorious perverſneſs of our adverſary; for we ſhall ſee how much Monſieur du Perron labours to prove, that conformity with Scripture cannot be a mark to diſcern the true Church: and yet the whole ſcope of his Book is to prove that the Roman Church is the true Church by her conformity with the Fathers. This he will have to be the mark, and the right cognizance of the true Church. So he rejects God, and his word, to put men in their place, and miſ-leadeth mens minds into a way without end, and chooſeth men for Judges in Gods cauſe. What reaſon can be given, why the conformity with thoſe who are called Fathers, muſt rather be the mark of the true Church, then the conformity with the word of God?
The Cardinal not content with the advantage which he takes, to have judges of his own chooſing to decide our controverſies, and leaving the Prophets, the Evangeliſts and the Apoſtles, to pick among the Fathers, ſuch as he likes beſt, gives himſelf again another advantage, which is to chooſe the matters about which he will diſpute. Theſe matters then he hath choſen. Of the real preſence in the Sacrament, of the oblation of the Euchariſt, of prayer and offering for the dead, and of invocation of Saints. Why he doth not put Tranſubſtantion in the ſame rank? he gives a reaſon, namely, That it is not of the like neceſsity. He adds that the invocation of Saints, is not neceſſary to every particular perſon, that is, that every particular perſon may forbear praying to the Virgin Mary and to the Saints, but that it is neceſſary to the body of the Church. Of theſe four points then we treat in this Book, and make it evident, that he is caſt by thoſe very judges which he hath pickt for himſelf.
But his Majeſty of Great Britain, judging it unreaſonable that the Cardinal ſhould deal ſuch a fair game to himſelf, put forth to him other queſtions; as the Communion under one kind; Private Maſſes; The Popes power to depoſe Kings. To which his Majeſty might have added, The veneration of the Images of Saints, The Images of the Trinity, The Purgatory, The Divine Service and Prayers in an unknown tongue, The prohibition of reading Scripture, The treaſure of Indulgences, The power of the Pope to Canonize Saints, and fetch ſouls out of Purgatory; and many ſuch things, about moſt of which our adverſaries avoid to diſpute, either by the Scripture, or by the Fathers; for they are new inventions, of which, thoſe among them that have ſome equity, freely acknowledge, that the Fathers make no mention.
The Cardinals ſecond Preface,Anſwer to the ſecond Preface. is nothing elſe but his old ſong ſaid a thouſand times over, which is an exhortation, that we ſubmit our ſelves to the judgement of the Church, and keep union with her: A good exhortation, when one hath diſcerned before which of many diſſenting Churches is the good, where the truth and the way to ſalvation is taught. Alſo before one joyn with the true Church, he muſt know that the will of God is, that there be a Church in the world in which men may be ſaved. Which two points, none can know but after he hath been inſtructed in the Word of God. Whence it appeareth, that the Cardinal abuſeth the Reader when he exhorts him to joyn with the union of the Church; but teacheth him not how to diſcern the good and orthodox Church from the falſe and erroneous, and giveth him no inſtruction by the word of God; without which we ſhould not know that there muſt be a Church in the world, nor what that Church muſt be that one may be ſaved in it.
To ſtrengthen that exhortation, and raiſe the authority of the Church, the Cardinal labours to debaſe the authority of holy Scripture, ſaying, that the moſt part of the propoſitions of Faith are not expreſly ſet down in Scripture, but are deduced out of it by conſequence only; and that thoſe that are found in it are ſuſceptible of divers, yea, and contrary, literal expoſitions. He beſtoweth a long diſcourſe to ſhew the perplexities wherein that man intangleth himſelf, that will get his inſtruction by the Word of God, contained in the holy Scriptures. Wherefore he will have us to addreſs our ſelves unto the Church, which he calls a judiciary Court between the Princes Law, and the Subjects, to deliver aſſuredly the ſenſe of Scripture wholly determined, and the deciſions of Faith altogether done and formed. Now that Church he preſuppoſeth to be the Roman only, which he holds to be infallible in the deciſions of Faith, and in the interpretation of Scripture, and to give authority to Scripture; although both the Greek and the Syrian Church, from which the Roman is deſcended, and where Jeſus Chriſt and the Apoſtles have preached and planted Chriſtian Religion, contradict that aſſumed power of the Roman Church, and condemn her pride.
Here impiety goes abroad unmasked, and makes open war againſt God: Yet with ſo ill ſucceſs, that at the very firſt the Cardinal doth evidently enterfere, and contradict himſelf; for he will have the people to go to the Church for the true deciſion of the doubts in the faith, before they know whether the Church, to which they addreſs themſelves, be good, and whether it teach true doctrine. And how can the poor people come by that knowledge? Shall it be by the holy Scripture? but it is a Book which their people is not permitted to read: and Monſieur du Perron ſaith, that one cannot come out of difficulty that way, or get a certain inſtruction. Shall it be by the Fathers? but they are far more obſcure then Scripture, and of an endleſs length, and they diſſent among themſelves, and they are Greek and Latine Books which the people underſtands not. Shall it be by the cuſtom and the place of their birth, and the counſell of their neighbours? But ſo ſhall every one follow the Religion of his Countrey. Shall it be by the authority of the Church? But there are many diſſenting Churches: And if we muſt abſolutely, and without further inquiry believe that the Roman Church is the beſt, becauſe ſhe ſaith ſo, ſhe ſhall be judge in her own cauſe; and the foundation of Chriſtian faith ſhall be that the Pope muſt be believed, becauſe the Pope will have it; and the Roman Church muſt be followed becauſe the Roman Church doth command it. And in the queſtions about the duty of the Church, the Church her ſelf ſhall be Judge. In the queſtion whether the Roman Church be an infallible Judge, the Roman Church ſhall be the infallible Judge; and cannot err in judging the controverſie whether her ſelf can err. So Subjects ſhall be infallible Judges of the Law of their Prince, and Felons ſhall infallibly determine of the ſenſe of that Law which condemneth their fellony.
Without queſtion, that man that beareth himſelf as an infallible Judge, of the ſenſe of Gods Word, aſſumes an authority above that of God. For ſo he will have all men obliged to follow, not the Words of Gods Law, but the authority of that new Interpreter: But then that Interpreter ſhould be without ſin, leaſt he ſhould ſin in his Interpretation, or make it ſerve to ſpare or to diſguiſe his ſin; By which means he ſhould become his own Judge, if his ſins muſt be judged by the interpretation which himſelf will be pleaſed to give to the Law.
From that abuſe are ſprung thoſe abominable rules maintained by M. Du Perron, that the Church can diſpenſe from the Commandments of God, and alter that which is commanded in his Word. Of which hereafter.
In this eſpecially the impoſture and the ſpirit of errour is viſible, that the Cardinal will have the people to addreſs themſelves unto the Church to have the ſenſe and infallible intepretation of Scripture, which is putting the people to ſeek for a thing which cannot be found, for hitherto the Roman Church hath made no interpretation of Scripture. Only you ſhall find great number of Comments upon Scripture, made by private Doctours that confute one another, and an extream diverſity among them. The Roman Church never ſet out any interpretation of Scripture, approved by publick authority, of which one may ſay, This is the Eccleſiaſtical interpretation, This is the ſenſe of Scripture which the Roman Church commands to be received. And here it would be proper to produce the ridiculous or impious interpretations given by the Popes in their Canons, Decrees, and Councils unto Scripture; of which the Learned of this Age among our Adverſaries are aſhamed. M. Du Perron was wiſer then to make uſe of them in his*1. Book ch. 22. Book. For theſe we dedicate a Chapter purpoſely.
To reſolve Conſciences we ſhall go another way to work, a ſhort, a ſtraight and a ſafe way. Our Adverſaries and we are agreed that the holy Scripture of the Old and New Teſtament is the Book of Gods Word, and that there is none elſe. For although the Popes did endeavour to put their Decretals among the Canonical Scriptures, as we will ſhew; yet God did not ſuffer them to compaſs that enterpriſe. Since then that Book is the Word of God, in that Book only we ſeek the Doctrine of Salvation. And to the queſtion of our Adverſaries, Who ſhall be the interpriter of that Scripture? Is every one of you inspired by God to penetrate into the ſenſe of Scripture? We anſwer, that it needs no interpreter for the things neceſſary to Salvation: For thoſe neceſſary things are ſo clearly ſet down in Scripture, that there is no need of interpretation to underſtand them ſufficiently to be ſaved. Scripture teacheth us that God hath created the World, That Jeſus Chriſt is dead for us, and that he is riſen again. Scripture commands us to love God with all our heart, and our Neighbour like our ſelves. Scripture forbids us to kill, to commit adultery, to ſteal, &c. To underſtand theſe things is there any need to find an infallible Interpreter? Now I ſay, that the things that are thus clear in Scripture, are ſufficient to Salvation.
Since then in that queſtion about the interpretation of Scripture M. Du Perron will have us to find out an Interpreter that may judge with an infallible authority, and a judiciary Court able to give infallible and irrevocable deciſions, I maintain that there is no ſuch Judge to be found among men; but the Soveraign Prince can interpret his Laws with an interpretation that hath the force of a Law. It is our part to obey God, not to be Judges of his Ordinances. When ſome obſcurity occurs in Scripture, Gods faithful Miniſters expound Scripture by word or writing, not by a judgment of authority, but by a judgment of diſcretion; as when one judgeth of the taſt of meats; not to give Laws, but to declare his opinion: and alwaies their expoſitions muſt be drawn from Scripture it ſelf, not from the unwritten word as the Roman Church doth. If God by ſome obſcure Text is pleaſed to exerciſe or trye our humility, we ought rather to chuſe to be ignorant of the ſenſe then to make our ſelves infallible Judges of the Word of God, contenting our ſelves with thoſe things neceſſary to Salvation, which are clearly ſet down in Scripture.
What I ſay here will make a ſtronger impreſſion in mens minds, when thoſe Texts ſhall be examined which the Roman Church alledgeth, to arrogate unto her ſelf the authority of Judge and infallible interpreter of the ſenſe of Scripture. For even in this that ſhe alledgeth Scripture to ground her authority, ſhe acknowledgeth that the authority of Scripture is not grounded upon the authority of the Church, ſince the Church ſeeketh to ground her authority upon Scripture. The Roman Church endeavouring to prove by Texts of Scripture, that to her belongeth the authority of an infallible Interpreter, thereby diveſteth her ſelf from the auhority of Interpreter: For muſt ſhe be Interpreter of thoſe texts whereby ſhe pretendeth that ſhe is acknowledged to be Interpreter? That audaciouſneſs treſpaſſeth againſt common ſenſe.
But what texts do they uſe to confer the title of an infallible Interpreter upon the Roman Church? They alledge theſe words, Tell it unto the Church, Matth. 18.17.and if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen man and a Publican. Is not that mocking God? Is it ſpoken there of the Roman Church any more then of the Greek, or Armenian, or Syrian, or Ethiopian? See the text, and you ſhall find that it is not ſpoken there of the Univerſal Church, nor of the deciſions of Faith, but of quarrels and offences between two private perſons, upon which, if he that hath wronged his Neighbour will not hear the admonitions of the Church, the Lord Jeſus will have him held for a ſtranger, and put out of the communion of the faithful. To take up ſuch a quarrel between two brothers, doth the Univerſal Church aſſemble her ſelf? Is it not evident, that in that text the doubts about Faith are not meant, but Eccleſiaſtical cenſures about manners? Is there any mention in that place of the Roman Church, or of her authority to expound Scripture? Is not then this interpretation brought by†Cap. Novit. Extra; de Judiciis. Innocent the III. and approved by*Bellar. lib. 2. de Concil. c. 16. Cardinal Bellarmin a gallant one. Tell it unto the Church, that is, unto the Pope; and let the Pope tell it unto the Church, that is, unto himſelf.
In vain Mr. Du Perron goeth about to daube ſo many abſurdities with ſome texts of the Fathers, which exault the authority of the Church, and the ſucceſſion of Paſtors. In vain doth he bring forth†Of Vincentius Lirinenſis there is a Chapter in this Book, which is the 30. of the firſt Book. Vincentius Lirinenſis, who will have Scripture interpreted according to the rule of the Eccleſiaſtical and Catholick ſenſe; For none of thoſe whom the Cardinal alledgeth, ſpeaks of the Roman Church; None of them puts the Church above Scripture. And all things conſidered, that which the Ancients write of the Church of their time, cannot be accommodated to the Church of our time. For they ſpake in a time when the Churches of Europe, Aſia, and Africa were joyned in one body, the parts whereof are now ſeparate in Communion, and in a time when the ſucceſſion was ſhort and of freſh date, and known of all. But now, that all thoſe Churches are divided by a Schiſme of many Ages, and the ſucceſſions of chairs have been confounded and interrupted by a thouſand alterations; and in the ſame chairs, not only in thoſe of Alexandria and Antioch (which are held to have been founded by St. Peter) but alſo, in that of Rome; I ſay now after ſo many years and changes, it is offering an abuſe both to God and men, to go about to apply to the Roman Church that which the Ancients ſay of the Church of their time. As if Apes coming into a room whence men are gone out, would attire themſelves with their cloathes. There was more need to teach the Roma… Church to ſpeak as the Apoſtles do, and to reform her by the Word of God.
The exhortation which M. Du Perron addeth, whereby he doth exhort us to charity and union, is very ſpecious: And would to God that it were in our power to practice it. For what profit do we reap from this diſcord but ruine and diſgrace? And can any thing be more deſirable then a peace with God, whereby we be rejoyned with men, and the Union in the true Faith be made faſt by the bond of charity and concord? Oh that ſuch a great good might be purchaſed with our blood! Oh that we migt be more afflicted yet then we are, ſo that God thereby were glorified, and our Adverſaries brought to Salvation! There was no need then of the Cardinal's exhortations in the words of our†John 13.35. Saviour, and of St. Paul *1 Cor. 1.13. Eph. 4.4.that we love one another, that we avoid diviſions, and that we become one body and one ſpirit; For to that charity we are wholly and heartily inclined, as every godly perſon ought to be. But that Union ought to be in good things. And we hope that no exhortation ſhall ever prevail ſo far with us, as to make us agree with any to do evil. We owe much unto Concord, but we owe all unto Truth. As in the breaſts of the wicked peace of Conſcience is not a true peace but a lethargy and a profound drowſineſs; likewiſe the agreement of many wicked men is not a peace but a conſpiracie. Therefore the Apoſtle to the Hebrews ſaith, Follow peace with all men and holineſs. And St. Paul will have us to ſpeak the truth in love. Heb. 12.14. Epheſ 4.15.For the Apoſtle would not have our charity employed to foſter untruth. So the Cardinals exhortations to charity will be welcome to us, when we are ſatisfied once of the truth of his doctrine. That being not evident unto us, but rather the clean contrary, while we keep far from the doctrine of thoſe that hate us, yet we will love their perſons and pray for their converſion.
Towards the end he doth triumph though he hath got no victory; taking it for granted,Cant. 4.9. Eph. 5.25. Iſa. 60.12. Iſa. 54.17. Matth. 16. & 18. that the Roman Church is that which is meant in Solomon's Song, Thou haſt raviſhed my heart my ſiſter, my ſpouſe. And that for which St. Paul ſaith, that Jeſus Chriſt hath given himſelf. That of which Iſaiah ſaith, The Nation and Kingdom that will not ſerve thee, ſhall periſh. And every tongue that ſhall riſe againſt thee in Judgement thou ſhalt condemn. That of which Chriſt ſaith that the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt her; and that who ſo refuſeth to hear her, muſt be accounted as a Heathen man and a Publican. Of which texts, ſome ſpeak of the Church of the Elect; for ſhe is that Church meant in the Canticles, that Church redeemed with Chriſts Blood, That Spouſe and that Body of Chriſt, without blemiſh and without ſpot, againſt which the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail, as we ſhall ſhew in the right place. The other texts ſpeak of the Univerſal and Orthodox Church planted by the Apoſtles, not of the Roman Church, of which Iſaiah never ſpake. Or they ſpeak of every particular Orthodx Church, of which, whoſoever (that hath offended God or his Neighbour) doth not receive the admonitions, and oppoſeth the diſcipline, muſt be held as a Pagan and a Publican. For by a great abuſe of Scripture the Cardinal confounds all theſe texts as ſpeaking of the ſame thing, and of the ſame kind of Church, and ſuppoſeth without proof, that all that belongs to the Roman Church.
Finally, he concludes his Preface by ſome texts, which he imployeth to prove that out of the Church there is no Salvation. He brings in the firſt place a text of St. Paul, Eph. 1.22, & 23.that God gave him to be the head over all things unto the Church, which is his body, the fulneſs of him that filleth all in all. A text nothing to his purpoſe; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of the Roman Church, nor of the viſible Church neither, but of the Church of the Elect, which only (to ſpeak properly) is the myſtical body of Chriſt; unleſs we will put dead members in the body of Chriſt, who is the Author of life, and affirm that many profane and hypocrites living in the viſible Church, are members of the body of Chriſt, and that the ſame man is a limb of the body of Satan and of the body of Chriſt together. Is there any doubt that when St. Paul cauls the Church the body of Chriſt and the fulneſs of it, he means the whole body of Chriſt? Out of which body thoſe Saints which are reigning in Heaven cannot be excluded, nor the Elect which are yet unborn. That being granted, it is impoſſible that the viſible Church be meant in that text, ſeeing that the greateſt and the beſt part of that Church which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of is inviſible unto us; and there is neither reaſon nor likelyhood, that the profane and falſe Chriſtians that are on earth, be of the ſame body as the Saints which are in Heaven. Wherefore alſo the ſame Apoſtle in the ſame Epiſtle ſaith, that this Church hath neither ſpot nor wrinckle, which cannot be proper to any viſible Church, and to the Roman Church leſs then to any, ſhe being defiled with ſo much uncleanneſs by the very confeſſion of the moſt paſſionate of our Adverſaries, as we have ſhewed many times. Beſides, that text doth not ſpeak of a neceſſity of joyning with the Church, but of the dignity and Spiritual Empire which the Father hath beſtowed upon his Son our Lord.
To that text Monſieur Du Perron addeth many texts of the Fathers, which ſay that out of the Church there is no Salvation. I will do ſo much for him as to ſuppoſe that by the Church he underſtands not ſome Heretical or Idolatrous Church, but the true, the good, and the pure in doctrine. Now the queſtion between us is, whether the Roman Church be ſuch: And this is that which muſt be proved, not preſuppoſed. And although this were proved, yet ſince the Roman Church is a particular Church, not the Univerſal, I might as well find Salvation in another particular Church equal to it in purity. After all, to what purpoſe ſhould one alledge againſt us, that out of the Church there is no Salvation, ſince we alſo hold it and believe it? For if it be queſtion of the Church of the Elect, it is out of queſtion that out of it one cannot be ſaved. As a branch cannot live ſeparated from the body of the tree, ſo there is no life to Salvation out of the body of Chriſt, who is the Spring of life. Or if one ſpeak of the viſible Church, it is certain that none can be ſaved who by profaneneſs or error in the foundation of the Faith, ſeparates himſelf from the communion of the Univerſal Church, and renounceth the communion of the Church, to live after his own fancy, or make a Sect of his own. But of that matter, as alſo whether this rule, that out of the Church there is no Salvaion, be lyable to ſome exceptions, we ſhall ſpeak further hereafter. The main matter is to ſhew, that in the Roman Church Jeſus Chriſt is preached according to the Goſpel, and his Word purely taught; for without that there can be no Salvation in it. Take that away, all the titles of Catholick Church, chairs, keyes, ſucceſſion, multitude, miracles, in vain will be bragged of; All that will ſerve only to lead Souls into Hell more ſpeciouſly, and to give authority to untruth. As unchaſt women are the moſt curious to trick themſelves up, the worſt Churches will put on the moſt eminent titles. But as the Devil appearing in the ſhape of a mans body, will counterfeit all the parts and likeneſs of the body, but only the life and the brightneſs of the eye: Likwiſe falſe Churches will put on the ſhew of the Church of Jeſus Chriſt, all but the light of his truth.
It remains now,Judgment of the Work & wit of M. Du Perron. that we give ſome general taſte to the Reader of this Book of the Lord Cardinal Du Perron, that by a pattern he may judge of the whole piece.
In the firſt place, if doing evil can deſerve any praiſe, and if defending Hereſie with dexterity can be worthy of any commendation, that praiſe I cannot denie to the memory of this Cardinal; that this Book of his is built with a ſingular Art, to which he hath bent all his faculties, and to make it compleat he hath with a long labour employd all the dexterity of his wit, of which he had to ſpare. Among all our Adverſaries I find not ſuch another elaborate piece of Work. And whereas all his other Books are but ſmall things in compariſon, we may ſay that in this he went beyond himſelf. How great is his diligence in the ſearch of Antiquity! How admirable his nimbleneſs in giving a fair colour to the weakneſs of his matter, in declining thoſe queſtions which he judgeth inſufficient to bear the trial of a combat; and to ſet forth all that is moſt ſpecious for Popery! He finds out many new ſhifts which none had thought on before him. And where the other Champions of Popery do not ſatisfie him, he deviſes ſome new expedient, and taketh another way. He gently declines the dint of our Objections, and coloureth his want of ſtrength with a ſhew of contempt. All this he cloatheth over with a civil language, and with a ſweet and pleaſant ſtyle; but only in thoſe places where he finds himſelf gravelled and preſt by the evidence of truth. For then he doth purpoſely involve his ſenſe with dark words, and heaps up a pile of diſtinctions in philoſophical terms, raiſing a cloud of duſt about him, with a capricious and tedious ſtyle. By his great reading in the Fathers he gathers up (more out of oſtentation then neceſſity) a multitude of allegations about light or uncontroverted things. But his little skill in the Greek tongue and other humane letters, makes him trip often. His whole book is ſwarming with falſified citations, which I undertake not in this book to examine one by one, contenting my ſelf to produce a few of many; for I know that ſuch an examination is weariſom to the Reader, and of no great inſtruction. But in general, it is certain that none of thoſe that have blurred paper in France in the Popes behalf, can be compared unto him. I ſhould do him wrong, I ſay not to equal to him, but even to name after him ſome petty clamorous wranglers, of the higheſt boldneſs, and the loweſt ignorance, as Father Gontier, Father Veron, Father Regourd, men whoſe impudence and venemous choler hath diſtempered their brains; who in other times ſhould not be ſuffered, but are fit for this time, in which audaciouſneſs goes for learning, pride for zeal, and a ſcolding injurious ſtyle for true eloquence. I could almoſt be perſwaded to place John Jaubert Biſhop of Bazas in the ſame form; but I ſpare his Miter, and receive his alehouſe Rhetorick of foul words as ſo many praiſes. All theſe ſtart up after M. du Perron, as Waſps out of the body of a dead Horſe.
Nevertheleſs the more I eſteem the wit and learning of Monſieur du Perron, the more I deplore his condition for ſelling his pen unto the Pope, and bending his wit to war with God. For whoſo ſhall ſeriouſly conſider this book which I am to examine, ſhall find in it a great contempt, yea, a ſecret hatred of the Holy Scripture; of which he endeavoureth to breed a diſguſt into mens minds, to find in it inſoluble abſurdities, and to undermine its authority. For beſides that in ſo great a book as his, Scripture is very ſeldom alledged, inſomuch that ſometimes in fifty leaves there is no mention of God or his word; he makes bold to maintain that the Church can change the things which God hath commanded in his word,In the ſecond book of M. du Perron, in the third obſervation, ch. 3. p. 674. Pag. 1110. & 1115. in the Treatiſe of the Communion under both kinds. and hath authority to diſpenſe from the commandments of Jeſus Chriſt. Of that ſubject he hath written an expreſs chapter, whoſe argument is, Of the authority of the Church to alter things contained in the Scripture. There he affirms that there are things in Scripture, which the Church can alter, and hath in effect altered. And ſpeaking of the form after which Jeſus Chriſt hath inſtituted his Sacraments, he ſaith that when great inconveniences occur in it, the Church can bring to them, both diſpenſation and alteration. Eſpecially concerning that command of the Lord Drink ye all of it, he maintains that this precept is not indiſpenſable and unalterable; A blaſphemous propoſition arriving to the laſt period of impiety! for none of the antient Hereticks ever went ſo far.
(a)Innoc. III. Decret. de Conceſſ. Praebendae Tit. 8. Cap. Propoſuit. Secundum plenitudinem poteſtatis de jure poſſumus ſupra jus diſpenſare. Et ibi Gloſſa. Nam contra Apoſtolum diſpenſat. Item contra Vetus Teſtamentum. Item in Voto. Item in ſacramento.They took pretences indeed to diſpenſe themſelves from the commandments of God, and contradict his word, making uſe of gloſſes and exceptions. But never any heretical Church preſumed to uſe this language, We acknowledge indeed that God hath given this commandment; but we have the power to alter it; and it belongs to the Church to judge what commandments of God are diſpenſable. By that means the Church ſhall not be ſubject to Gods commands, but as far as ſhe thinks good; and ſhall blot out of the Law of God whatſoever ſhe diſliketh; ſaying, This commandment I judge to be dispenſable. Thus ſhall man be above God, being once judge of the Law of God. Such is the rude and hard dealing offered to God by the Gloſs of the Canon Lector …n the thirty fourth Diſtinction of the Decree, where it is ſaid, that Papa diſpenſat contra Apoſtolum, the Pope diſpenſeth againſt the Apoſtle. Pope Innocent the third ſaith the ſame. Theſe are his words, We can according to the fulneſs of our power diſpenſe from the right, and above the right. And upon that, the Gloſs of the Doctors addeth, For the Pope diſpenſeth againſt the Apoſtle, and againſt the Old Teſtament, and in vows and oathes. Conformably to the gloſs of the Canon Sunt quidam, in the firſt Queſtion of the twenty fifth Cauſe, Papa diſpenſat in Evangelio interpretando ipſum, The Pope dispenſeth in the Gospel by giving interpretation to it.
Thomas Aquinas goeth ſo far as to ſay that(b)Thomas 2a. 2ae. qu. 2. Art. 10. Ad ſolam authoritatem ſummi Pontificis pertinet nova editio ſymboli. Vaſquez. Tomo III. Diſp. 216. Num. 60. Licet concederemus hoc fuiſſe Apoſtolorum praeceptum, nihilominus Eccleſia & ſummus Pontifex potuerunt illud juſtis de cauſis abrogare. the Pope can make a new Edition of the Symbole, which is making a new Chriſtian Religion. And ſo the Jeſuite (c) Vaſquez, Though we ſhould grant that it was a commandment of the Apoſtles, nevertheleſs the Church and the Soveraign Pontifex could aboliſh it upon good cauſes. And(d)Andradius lib. 2. Defenſ. fidei Tridentinae: Minime vero majores noſtri religione & pietate excellentes Apoſtolorum haec & quamplurima alia decreta refigere in animum induxiſſent niſi intellexiſſent, &c. Andradius, Our anceſtors men excellent in religion and piety, have diſannulled theſe and many other decrees of the Apoſtles. Whence he doth infer,(e)Idem ibidem. Liquet mineme eos erraſſe qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices poſſe nonnunquam in legibus diſpenſare à Paulo & primis quatuor Conciliis. that thoſe have not erred, that ſay that the Roman Popes can ſometimes dispenſe from obeying the Laws of the Apoſtle St. Paul, and the four firſt Councils. For ſo much the Gloſs of the chapter Quando perſonam, ſaith in the firſt book of the Decretals,(f)Decretalium Gregorii IX. lib. 1. titulo 7. cap. 3. The Pope can change the nature of things, and dispenſe above the right, and the wrong he can turn into right. Which is the ſame as Bellarmin ſaith(a)Bellar. in Barklayum cap. 31. In hono ſenſu dedit Chriſtus Petro poteſtatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum. That Chriſt hath given to Peter (that is, unto the Pope) the power of making that which is ſin to be no ſin; and that (b)Idem. lib. 4. de Summo Pontifice cap. 5. Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Eccleſia credere vitia eſſe bona, & virtutes malas, niſi vellet contra conſcientiam peccare.which is no ſin to be ſin. And that if the Pope erred in commanding vices, and prohibiting vertues, the Church ſhould be obliged to believe that vices are good, and vertues evil, unleſs ſhe would ſin againſt her conſcience. We tremble out of horror at theſe blaſphemies and ſhake out the duſt of our feet. Muſt the Pope be above God? Can a mortal and ſinful man diſpenſe us from the commandment of God? Or ſhall he be wiſer then Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles? But of that impious propoſition of the Cardinal more ſhall be ſaid in its proper place.
Of the like nature are theſe aſſertions of the Cardinal, when finding himſelf preſt by the expreſs word of God, he ſaith that ſuch a commandment was given only for a time, and by proviſion, not for perpetuity; As in the queſtion of the Celibat of the Clergy he makes Chryſoſtom to ſay, that this commandment of the Apoſtle [*Pag. 172. Let the Biſhop be the husband of one wife] was free in St. Pauls time, by reaſon (ſaith the Cardinal) of the rarity of unmarried perſons in the time of the birth of the Church. And a little after, They were conſtrained to accept of married perſons for the Prieſthood, ſo that they had been but once married; and acknowledgeth that cuſtom to have laſted as far as Conſtantines reign, that is, in the three firſt ages. By his reaſon we muſt ſay that when St. Paul made this order [†1 Tim. 3.2. The Biſhop muſt be blameleſs, the husband of one wife, vigilant, ſober, &c.] he charged Biſhops to be ſober and blameleſs only for a time, not alwayes: For ſince theſe commandments are joyned together by the Apoſtle, why ſhall the Church have the power to diſpenſe with the one, not with the other? And who is he that firſt made that diſtinction? It is pitty then that the Apoſtle forgot to ſpecifie, till when, and for how long that commandment was to be kept, and how long that permiſſion for Biſhops to have wives, was to take place. It was ill providing for the good of the Church to command abſolutely without exception of perſons and reſtriction of time,*Rom. 13.1. Let every ſoul be ſubject unto the higher powers, if that precept was given but for a time, and proviſionally, as M. du Perron will have it.
The ſame ſpirit of impiety is manifeſt in that other propoſition in the ſeventh chapter of the fourth obſervation of the ſecond book; the argument of the chapter in this; One muſt not go back to the time of the Apoſtles to cleanſe the Church from her pretended corruptions. By which principle the Apoſtles and their writings, are diveſted of the quality of judges: Neither muſt we have recourſe any more unto their writings to end our differences. And no more is wanting but to ſay that their books ought to be burnt: for what are they good for if they muſt judge of nothing, and are unfit to reſolve us? Indeed M. du Perron denyes that there is any corruption in the Roman Church, but thoſe pretended corruptions of which we accuſe her he will have tried, not by the writings of the Apoſtles, but by thoſe of the Fathers that lived in the time of the firſt four Councils; which is an open confeſſion that the Apoſtles are contrary to him, ſince he refuſeth them for Judges. Now this reaſon he giveth why he will be judged by the Fathers of the age of the four firſt Councils, that is, from the year 325. of our Lord, unto the year 451. The reaſon (ſaith he) why we muſt rather have recourſe to thoſe ages, then to that of the Apoſtles, is evident by the diſcourſe of our obſervation, which is, that of the firſt and ſecond Age after the Apoſtles, far fewer monuments are extant to ſee the entire face of the Church repreſented, then of thoſe of the four firſt Councils. I cannot comprehend with what reaſon he can ſay that of the Age of the Apoſtles and of the Ages next unto them we have leſs clear Monuments to repreſent the doctrine of the Church, then of the following Ages, ſince we have the writings of the Apoſtles, who are better alone then all the writings of the Fathers that came ſince; for the writings of the Apoſtles are of an infallible certainty, and in them no diſcord is found; but the Fathers have been ſubject to failings, and agree not among themſelves. Wherefore alſo the Roman Church condemneth them very often.
This Authors impiety is no leſs manifeſt in the 12. chap. of his firſt book, pag. 52. where he denieth that the Faithfull have a Theological Faith, and he will have their faith to be only a Moral Faith: Which moral faith will be found alſo in the Pagans, yea in the Devils. A vertue is called Theological, when it is planted in mans heart by the documents which God gives us in his word: Now faith comes by hearing of the word of God, ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 10.17. If then the faith of the Chriſtian is not a Theological vertue, it is humane or deviliſh. Faith being the mother of all the Theological vertues, how can it be other but Theological?
As for the Fathers of the three firſt ages, whom M. du Perron will not receive for Judges, I maintain that from them, more then from the Authors of a latter time, we learn the ſtate and the doctrine of the Primitive Church. Yea, I ſay, that to thoſe Fathers of the three firſt Ages, we owe the intelligence of the Fathers that are come ſince, which follow the ſteps of the former, and borrow their terms. But how ſhould the Fathers of the time of the firſt four Councils be rather our Judges then the Apoſtles, ſince thoſe very Fathers will be judged by the Apoſtles, and acknowledge themſelves obliged not to ſpeak but after them? Now the reaſon why M. du Perron ſtands rather upon the poſteriour Fathers, and inferiour in Antiquity, is not that which he brings: The true cauſe is, that the ancienter the Fathers are, the more contrary they are to Popery. Alſo becauſe thoſe later Fathers are of an infinite length; and that of twenty thouſand perſons in the Roman Church, ſcarce one hath any conſiderable knowledge of them. How is it poſsible then to end our differences by that means? To fight a Duel, is there need of a Cart-load of ſwords? What other ſword do we need but that of the word of God, which God puts in our hand? A ſword before which the Devil trembleth; a ſword that gives ſure blows, ſo that one needs not after look for another weapon. To that ſword indeed belongs that which David ſaid of Goliaths ſword, There is none like it.1 Sam. 11.9.
If a Reader, that hath yet ſome liberty of judgement left, will here open his eyes, it will be eaſie for him to diſcern what opinion the Cardinal had of Chriſtian Religion, and whether he ſpake of it in earneſt, or only to ſerve the time, and follow the ſtream.Pag. 523. In the fifty ſixth chapter of the firſt Book he compares theſe two Propoſitions; the one, that the Church is founded upon the perſon of St. Peter; the other, that it is founded upon the faith or confeſsion which St. Peter made; Matth. 16.which confeſſion is, that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Son of the living God. And ſee how he compares them: he ſaith, that the firſt is original and perpetual, but the other is acceſſory and temporal: The one conſigned from the beginning, the other brought in upon occaſion. With him this maxime [that the perſon of St. Peter, and by conſequence that of the Pope is the foundation of the Church] is ſuch a maxime and ground as is perpetual, original, and from the beginning. But this other maxime, or this ſaith, that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the ſon of the living God, with him, is not the foundation of the faith, but acceſſorily, and for a time, and is brought in but occaſionally. After that, can we believe that this Prelate did believe the Goſpel? And what remaineth more for his followers to do, but to put on a Turban, if it be once lawfull in the Chriſtian Church to maintain that St. Peter and the Pope are the original and perpetual foundation of the Church, but that this faith [that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of the living God] is the foundation of the Church, only ad tempus, and upon occaſion, and not for perpetuity?
That this is no wrongfull imputation, it is eaſie to ſhew; for this is the ſummary of his Diſcourſe, That the Church is grounded cauſally, not formally upon that confeſsion of St. Peter, Thou art the Chriſt, the ſon of the living God, that is, (as himſelf expounds it) that St. Peters confeſſion was the cauſe why Jeſus Chriſt choſe him for the foundation, which is clearly ſaying that this confeſſion is not at all the foundation of the Church. As when the vertue of a Gentleman is the cauſe why the King giveth him an Office of Admiral or Governour, that vertue is not the Admiralty, or the Government: Likewiſe if the confeſſion of St. Peter is the cauſe for which Chriſt made him the foundation of his Church, it follows that this confeſſion is not the foundation. The ſame he ſheweth, by ſaying that this confeſſion is not the foundation of the Church formally, that is, really. Alſo by making in the ſame place that propoſition [The confeſsion of Peter is the foundation of the Church] like unto this:Pag. 522. The faith of Peter hath walked upon the waters, which is an improper and figurate propoſition, and a falſe one too, if it be taken literally. In this eſpecially the impiety is manifeſt, that this confeſſion, Jeſus is the Chriſt, the ſon of the living God, is true properly at all times, and before that Peter believed in Jeſus Chriſt, the foundation of the Church. But the Cardinals ſenſe is, that it began to be the foundation of the Church when Peter pronounced it; and will not admit it to be the foundation of the Church for any other cauſe, but that Peter pronouncing that ſentence, thereby incited Jeſus Chriſt to make him the foundation of the Church.
That which follows is no better, in the beginning of the ninth chapter, where he diſputeth about the elect and predeſtinate unto ſalvation, he makes St. Paul to ſay, that God hath marked his elect with his ſeal. St. Paul ſaith indeed,1 Tim. 2. 2 Cor. 1.22. Eph. 1.13. Eph. 4 30. Gal. 4.6. Rom. 8.1. that God hath ſealed us, and hath given us the earneſt of the Spirit in our hearts; And that having believed we were ſealed with the holy Spirit of promiſe: And he forbids us to grieve the holy Spirit, whereby we are ſealed unto the day of redemption. So the Apoſtle calls the inward teſtimony which the Holy Ghoſt ſecretly bears in our hearts that we are Gods children. But the Cardinal aboliſheth (as far as in him lyeth) that Seal and inward teſtimony of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the faithfull, ſaying, that God hath marked his elect, not in them, but in himſelf: As if one ſaid that a ſhepherd hath marked his ſheep not in them, but in himſelf, ſo that the ſheep are not marked, but the ſhepherd. By ſo doing he maketh the whole comfort of the Faithfull to fade away, oppoſing the Apoſtle who puts that ſeal in our hearts,Rom. 8.16. and ſaith that the Spirit beareth witneſs unto our spirit, and that it is we that are ſealed, not God. But Monſieur du Perron meaſuring other mens conſciences by his own, and not feeling in himſelf that inward teſtimony, ſtriveth to blot it out in others; he denieth it to be in the faithfull, and will have it to be in God only.
Thus when the Lord Cardinal declares his opinion(a)Du Perron in the ſecond obſervation, c 7. & 7. p. 553, & 554. that one ſhould rather ſuffer a King, yea and Jeſus himſelf to be killed, then to reveal a confeſſion. And when he maintaineth, that(b)2 Book, 2. ch. p 774. by the Books of Moſes one cannot prove the immortality of the ſoul, which yet is ſo clearly, and ſo often proved there. When he(c)4. Book in the anſwer to the ſecond inſtance, c. 6. makes two kinds of redemption of our ſouls, the one original, the other applicative. When he ſaith that(d)In his Book againſt M. du Pleſſis, p. 60. the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament were vain Monuments and Cenotaphes, as if God had given vain things unto his Church, like unto empty and imaginary graves, whoſe inſcription is falſe. When to make Holy Scripture ridiculous, he makes a collection of thoſe things which ſeem to him abſurd, and to make it more abſurd, imputes to it thoſe things which are not found in it, as that Gen. 2, it is ſaid, that within the Garden of Eden were both Nilus and Euphrates, which are above two thouſand Leagues aſunder; but there is no ſuch thing there; for the ſecond chapter of Geneſis ſpeaks indeed of Euphrates, Pag. 1100. In that text, Eccl. 9.5. there is only, neither have they any more reward. In his ſecond obſervation of the ſecond book, ch. 8. p. 658.but of Nilus not at all. Alſo when he ſaith that in the ninth of Eccleſiaſtes Solomon affirmeth, that the dead have no reward [par de la] yonder, meaning, it ſeems, beyond this life, as if the ſouls were mortal. In all theſe (I ſay) he layeth open the ſecrets of his thoughts, even that he made very little account of the holy Scripture, and of the myſteries of Chriſtian Religion; and that he was not well perſwaded of the immortality of the ſoul.
This appears alſo in that when he alledgeth Scripture, among many paſſages that have ſome colour, he brings other texts which ſeem to be alledged meerly to make ſport. To prove Lent, which is a faſt of fourty ſix days, he employeth Scripture, ſaying, that God made the waters of the flood to rain forty dayes, and fourty nights: That the people of Iſrael were forty years in exile in the wilderneſs: That in the ancient Law the chaſtening of theſe that were beaten with rods, did not exceed fourty blows: Which are goodly and convincing proofs. So he defends the authority of the Church by theſe words of the Canticles(a)88. ch. of the 1. book. We have a little ſiſter that hath no breaſts. With the like ſubtilty he proveth the primacy of St. Peter, Matth. 17. where Jeſus Chriſt(b)P. 539. biddeth Peter to pay the tribute for himſelf and for him. Of the like ingenious vein was his proof(c)In his book of the Euchariſt againſt M. du Pleſſis. by the Quatrains of Pibrac, which ſay, Adore ſitting after the Grecians rule; that the Apoſtles, though they were ſitting at the table, yet did adore the Hoſt.
I doubt alſo, whether the Sorbon and other Doctors of the Roman Church will approve of ſeveral things in this laſt book of his, and in that of the Euchariſt. As when he ſaith,(d)In the book of the Euchariſt againſt Mr. du Pleſſis, pag. 287. that after the conſecration God preſerveth the bread in the univerſal latitude of its being. And his confeſſion, whereby he acknowledgeth,(e)In his book againſt the King in the Treatiſe of the communion under two kinds, pag. 1108. that the denying of the cup to the people diminiſheth the ſignification of the Sacrament. And this new doctrine, whereby he makes two redemptions of our ſouls, the one original, the other applicative; making two payments of the ſame debt, the one original, the other applicative. Likewiſe I make a great queſtion whether the other Romiſh Doctors will like of his doubting(f)In his Treatiſe of the prayer for the dead, ch. 11. p. 950. whether Purgatory be a real or a Metaphorical fire, which is only the horror of conſcience. Or of his ſaying in his Letter to M. Caſaubon that the invocation of Saints is not neceſſary to every particular man; that is, that every particular perſon may very well be without praying to the Saints, and to the Virgin Mary, and can be ſaved without that. Of the ſame ſort is his ſolution of the words of the Canon of the Maſs, where the Prieſt prays for the dead, Qui dormiunt in ſomno pacis, that ſleep in a peaceable ſleep, and by conſequence prayeth not for the ſouls tormented in a fire. The*pag. 950. The Cardinals book was printed without approbation of the Doctors. Cardinals anſwer is, that the ſouls which are burning in Purgatory are ſleeping, not in reſpect of themſelves, but in reſpect of the Church, as if a man could wake in reſpect of himſelf, but ſleep in reſpect of others.
For theſe and the like cauſes, I ſuppoſe that the Faculty, and the Doctors appointed to examine Books that are put to the preſs, would not grant any approbation to this Book of the Cardinal. For what may the reaſon be, that a thouſand frivolous books come out every day with the approbation of the Faculty on the Front, and this only Book ſo important, and ſo long expected, hath got none?
The allegation of Fathers is that main work of the Cardinal, for which he hath bent all his ſinews, and ſearcht all ſorts of Books with extream diligence. If ever any man was nimble in giving the ſlip, and turning paſſages from their true ſenſe, Monſieur Du Perron gets the prize in that craft. By an ingenious dexterity he takes the words of reſpect and honour given to the Biſhop of Rome for words of ſubjection. The counſels which Popes have given unto their friends, he alledgeth as Laws and Ordinances; and the ſeveral recourſes of oppreſſed perſons to the Popes, he brings as ſo many appeals. And the brotherly help which ſome Biſhop of Rome hath given to the afflicted, as the act of a Judge and a Soveraign. The ordinances made within the Roman Patriarchate he takes as Laws given to the whole Roman Empire; and the orders made for the Biſhops of the Roman Empire as Laws given to the Churches of the whole world. He takes precedence or primacy, and the ſucceſſion to St. Peter in the Biſhoprick of the City of Rome for the ſucceſſion in the Apoſtleſhip, and in the Government of the Univerſal Church. The Interceſſion of Saints he takes for the Invocation; the body Sacramental for the Natural: The Sacrifice of thankſgiving for the ſacrifice of Redemption: The free and voluntary obſervations for neceſſary rules; and the extraordinary examples for ordinary Laws. Where he cannot encounter our proofs, he gives a turn about, and altereth the State of the queſtion; and after he hath miſrepreſented our belief, he comes in great ſtate to thunder upon it with a multitude of authorities of Fathers.
But yet ſometimes he will fall out with thoſe Fathers which he hath called to help, doing like the Chineſi, who after they have called upon their Demons, if the ſucceſs doth not anſwer their requeſts, they beat and daſh to the ground their Images.(a)1 Book, ch. 56. p. 523, & 524. He ſaith that the Fathers, tranſlating theſe words, Thou art Peter, and upon that ſtone I will build my Church, and applying them to the faith or confeſſion of St. Peter, turn them from their true ſenſe, to employ them againſt the Arians, and thereupon accuſeth(b)In the ſame ch. p. 526. Auſtin of inadvertence. He diſputes againſt the ſix hundred and thirty Biſhops that defined in the Council of Chalcedone, that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople muſt be equal to that of Rome in all things. He blameth two hundred Biſhops of Africa, among whom were thoſe two great men,Auſtin Biſhop of Rome, and Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, for writing Letters to Celeſtin Biſhop of Rome, to forbid him to ſend Legats into Africa, or take cognizance of the cauſes already judged by them, and deſire him that he bring not the pride of the world into the Church. Many times, under pretence of excuſing the Fathers, he accuſeth them; ſaying, that they have not ſpoken according to their ſenſe, and that they have diſſembled for fear of being underſtood by the Catechumeni, and that the myſteries ſhould not lie open unto the Infidels. He ſaith, that to learn the belief of the Fathers, we muſt not ſeek it in their Books, where they diſpute againſt the Hereticks or Infidels. He ſpeaks of Auſtins treatiſes upon John with contempt, ſaying,Pag. 877, & 878, 879. & in many other places. that they are but popular Sermons, and that in them he doth not declare his ſenſe. But the true reaſon of his exception againſt thoſe Treatiſes is, that they are clear againſt the eating of the Lords body, with the mouth of the body. For the ſame reaſon he ſpeaks of the Dialogues of Theodoret, as of books where he hid his ſenſe for fear of being underſtood by the Catechumeni. If we produce ſome very expreſs Texts of the Fathers, M. du Perron declineth them, ſaying,Pag. 879,Pag. 879, that the Fathers wreſt and turn aſide the Scripture, and play with it. And that they have mediate, collateral, and acceſſory meditations, which are the eccho and the reſounding of the literal ſenſe to recreate the spirits of the Readers, with the ſacred mirth and ingenious invention of alluſions and Allegorical applications.
All this will be juſtified by the reading of this book: I could have wiſht to have had to do with a living adverſary, and would have been like Bees that never ſting dead bodies. But the writings, and the reputation of this famous Prelate live after him, and give to the ignorant or malicious matter of triumph, and to the infirm occaſion of ſtumbling. Wherefore I thought that I owed this labour unto the Church of God. In which labour to follow the ſteps of the Cardinal, I was put to ſearch the writings of the Fathers of the firſt five Ages: Not to derogate in any wiſe to the perfection of the Holy Scripture, which alone can, and ought to decide the queſtions about faith, and in things neceſſary to ſalvation is ſo clear, that it needs no interpretation; but to pluck off from our Adverſaries that vizard of Antiquity, and to ſhew that our Religion is the prime and perpetual, and hath the Antients on her ſide; Alſo to defend the honour of the Fathers, which are put to the rack to make them depoſe againſt the truth, and ſpeak contrary to their intention; Then to find out the ſpring of errours, and the occaſions of Popery, how Satan from ſmall occaſions, by the lapſe of time, hath made great evils to ariſe, and from the abuſe of words hath brought forth errours in the faith, and changed the voluntary obſervations of ſome men into neceſſary and general Laws.
In this book, I have followed not the order of the Chapters of M. du Perron, but the nature of things, and the order of times, both to give more perſpicuity and proportion to my work, and to exempt my ſelf from repeating the ſame things fifty times over as M. du Perron does. I have ſometimes exceeded the limits of my preſent ſubject, which is to anſwer the Cardinals book againſt his Majeſty of Great Britain, eſpecially in the queſtion of the Sacrament of Penitence, and in that of the real preſence, wherein I examine many paſſages of the Cardinals book of the Euchariſt againſt Monſieur du Pleſſis.
To be a Suitor for the equity of the Readers, I could alledge my ſickneſs of two and twenty moneths, which hath brought me to the brink of the grave, in which nevertheleſs I have followed this work: alſo the interruption of ſeveral journeys, many afflictions wherewith God hath viſited me, the buſineſs of my calling, which requires a whole man, and my want of thoſe helps and conveniencies, which this Lord Cardinal had in great plenty. But truth affords a great advantage, and God makes hard things eaſie, when in our labour for his cauſe we have no other end but his glory. By the mouth of children he eſtabliſheth his praiſe, and makes his ſtrength perfect in our weakneſs. He will make the labour of his ſervants fruitfull, and will diſſipate the clouds of errour by the brightneſs of his Goſpel. Or if the hardneſs of this Age hinders the fruit of our labour, though we have here ſowed upon ſtones, yet we ſhall reap in heaven. And God will bring a time in which the edge of his word, which ſeems now to grow blunt by the hardneſs of hearts, will recover its ſtrength and vertue. To him be glory for ever, Amen.