A Treatise of the Church – 1579 

In which are handled all the principal questions that have been moved in our time concerning that matter.

By Huguenot Philip De Mornay

< A zealous, gifted warrior for the cause of Christ >

Newly translated into modern English.

SOURCE

To The Reader: 

I ask you, gentle reader, to read this treatise not as one who has already found the truth, but as one who is still seeking it. Please read it all the way through before you pass judgment on it. And if it agrees with the doctrine of the truth, I charge you in the name of God and by your own salvation to declare it openly. For we must no longer remain silent: by continuing to overlook the kingdom of Antichrist, our own kingdom is falling into ruin—and in that ruin lies danger for us all. 

If any doubt remains, let those who have it write it out, and by the grace of God we will try to make the matter clear. But if there are any who reject the whole work, I ask them to answer it point by point and reason by reason, in a spirit of sincerity and gentleness, seeking the salvation of the people rather than the glory of this world. For I protest before God that in this treatise I have aimed at nothing else but their salvation. 

CHAPTER ONE 

What the visible Church is and what are its various states. 

God, through His power the Creator of mankind, and of His own good will vouchsafing to be the Father of those He chooses, has willed that the Church should be honored and acknowledged as the mother of all those of whom He deigns to be Father in His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 

And inasmuch as we are not saved except in this—that God has accepted us as His children—and that He has accepted none as such except those who are regenerated and nourished in His Church: if we desire our salvation, it is necessary that we acknowledge her, in whose lap we have it. 

And if we wish to be heirs of the Father, we must be united in the family of the mother, in which it has pleased Him to beget again those whom He has ordained to be heirs of His kingdom and co-heirs of His dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

All those who are joined and incorporated into her are partakers of this inheritance because they are members of the body of Christ. And without her, just as there is no true faith, nor love, nor Christ, so also, we ought not to seek any salvation except in her. 

Therefore, if one were to speak properly, we should call the Church a company only of those whom God has chosen to everlasting life, in all times and places. This Church is invisible to man, who cannot penetrate so far as to know God’s will or even the heart of man himself, but is visible only to God, who knows those that are His (as the Apostle says) and has sealed them with His own seal. 

Nevertheless, inasmuch as love commands us to presume particularly of all those who are called the Church of Christ that they are of the number of His elect, and that just as they are bodily assembled together, so also they are spiritually incorporated—although, on the contrary, the doctrine of faith generally teaches us that the wicked of the world are mingled with the good, the goats with the sheep, the chaff with the grain, and the tares with the good corn—yet we will commit to God, the searcher of hearts, the knowledge of the invisible Church, and will content ourselves with searching for the visible Church in His Word. Into this visible Church all must gather themselves in this world who desire to be gathered into the invisible Church in the world to come. 

Nevertheless, along the way we will note the differences between these two. 

VISIBLE VS. INVISIBLE CHURCH

The invisible Church contains none but the good. The visible Church contains both the good and the bad—that is, the one contains only the elect, while the other contains all those indiscriminately who are brought into her by the preaching of the truth. For this reason, St. Augustine says of the invisible Church that she took her beginning from Abel and not from Cain, who was the elder; and, on the contrary, of the visible Church he says the same people begat both Abel and Enoch, Simon Peter and all Christians, etc., as one people, having also begotten Cain and Ham, Ishmael and Esau, and Simon the sorcerer with his confederates. 

The invisible Church is considered partly in heaven and partly on earth, comprehending both those who already triumph with their Head, Jesus Christ our Lord, and those who still fight here below on earth for His name against the world and against themselves. It consists of those who not only fight here on earth for the name of Christ, but also of those who will fight in the same Church after us. It is considered from the first of the faithful to the last, bringing all the states and ages of the Church into one. 

The visible Church is considered properly according to certain places and times, inasmuch as she is not universally visible (and to be seen) at one stroke, but according to the ages and in her degrees. In the invisible Church there are a great many sheep that were never gathered into the visible; and, on the contrary, in the visible Church there are a great many wolves that will never be received into the invisible. Therefore St. Augustine says there are a great many sheep without and a great many wolves within; and so, St. Paul also says, “They are not all Israel which are of Israel.” 

For to be in the Church, or rather to say, of the Church, is to be united with Christ and incorporated into the company of the faithful through true faith toward God and love toward our neighbor. And there is no doubt that many here and there, even under paganism itself, had this desire, which yet they could not bodily accomplish—though they were bound to do so with all their power. On the contrary, to be separated from the Church is not only to be outside the assembly, but to have no participation in Christ, nor union of faith. 

Of the invisible Church it is said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Of the visible it is said that she shall be so carried away and misled that a man shall not find faith on the earth, that love shall be as if it were quenched, insomuch that the elect themselves, if it were possible, should utterly fail. 

And therefore, it is not without cause that we say in our Creed that we “believe the Church.” For if we ought to hold nothing for certain except what we see with these carnal eyes, there is no doubt that in all the states and ages of the Church there would many times be found such confusion that the good grain would be altogether hidden under the chaff, without any appearance of the Church. And yet, even then, when God said to Elijah that He had reserved for Himself seven thousand in that same land—of which the chariot of Israel, the seer of the Lord (I say, he to whom the good people ought especially to have been known) could not outwardly recognize even one—even then and there, when the state of the Church was such that God could not be served visibly except in Jewry. 

All these differences notwithstanding, we do not believe in two Churches, nor in two spouses of Christ, but we believe in one only, considered in different ways: one in the blade and the other in the grain; one on the threshing floor and another in the garner; one in the mine and another already refined; the one still wrapped up in the mixtures of the world, the other before her Husband without spot or wrinkle. 

It is altogether like a family, by which we properly understand only the children, although speaking more generally we also include even the slaves; or like a city, by which we understand the union of citizens, even though many times one part may be at contention and, considered by itself, deserves nothing but to be rooted out. 

We call the visible Church the company of those who make profession to serve the true God in Christ—of which we are presently treating. 

THREE AGES OF THE CHURCH

This Church has had three principal states or ages:  The first was without the Law, at which time (as some of the ancient Fathers say), however corrupt man was through the sin of Adam, he was nevertheless after a sort of law to himself and naturally felt himself convicted of his sin—that is to say, he felt his evil so as to seek a remedy for it. Although in very truth this state and age of the Church found itself no less corrupted than the rest. 

The second was under the Law, when it began in such a way to accustom itself to sin that it grew into a natural habit through the same. And then, in order to show the sin thereof, the Law was given as a glass, in which she might consider her filthiness and how far she was from what she presumed, to the end that she might run again to be cleansed. 

The third was under grace, in Jesus Christ, who was promised to our first parents immediately after their fall, and who, when the fullness of time had come, was sent by the Father. He brought the remedy to all those who either before had felt, or presently did feel their evil, and sought the remedy in His merit. 

Under the first, the Church was visible among men; but if you compare those who served God in purity with the others, we shall find that they were entangled in a wonderful confusion. 

In that second period the Church could be seen in Abraham’s descendants, the people of Israel. But they did not stand out much when you compare the nation itself—not the country—with the rest of the world and the great empires of the time.

Under the third is comprehended all peoples and nations without any exception or acceptance whatsoever, being now visible in one country or another, few or many. And therefore we call her Catholic, or universal—that is to say, she is no longer tied to the family of Jacob, nor to Jerusalem, as under the second estate or age (for from all parts it ought to be gathered), but she adopts as children of Israel and of Abraham, in all places, those who have the faith of Abraham, and as citizens of Jerusalem all the citizens of the world who serve God in spirit and truth. 

This is what Christ has taught us when He sent forth His Apostles into all the world, and what St. Paul teaches when he says that the wall is broken down, that there is no longer Jew nor Greek, but that all are one in Jesus Christ; and what is shown to us in the Apocalypse by the City that has twelve gates, three opening into every quarter of the world. 

In this the ancient doctors of the Church also agree with the Apostles and Prophets: that after the calling of the Gentiles, there is no nation or city more privileged than another, but that the whole world is the threshing floor, the field, and the inheritance of the Lord. All peoples are Judah and Israel, all cities are Jerusalem, all houses are the house of God—so long as He is worshipped and served there. Today it is far from being the case that any place whatsoever may claim any spiritual prerogative greater than another. 

This universal Church comprehends under herself all the particular Churches gathered together in divers parts of the world, which likewise we call the Christian Churches—that is to say, assemblies which call upon only one God through Jesus Christ: such as the Eastern Church and the Western Church, the Greek Church and the Latin Church, the Church of Constantinople, of Rome, of Carthage. Nevertheless, to speak properly, these are not Catholic or universal, but parts of the Catholic or universal Church. (The Roman Church is neither Catholic nor universal.) 

Just as we speak of various parts of the ocean and call them “seas”—the South Sea, the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Cantabrian, the Britannic, and so on—and say of each of them that it is the ocean, yet we know there is only one ocean, not many. These different names merely distinguish its various regions; they do not divide its essential unity, for it remains one single, continuous body. In the same way we ought to regard the Church.  

And therefore, he who says that the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church are all one speaks no less improperly than he who should say that the Britannic Sea were the whole Ocean, or even the Tyrrhenian Sea itself, which is only part of the Mediterranean Sea. 

Now the visible Church is in the world, and the world, as we may feel in ourselves, is an unclean world. Therefore, living under such infected air, it is impossible that she should not be defiled and have much corruption in her. She is also composed of men, and outwardly governed by men, and all men are flesh and blood and consequently corrupt and imperfect, subject to ignorance and malice. It is therefore possible that sometimes she is corrupted, and impossible that in this world she should appear in any sound perfection. 

Nevertheless, because the Scripture sometimes, when speaking of her, has regard to that which is reckoned to her (in consideration of Jesus Christ, her Husband) before God, and sometimes also speaks not according to what she is, but according to what she ought to be—not so much to praise her as to provoke her to make herself worthy of that praise—she is granted these titles of the Church to which she is not always conformed, whether we consider her in the men of whom she is composed, or in the doctrine itself that is taught in her. (She is the kingdom of heaven and yet like a net: Matthew 13:47.) 

She is called the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of Christ. But Christ Jesus, who is Himself the King who reigns in her, compares her to a net cast into the sea, which draws up both good and bad fish. This is as much as to say that in this kingdom of heaven the evil one also has his subjects, who belong to his tyranny. 

Saint Paul also calls us the house of God and exhorts us to take heed how we behave ourselves in it. Yet this same Paul would not hide from us that in the same house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth—some, I say, to honor, and others to dishonor. From this Saint Augustine took his distinction between those who are in the house and yet are not of the house. 

And when we confess in our Creed itself that the Church is the Communion of Saints, it is not meant that all who are assembled there are sanctified by the Spirit of God in Christ, but rather that there is no true communion, no true holiness, except in the Church. 

And thus, concerning the corruption of the persons. 

As for the doctrine: she is called His spouse, altogether fair and without spot, the faithful city, the city of righteousness, the temple of God, and the pillar of truth. By these goodly titles she should be stirred up to please Him and to be obedient to Him who vouchsafes to call her by these names. Yet it has oftentimes happened that a Church governed by ungodly pastors, presuming to be such as her titles set her forth to be—as though she could be no other—has dared to say, “I am a queen, and shall be no widow,” and so has made void the goodness of God, through which alone she is decked with all these titles. 

She neglected the voice of her Husband and made laws at her own pleasure. Her governors ruled her after their own fashion, thinking that they, of themselves, were wise enough. And for this reason the Prophets have been constrained to change their speech according as she changed her government. That is why they have called her a strumpet and an adulteress; why they have cast in her teeth that she has played the harlot under every green tree; why they have called her the sister of Sodom and her people the people of Gomorrah—in short, why they threaten that God will remove His Tabernacle from her and give it to others. 

And Saint Paul says that they shall be so deceived, for having neglected the truth of God, that they shall worship Antichrist in the Church. 

The reason for this is very clear: the Church is like the moon—a thick and cloudy body which has no light of its own, but only from Christ, the Sun thereof. By looking toward Him she is bright and clear; and the more she turns away from Him, the less brightness she has. Sometimes she withdraws herself so far from Him, and so great a mass of earth sets itself between them, that she seems altogether eclipsed. 

From this it follows that of this universal Church, dispersed throughout the whole world and gathered together into particular Churches of all the nations thereof, we may see some utterly rooted out by the just judgment of God—such as the Philippians, Colossians, and many others of the East, which were erected by the Apostles themselves; others to be erected elsewhere through the everlasting goodness of God toward mankind; some, by the corruption of men, to be corrupted both in morals and doctrine, as those of Greece, of Egypt, of Africa, etc.; others, by the presumption of their leaders, having nothing left which is sound, as the Church of Rome at this day. In short, some others have gone from heresy to infidelity, as in the countries where Mahomet began his sect. All these are the fruits of the first sin of man, who of himself turned away from God to himself and was blinded in his own love, thinking himself wise enough to guide himself without the word of God. 

Thus, we have spoken in few words concerning the parts of this visible Church, now called universal. But let it suffice for now that we resolve ourselves to understand that this universal Church is the Assembly or Congregation of all those who are confessors of Christ throughout the whole world; that under her are comprehended all the particular Churches, to which the promises of Christ made to this universal Church belong equally; among them are some which are pure and some impure, according as they are turned away from God to themselves; and, to be short, that even the purer Churches are impure before God, seeing He has not found purity even in His angels—except that He supports them in mercy, in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord. 

CHAPTER TWO 

That of the visible and Catholic Church some parts are pure and some impure, and which are the infallible marks of the pure Church. 

The Catholic or universal visible Church is the assembly of all those who make profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the whole world, distinguished (as we have said) into many individual Churches, all of which make but one body. 

Of all these particular Churches, as members and parts of one and the selfsame body, some are pure, others are impure; some more and some less sound; and some at this day are sick even unto death which in times past were more healthful — according as all are composed of men and therefore, are subject to partake of their faults. 

Those that belong to the purer and sounder Churches we call sound and true Churches, consenting to the true doctrine — which is the name that for the most part the ancient fathers have given them. The others we call the erring, heretical, or schismatical Churches, according as they err either in faith or in love, against the square and right rule of Christ, or against the rule of His Church, either in the one or in the other, yet everyone in its own degree. 

And yet for all this, both the one and the other are truly Churches—that is to say, assemblies that make profession of Christ; but they are not all pure Churches—that is to say, serving God in Christ only, in purity and truth. Just as a person who is a liar is still truly a human being, even though he is not a truthful one; and just as a man does not cease to be a man even when he is outwardly disfigured and inwardly infected with leprosy; or so paralyzed in his limbs, or so disordered in his mind, that he loses the main powers of a human being—including even those outward marks that distinguish a man from a beast, namely speech and reason….. [yet he is still a man]. 

The Latins especially commonly call the pure Church “Catholic” by way of excellence, to distinguish it from the congregation of heretics. But to speak properly, there is no particular Church that can be called universal, however pure and sound it may be. And if we give them that name because they are parts of the universal Church, for the same reason it would apply equally well to the most impure Churches themselves. 

And indeed, this word “Catholic” was not put into our Creed in order to distinguish a pure Church from an impure one, but to distinguish the Jewish Church, which in times past was tied to Jerusalem, from the Christian Church, which by the coming of Jesus Christ was spread throughout the whole world.

[N. B. “I believe in the holy catholic Church.”]

That is to say, to affirm the calling of the Gentiles against the pretended prerogatives of the Jews—against which Saint Paul has written in three whole chapters of the Epistle to the Romans—and to show that, according to what was foretold by all the Prophets, all peoples were made one in Jesus Christ. This was the principal controversy that caused the greatest turmoil in the primitive Church. And if a man shall deeply weigh this matter, he shall find that this manner of speaking used by the ancient Fathers—calling the sound and true Church “Catholic”—came from the reasoning they employed against the schismatics, such as the Novatians, Donatists, and others, who took upon themselves to bind the whole Church to themselves and shut out all the rest of the world besides. Namely the Donatists, who confined the Church to a small corner of Africa under the pretense that they themselves were holier than everyone else. Against them, the Fathers (i.e., Augustine) set the Catholic or universal Church of Scripture which is spread throughout the whole world, in order to silence their claims. 

Now it follows that we search out the true marks of this Church which we call the true and pure Church—or, if we prefer, the Catholic Church—to distinguish it from the impure and erroneous Church. 

We have already said that God, vouchsafing through His goodness to be the Father of a certain sort of men, would also that His Church should be the mother. And we know very well that it does not belong to the mother alone to bring forth children into the world, but she is a true mother who also nourishes them and cares for them after she has brought them forth. 

Now through Baptism we are acknowledged to be the children of God; as we were once children of wrath, we are through His word cherished and nourished up in the faith. And she, at the first giving us suck, and afterwards more solid and strong meat through the Communion of Christ’s body in the Supper, unites us increasingly to Him, and by this means invests us into that heavenly inheritance. 

It follows then that she is the pure Church and true mother who brings us forth as her children through Baptism, regenerates and nourishes us through the Word, knits us to Christ, and so among ourselves one to another through the Sacrament of His Supper — that is to say, she is the true mother in which the Word of God is purely preached and the Sacraments according to the same word duly administered. 

In the Church of Judah and Israel, Circumcision occupied the place of Baptism, and the Passover the place of the Supper, the Word of God always keeping its place as the ordinary nourishment of the children of God. And therefore, we see that after their entry into the land of Canaan, Joshua, being admonished by the Lord to repair those faults committed in the desert, caused the people to be circumcised and bound them by an oath (if they would be His people) to keep the Word of God—that is to say, if they would be His Church. 

Likewise, Josiah, after so great confusions and disorders, when he would reform the Church in which there was no mark left but the outward mark of circumcision imprinted in the flesh, we see that he began there: first digging up, as it were, the law which had been buried, he published the same and made the people swear solemnly unto it. And consequently, he caused a Passover to be proclaimed in these words: “Celebrate the Passover of the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant”—that is to say, according to the ordinance of the Lord your God. 

Likewise Ezra, in order to rebuild the Temple and to restore the Church, began at these foundations: he expounded the law unto the people and made them swear in the form of that covenant; and afterwards, to nourish and fortify them in the hope of their salvation to come, he restored again the true use of the Passover, according to those things (says he) which were written in the book of Moses. 

In short, all the true servants of God, after there came any great scattering of the Church, and being willing to redress it, have always before all other things restored these marks — not being other than a good captain who, after a great slaughter and confusion, ranges his men into an array and plants his standards in some high place, to the end that they may resort unto it from all quarters. 

Jesus Christ, who is the true Husband, has given us no other marks by which to know His spouse. 

In that He calls the Church His wife, He teaches her duty, which is to obey His Word, and not to hearken to the voice of a stranger, not to lose the distinguishing marks, nor to defile the jewels and pledges of her marriage. But mark how He speaks in express words: “He that is of the truth hears My voice.” And again: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” And in another place: “You hear not, because you are not of God.” 

The pure wife and Church of the truth, then, is only she who hears the voice of Christ—not a voice in the air, or an imaginary voice, but that voice which has its echo out of the Scriptures, and which will resound until the end—namely, the same that is pronounced by the mouth of His Prophets and Apostles, upon which Saint Paul teaches us that the Church is founded, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. 

This is the reason why, sending forth His Apostles to erect the Christian Churches, He says unto them: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc., and teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you.” And in the Acts we read the faithful continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, in the Communion, and breaking of bread, and in prayers—which is nothing else but a brief description of the true Church of Christ, instructed by the Word in true faith, and knit together in true love through the Communion that is in Him. This is what Saint Ambrose teaches us when he says the Catholic Church is that place where God speaks with His servants. Saint Augustine likewise affirms the same when he assigns the ministry of the ministers and pastors of the Church, who have the administration of the things already mentioned. 

For since the matter concerns preaching—whether by the Word or by the Sacraments, which are to us as a word that can be felt—and since to preach it is necessary that the ministers be sent, it is very necessary that the Church of God have an order for sending forth its pastors. But more of this point shall be discussed in another place. 

We will then call the true and pure Churches all those in which we find the Word of God and the Sacraments purely and lawfully administered—that is to say (as Cyprian says), according to the institution of the Lord. And we do not doubt to communicate with them, and that God is present there, however there may have been some error in certain points of doctrine, and impurity in manners outwardly. For it is always necessary that we resort thither when the chief points of the foundation of our salvation are truly taught there, seeing that we are men, and the Churches consist of men, just as a speech or language consists of syllables and letters. Of the qualities of these men the Church, so long as she is in this world, is always a partaker. 

Definition of a false Church

As concerning the false and impure Churches, they are not so easily defined. Truth, soundness, and right are of one sort only; but errors, diseases, and crookedness are without number. Again, there are many kinds and degrees of impure Churches. Nevertheless, we may say in one word that all those Churches are impure in which the Word of the Lord and His Sacraments are impurely ministered—that is, are administered both against the honor of God and the salvation of our neighbor. And because the whole Gospel is nothing else but faith and love, and the whole Christ is nothing but Head and body, we may make two principal kinds of them: calling those heretics who err in the faith and doctrine of Christ, and those schismatics who separate themselves from love and from the communion of His body, which is the Church—yes, even though they otherwise agree with the truth of doctrine in all points. 

Now, as there are many points in Christian doctrine, so also there are many kinds of heresies: some in one point, and some in another; some more heinous and grievous in one point than in another; and further, some confined to a single point, while others involve more points than one. 

It is just as in a natural body: the sickness of a vital part is one thing, and the sickness of an instrumental part is another; a simple heat of the liver is one thing, and a full hard swelling of the flesh is another. In short, the distemper of some one part is one thing, and a general distemper of all the parts of the body is another. 

Such a Church, then, that has played the harlot with false gods and has believed the evil counsel of men, may be so infected with heresy that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot a man shall not see one sound place. Nevertheless, they remain Churches of Christ even though they are heretical, just as a man remains a man however sick he may be. In that they are heretics in the doctrine of Christ, it still shows us that they are yet Churches—though we distinguish between the disease and the body—even as we know that a sick man is a man, and not yet the carcass of a man. 

But they are no longer Churches at all when they come to the heresy of infidelity: when Christ, who is the soul of the Church, is no longer accounted a Saviour and Mediator; when this mediation which joins Christ to His Church, as the neck joins the head to the body, is cut off. For example, when the Christians of Asia in many places, from Nestorians, became Mahometans — that is to say, from heretics became infidels, (whatever praise the Koran may give to Jesus Christ), because then the soul is out of the body, the windpipe is cut, and the bill of divorce is published between Christ and them, seeing that they openly marry themselves to another and have sought their happiness and salvation apart from Him. 

Now to return again to what I have spoken of before: the marks of the true Church, as of a pure and chaste wife of Christ and the mother of the heirs of the Father, are these—that she engenders children to God, that she brings them up for Him, and that she unites them unto Christ. For any one of these points alone does not make her worthy of this title, but all of them together. She is not a true mother who brings forth children and afterwards abandons them; and yet she is truly a mother [who continuously nourishes them growing up]. 

Now such a one was the Church of Samaria, or the Church of Israel, in which there remained circumcision and also the law—but this was in name only. She was (says the Lord) an adulteress and played the harlot with every one that came—that is, there was no idolatry which was not welcome there. And yet a little after, He says she brought Him forth children. She brought forth children (I say) to God, who accounted them His own through circumcision (although she had deserved to be rejected due to her adulteries), forasmuch as the divorce was not yet made with her, and they were still in the covenant. But when she had brought forth children to God, she brought them up to Moloch, she made them pass through the fire, she instructed them in all idolatry—that is to say, she gave them to the Devil and made them inheritors of hell, as much as lay in her. 

Now it is said in the selfsame places [Ezek. 23] that Jerusalem, the younger sister Aholibah, in which also God had chosen His tabernacle, had done much worse, in such sort that she was made lower than Sodom. 

———————————————————————- 

[N. B. In Ezekiel, chapter 23, God presents a vivid and shocking parable using two sisters to describe the history of His people’s spiritual unfaithfulness:  

• Oholah (the older sister): Represents Samaria and the northern Kingdom of Israel. 

• Oholibah (the younger sister): Represents Jerusalem and the southern Kingdom of Judah. 

• Spiritual Adultery: Both sisters are described as having engaged in spiritual “prostitution” (idolatry)—first by picking up pagan practices while in Egypt during their youth, and later by turning to foreign political alliances and worshiping the idols of Assyria and Babylon.] 

—————————————————————————- 

This then is that which Jesus Christ says to the Pharisees: “You travel by sea and by land to make a proselyte”—that is, in order that you may circumcise a Pagan and bring him into the Church — “and when this is done, you make him twofold more a child of hell than yourselves.” That is to say, you teach him so ill that circumcision is worse to him than uncircumcision because the knowledge which he has of the true God turns to his condemnation. 

There is no doubt that the like has come to pass in the Church of God. For even from the beginning there have been heresies in the chief articles of our faith—that is, diseases in the principal and vital parts of the body—as, namely, in the doctrine of the Godhead and eternity of Jesus Christ. 

The sin of man deserved death. It must needs be, then, that the Mediator was very God and very man: man, so as to die the death; and God, so as to overcome death. And therefore, those who deny the divinity of Christ deny the principal quality of the Mediator through which we obtain salvation. Now the divinity is made nothing when the eternity is made void. For where we find a beginning, there, naturally, we need not doubt an end. 

This heresy, and many similar, were scattered throughout many notable Churches. Notwithstanding, forasmuch as the ancient Church has judged that their baptism ought not therefore to be rejected, she has shown by consequence that she has held them for Churches, despite all their deadly diseases. For Christ, from whom true Baptism and the efficacy thereof is, baptizes not but in the Church—showing thereby that there may be found Christian Churches which bring forth their children as mothers, and yet nourish and instruct their children worse than stepmothers. And therefore, they add that this Baptism, which profited them in their infancy, falls out to their further hurt when they come to years of discretion, when they come to taste of these heresies of which they had no sense or feeling. 

The degradation of the Roman Church

The Latin Church, as did Jerusalem to Samaria, set itself then very courageously against such errors and healed many of them, whereupon it got great authority among all. But afterwards a worse evil came unto it, and that was this: that having through God’s goodness (who always preserves His truth in some place) had been exempted from the foresaid heresy and sickness, she thought it came of her own strength, and that she could not be deceived any more — as a man who, for being in health one year, thinks nothing can hurt him. Whereupon we say she [the Latin Church] is fallen into a general distemperature [i.e., a disordered, disturbed, or unhealthy condition of the body, mind, or temper] and is so laden with heresies that she is not only thoroughly sick, but she is, as it were, sickness itself, not feeling her evil at all. 

We say then of her the same that the prophet Ezekiel said of Jerusalem, who was the only seat of the Lord’s: “Samaria has not committed half of your sins. Your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. You have justified your sisters by all the abominations you have committed. Therefore, I will restore their captivity, and you shall bear your own shame” [Ezekiel 16:51–52]. 

The Word of God is the only meat which God has given for the ordinary nourishment of His children. The Latin Church, in order that she might nourish them with husks and shells, has hidden it from them and buried it in the earth; or if for shame she has sometimes delivered it unto them, it has been altogether covered with poison. 

Instead of this word directing us to God for our salvation, she has sent us to men, who are nothing but perdition—yes, even to the son of perdition himself. Whereas she should have assured us of the infinite merits of the one Christ, the infinite God, the Papacy has turned us to our own merits, which merit nothing but hell and death. 

The whole law was given to no other end but to make us feel our sins, that we might seek the remedy thereof in the grace of Christ. But contrariwise, the Roman Church makes us play the Jews more than the Jews themselves, promising us salvation of ourselves, to the end that, making us search for it that way [i.e., through the Law] more fervently, she might therein show us hell. 

She has received the Devil into the Lord’s house; she has mingled death in His bread of life, and into His cup she has put poison. To conclude, even though through Baptism — which she has nevertheless in many ways profaned — she enrolls children to God as a mother, yet it is certain on the contrary that through her false worship she nourishes them up to the Devil. 

And as concerning salvation in Jesus Christ, that which is the neck that joins the Head with the body, Jesus Christ with His Church, it is cut off by man’s merits, by the merits of the saints, by the Pope’s pardons, and such other wickedness that the life of the Church is held by a littlest thread — which would have been straightway quite cut off (Antichrist had so well labored therein) had not God, through His great mercy, sent His servants in time to repress him. 

As long as this thread remained there, we deny not the name of the Church—no more than we deny the name of a man to a man, as long as he lives, whatever sickness he may have. Yes, we are content to call her the spouse, provided that therewith she allows us in like manner to call her an adulteress. 

But we say that she is a heretical Church worse than all the Churches that have ever existed: a wife who provokes God to a divorce, a mother who nourishes up her children to the Devil. And we pray God that He will vouchsafe to take her in her childhood, being defiled in her blood, and that He will wash her in her old age in the blood of His Son, and that He will remember (as He promised to Jerusalem and Samaria) the covenant made with her from her youth, and that as He has already done in a good part of her members, it would please Him to restore her again to her first purity and integrity. 

Thus, we maintain the Roman and Latin Church to be in the highest degree heretical and impure in doctrine. 

Concerning the schismatical churches, either they are schismatical simply, or heretical and schismatical both, as when heresy comes upon a schism, as an ague [i.e., fever] upon a wound. 

As for those that are heretical, we say as we said before. As for those that are schismatical, we make two distinctions. The cause (says the Canon) makes a schismatic, and not the separation. And therefore, we say that they who have given others a just occasion to separate themselves from their corruption are the schismatics, and not they who have separated. 

For this cause the Apostles were not schismatics, although they separated themselves from the Scribes and Pharisees and had their assemblies apart; but rather the priests and scribes, who put them to death when they submitted themselves to verify the coming of Christ amidst the Church. And we shall prove in its proper place that the very same thing has happened in our own time among those who have shown that Antichrist was present in the full councils of the Church. 

For the second distinction, we say we must distinguish between the author of the schism and its followers. The authors of schism tear themselves from love and so, by consequence, from the body of Christ, and therefore may be compared to Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, cutting themselves (as much as they can) out of the Book of Life. They are the flock of Christ, but evil-governed by their pastors—and principally those who are born under the schism—forasmuch as neither are without blame, neither can in any wise excuse themselves. And therefore, Dathan and his company were swallowed up, while the congregation which cleaved unto him was spared. In that it saw the horrible punishment of those whom it had followed, it was warned to separate itself for fear of the like. 

In like manner Jeroboam and his successors, who through ambition had made a schism in the [Israelite] Church, were accursed; and yet Samaria ceased not, at the least, to be in the covenant of God, neither by reason of her false worship, half Jewish and half heathenish. 

[N. B. The northern kingdom was in the covenant as Israel but not always considered faithful to it. Later Samaria was often not considered in the covenant at all.]

In short, ambition and the lack of love from which it proceeds—these make schismatics. And therefore, as in the rebellion of the mightiest, the captains are punished and through his [the prince’s] mercy the leaders are pardoned, while the people who were led either through ignorance or by the force of their authority are spared—even so it is to be presumed that the Father of mercy does [the same] towards His poor children, who for the most part do mourn under the ambition of the prelates and are not partakers of their subtle counsels. But this is spoken of those Churches which are schismatical only—that is to say, which have no notable heresies joined with their schisms. The like thing also may be found in the churches of the heretics. For oftentimes the leaders of the Church are heretics by their subtle heresies in certain things, and not the people who do not understand them, contenting themselves with the simplicity of the Word, which always is most true. But we will speak of this more amply in another place. 

We will conclude then that the marks of the true Church are faith and love; the Word and the Sacraments purely and lawfully administered. The marks of the impure churches are when they fail therein in part, or when they are impure—the which thing many times typically falls out together. 

We say that the true Churches have their doctrine compiled in the Old and New Testament, and their Sacraments, which are Baptism and the Supper. Those which minister the one and the other purely are pure Churches; those which minister them impurely are the impure churches; and the Church of Rome is the most impure of all, for she has so villainously corrupted both the Word and the Sacraments that scarcely anything of Christ remains in them. 

CHAPTER THREE 

The marks of the True Church which our adversaries allege are common to both the pure and impure churches; which, for the most part, they do not hold. 

Those who perceive them vanquished is because they do not have the essential marks of the pure and sound Church. They would, quite contrarily, make us out to be heretics—we who are the true Church—claiming that the Church cannot be known by the pure and sincere administration of the Word and Sacraments, but rather by certain outward marks: namely, by an unbroken succession of places or persons; by miracles and revelations; or by false coffers that will not let men test their money by the sound of the gold and the touchstone of true value, but only by the color of the coin, which they may easily falsify. 

Therefore, they allege antiquity as a mark of the true Church, following that which was said to Job (Job 8:8; Job 32:7). “Inquire of the ancient generation, and consider the things discovered by the fathers.” Again, “Days shall speak, or the multitude of years shall teach wisdom.” To whom I could answer by Job himself, even in the verse next following: “the masters are not always wise, neither do the old men always understand judgment.” Also, it is the Spirit of God and not years that ought to speak in men. As they urge this point so greatly, I nevertheless answer them more at large. The question here of the purity of the Church…. is compared to a small sailing boat or ship, the more she…. the more she leaks… which age decayed and falls to an end like that of a city, and the polity of it which hath been corrupted with their own [doctrine]…… I say if there is much sickness and filthiness it behooves us to bring a broom and call for a physician, so far is it off, that for these things a man should maintain that the [Church] is pure and sound, as they do. Furthermore, I demand how they will answer unto the heathen, yea to Saint Augustine himself, who saith that Jerusalem began by Abel and Babylon by Cain. Also, that the promise was by Isaac the younger and not to the bastard Ishmael who was the elder.  Consequently, what would they have answered unto the Jews in the time of our Savior Jesus Christ, if antiquity had been a true mark of the Church. They said they were the children of Abraham. Now he is called the father of believers. For they [the Jews] had their genealogy from the creation of the first man. They could have alleged the Old Testament covenant made between God and them. And after Christ was sent to them according to the promises [made in the Covenant], under the shadow of this antiquity, they called Him the carpenter’s son, a Samaritan, one who had a devil, a preacher of novelties. And there is great likelihood that if our [Catholic] masters had been there at that time (seeing they use the same arguments) they would have helped crucify Him. 

——————————————————————- 

[N. B. This is a sharp polemical argument from Mornay. Its core claim is that antiquity (mere age or historical priority) is not a reliable mark of the true Church. The author systematically dismantles the idea that “we are older; therefore, we are the true Church.” 

1. The appeal to Augustine and the two cities: 

Mornay first cites Augustine (City of God): Jerusalem began with Abel, Babylon with Cain. Augustine taught there have always been two cities or communities running through history: The City of God (true believers, symbolized by Jerusalem), beginning with the righteous Abel. The City of Man (the worldly or false community, symbolized by Babylon), beginning with the murderous Cain. 

The point is that chronological priority does not decide which side is God’s. Cain was the elder brother and the firstborn, yet Abel belonged to the true city. Age alone proves nothing about spiritual legitimacy. 

2. Isaac versus Ishmael: 

Next comes the example of the two sons of Abraham: Ishmael was the elder, born first. Isaac was the younger, born of the free woman according to the promise. Yet God chose Isaac, not Ishmael, as the heir of the Covenant (see Genesis 17 and 21, and especially Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4). Physical priority and natural birth order are overruled by God’s promise. The true line is the line of promise and faith, not the line of mere seniority. 

3. The decisive historical test: the Jews and Jesus. Mornay then applies the same logic to the time of Christ. If antiquity really were a true mark of the Church, the Jews of Jesus’ day would have had an unanswerable case: They were the physical descendants of Abraham, “the father of believers.” 

Their genealogies reached back to the first man. 

They possessed the Old Testament Covenant and the promises. 

They could claim centuries of continuous institutional and religious history. 

Yet these same people rejected Jesus. They dismissed Him as “the carpenter’s son,” called Him a Samaritan, said He had a devil, and accused Him of preaching dangerous novelties. In short, they used their antiquity and tradition as a reason to oppose the very One to whom the promises pointed. 

4. The polemical punchline: 

The final sentence turns the argument against the author’s contemporary opponents (Roman Catholic theologians or traditionalists who were appealing to the age and continuity of the Roman Church): “And there is great likelihood that if our masters had been there at that time (seeing they use the same arguments) they would have helped crucify Him.” 

Because these “masters” rely on the same kind of reasoning—antiquity, institutional continuity, traditional authority—the author concludes that they would have sided with the Jewish leaders against Christ. 

Overall force of the argument: 

The passage is saying: You cannot settle the question of the true Church by asking which side is older. The true Church is defined by fidelity to God’s promise and to Christ, not by chronological priority. History shows that the older, more established religious community has sometimes been the one that rejected God’s work. Therefore, appeals to “we have always been here” or “we are the ancient Church” are insufficient and can even become spiritually dangerous. 

This is classic Reformation polemics: it uses Scripture and the Church Fathers (Augustine) against the claim that unbroken historical succession or institutional antiquity automatically guarantees orthodoxy.] 

———————————————————————– 

Do we now likewise say that Antichrist, who was foretold to us, entered this ruinous house, while the greater part was asleep in this dead lofty tower of antiquity, instead of doing that which was said unto them, ‘Watch and pray:’ in that the subtle one lent them a hand till he had turned all upside-down, and yet men did not know him. Furthermore, I demand what they will answer unto the Greek Churches, the Armenians, the Egyptians, etc., founded by the Apostles, and as old as the Church of Rome, yea and older too, seeing that the Church of Christ, as we know, took her beginning from the East to the West. If antiquity is a mark of purity, then they are pure, and the Latin Church in comparison (and according to their judgment) is most impure. If they are heretics and impure, as the Latin Church holds them, then it follows that antiquity is not a mark to prove the purity or truth of the Church. What then? Shall we reject antiquity? Nay, rather we embrace it with all our hearts, and a great deal better than our adversaries: but we embrace it so that the most ancient of times is asked and heard before all our fathers, and always according to this most certain rule, that Primum quodque verissimum — that the first things are truest; that is to say, that when there shall be any question of a pure Church, we look into the Word of God to see what she was of old time; and that we draw her from the rust of our evils that she has gotten through aging, and restore her unto the beauty and integrity of her youth. The Word of God must show what the Church had been; this is how we ought to honor antiquity, to reform ourselves according unto it, and not to suffer ourselves to be corrupted with the rust, perishing under the shadow of it. This is the rule which our Master has given us. When there was question concerning divorce that Moses had agreed unto the people for the hardness of their hearts, they had a long enough prescription if prescription might have had place against the institution of God. Notwithstanding, He answered in one word, ‘It was not so from the beginning’: that is to say, there was no such ordinance of God. Tertullian saith, ‘Nothing can prescribe against the truth, neither time nor authority of persons, nor privileges of kingdoms.’ 

[N. B. In the surrounding argument, Mornay is attacking the claim that the antiquity or long continuity of a church practice (or of the Roman Church itself) automatically proves its purity or truth. He is saying that even if a practice has centuries of tradition behind it, that tradition has no force against the original institution of God revealed in Scripture. The test is always: “What was it from the beginning?” Custom, prescription, and the authority of later teachers cannot override that. This is a classic Reformation move: Scripture’s original pattern is the rule; later historical developments, however old, must be measured by it and, if necessary, corrected by it.] 

For there is no custom so foolish that it could not, by that same reasoning, be authorized against the truth rather than against custom. And if Christ is from everlasting and more ancient than all, then also is truth more ancient than all customs. Heresies have always been vanquished by the truth, and not by novelty; and whatsoever is contrary to this truth is heresy, although it be never so old a custom. Cyprian saith, “We must not regard that which any other hath done before us, but we must regard that which Christ hath done, who is before all; for we must not follow the custom of men, but the truth of God.” Again, he saith, ‘Custom without truth is an old error.” As the Lord hath said, ‘I am the truth,’ and not, ‘I am custom.’ Ignatius saith, “All my antiquity is Christ, whom not to hear is manifest perdition.” See then how the most ancient Fathers teach us always to learn the truth of Him who is most ancient of all. For the rule of the law is true, that those things which are naught worth in the beginning are no whit better in the continuance of time; and if a man cannot prescribe against kings, and against the Church in their possessions, much less can he do it against God and against the truth, which is the only treasure of the Church. 

Mornay refutes the argument of ‘the majority is always right’ 

Now let us come to multitude. It is said expressly, ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil’ (Exodus 23:2). Also, ‘the gate is wide that leadeth to perdition.’ Likewise, ‘Fear not, my little flock: for it is my Father’s pleasure to give you a kingdom.’ Moreover, we see that all the [Christian] world was brought to one, Noah, and afterwards to Abraham. Then God chose one people of Israel, the least (as He hath said) of all peoples; and finally of all peoples the least part, to wit, Christendom, which for this cause He calleth a little flock. According to which St. Augustine saith that the Church was sometimes in one Abel, and in one Enoch. Multitude [i.e., the majority] then should be rather a presumption of the false than of the true Church, of impurity rather than of purity; forasmuch as man in all things runneth always to evil by nature, and never tendeth unto good, unless he be as it were drawn by force unto it. If we look to the number of the heathen, they will be greater in number in almost all nations: many [heathen] against one [Christian], and again all [heathen] nations against only one [Christian] nation; yea, and in that nation itself all the families at one time against one or two: as namely in the time of Noah, those who called themselves the children of God mocked him and his religion. Likewise amongst this chosen people of God, the Samaritans have the majority when compared to Judah, for there were ten tribes against two [Judah and Benjamin]; and in Judah and Israel the idolaters will win the goal against the better sort, for Elias complained that he was left alone, and against the good Prophet Micaiah there arose up four hundred false prophets; and the Prophets cried that all the people were deceived, even from the kings to the priests and their prophets. In the Church of Christ the number of Christians will have as small a place as in those examples. 

——————————————————————- 

[N. B. This statement is part of the Mornay’s argument that multitude (large numbers) is not a reliable mark of the true Church. He is showing from Israel’s own history that the majority has often been wrong, while the faithful remnant has been small. 

He gives three biblical examples: 

1. Elijah’s complaint: In 1 Kings 19, after the showdown with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, Elijah flees in despair and tells God: “I alone am left.” Although God later reveals that there were still 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal, the public scene was one of overwhelming apostasy. The Prophet felt utterly alone against a nation that had largely turned to idolatry. 

2. Micaiah versus the four hundred false prophets: In 1 Kings 22 (and 2 Chronicles 18), King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah inquire whether they should go to war. Four hundred court prophets all confidently declare that the Lord will give victory. Only one true prophet, Micaiah, stands against them and predicts disaster. The majority is completely wrong; the solitary true prophet is right (and is imprisoned for it). 

3. The Prophets’ general indictment: The true Prophets of the Old Testament repeatedly declared that the whole nation — from the king down through the priests and the official prophets — has been deceived and has turned away from God. Popular religion, official religion, and royal policy were often united in error. 

The point the author is making: 

In both the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah), the numerical majority (the “idolaters”) repeatedly outnumbered and publicly prevailed over the faithful minority (the “better sort”). Therefore, if one were to decide which side was the true people of God simply by counting heads, one would almost always choose the wrong side. 

Mornay is applying the same principle to the Church: large numbers, popular opinion, or the majority view within Christendom cannot be trusted as proof of purity or truth. History shows that the true Church has often been a small, opposed remnant.] 

———————————————————————– 

Of the beginning of it [the Gospel] is said, ‘Who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ And we read that it was brought to a small number of persons, insomuch that even the schoolmen themselves hold that after the death of our Saviour, for one instant, it consisted in the Virgin Mary alone. Of the more flourishing estate of it we read that after the death of Constantine, his son of the same name favoring the Arians, there were so few sound professors among the Christians that the Emperor charged them that four or five persons, including Athanasius, did trouble the peace of the whole world; to whom Liberius the Bishop of Rome answered that few in number or minority did in no wise diminish the word of faith. As for the declining state of the Church, we are given to understand that when the Son of Man shall come (before whose coming the child of perdition shall seduce the world) He shall find neither faith nor love on the earth, and that those days shall be as the days of Noah and Lot, etc. 

The noon eclipse [Amos 8:9] then shall be universal, and the whole earth being put between the Church and the Sun: and therefore, if we have no other direction than that of following the multitude in these darknesses, we shall have no part with that little number. Moreover, the Christians which reject the Pope in Asia and in Africa are a great many more in number than the others. If the Pope holds them for pure Churches, then the Roman Church is heretical, for she condemneth them and excommunicateth them for divers points of doctrine. If not, then multitude, which is a common argument against the [alleged] impure Churches themselves (who are in the minority), cannot be alleged for a mark of purity [because by Rome rejecting the larger group of Asian and African churches, she is in the minority]. And yet for all this, we cease not to praise God for the blessing which He giveth unto His Word, making the same to fructify and increase to hundreds and to thousands: but we pray Him that, as He hath already drawn a part of Christendom from under the yoke of Antichrist, so it will please Him to continue it more and more. But we say that if in certain places it seems that God retires but few—as the shepherd that saveth from the mouth of the lion, or an ear of his sheep, as saith the prophet Amos, or according to Jeremiah, taking one of one town and two of one tribe, to enter them anew into the restored state of his Church—yet for all that we must not call the truth into doubt, forasmuch as the selfsame truth hath foretold us this, and the great number is no mark of purity and verity, nor the little number of falsehood and heresy. 

Mornay refutes the argument of succession as proof of legitimacy 

Now followeth the succession of place and of persons, which they [Roman Catholics] allege against the succession of true doctrine which we require in the Church. As concerning place, there is no doubt but that this is to play the Jews, to enclose ‘Orbem in Urbe,’ that is, the whole world in one city. For the Church is no longer tied to Jerusalem because we see every day God calls His people [worldwide], even those who seemed not to be His people; and contrariwise He hath permitted by His righteous will that many Christian churches have been turned into temples of the Turks, as that of Ephesus founded by St. Paul and St. John, and that of Bône [Hippo Regius] in Barbary [Algeria] where St. Augustine preached, etc. And it is further said expressly in Scripture that the Church of God, by reason of the persecution of Antichrist, shall retire herself into the wilderness for a long time, as the Common Gloss itself doth expound, [thus her place is unknown]. Moreover, the Church is a city, that is to say, one union of citizens under the just government of Christ. Now between a city and a town there is this difference: the one consisteth in walls, the other in the union of the people governed under the same laws. And therefore, the city of Rome was at Veii with Camillus, being a banished man, when the town of Rome was in the hand of the enemy. 

[N. B. Mornay is answering the Roman Catholic claim that the true Church must be tied to the physical city of Rome (and therefore to the papacy seated there). He replies: Just as the true “city of Rome” continued to exist with its people and lawful authority at Veii while the physical town was occupied, so the true Church of Christ continues to exist wherever the faithful are united under Christ’s government, even if they have been driven from particular places (or even if Rome itself falls into the hands of enemies or error). In short, place does not make the Church; the people under the true Head do.] 

And Themistocles said that Athens was in ships, which the Romans had taught the poor Carthaginians to their cost, when they made their city to be carried out of town.  

[N. B. Just as Athens remained Athens in its ships, and just as the true “city” is the people under government rather than the buildings, so, the true Church of Christ is the company of believers under Christ’s rule, not any particular geographical seat (such as the city of Rome). Physical place can be abandoned, occupied, or destroyed; the Church continues wherever the faithful remain.] 

To be short, the Popes themselves have maintained for eighty years that the Romish Church had her See in Avignon, although they had forsaken Rome. Moreover, this argument is common to the Churches of Greece, Syria, Armenia, and Ethiopia, etc., whom the Pope condemns in many points of doctrine. 

To conclude, if ever there were a Church that might allege succession of place, it was Jerusalem. For of it was said, ‘The Lord will evermore dwell in this Temple.’ Also, ‘I have chosen and sanctified this house, to the end that my name may dwell there forever.’ And therefore, the priests had no other answer to all the Prophets that reproved them, but this: ‘This is the Temple, the Temple, the Temple of the Lord.’ But see what the Lord Himself answered unto them. ‘Go,’ saith He, ‘and see Shiloh. I chose it from the beginning for my house. Now see what I have done unto it for the wickedness of my people. I will do even so to this place which I have given to you and your fathers. But if you will that I dwell there, amend your ways and turn from your evil deeds.’ Now if He have forsaken His own Temple for the iniquity of the priests — besides which He had none elsewhere in the whole world — must we tie ourselves to the Church of Rome, or to any other place, seeing that all the churches of the world are equally His Temple? 

Mornay refutes the succession of persons as a mark of the true Church 

Concerning the succession of persons, this is no less frivolous than the other. In all estates and commonwealths there is one perpetual sequel of magistrates, either by succession or by election. Now if there be any question of reforming the estate according to the laws, there is no way so ill as to use these arguments: ‘I am a magistrate as was my predecessor,’ or ‘from the father to the son, therefore the commonwealth hath not to make any reformation.’ None ever doubted Nero was a tyrant, although he was descended from Augustus; neither would any man affirm that Commodus was a good prince, although Marcus Aurelius was his father. In like manner, everyone will agree that Manasseh defiled the Church and violated all justice, albeit he was the son of good Hezekiah; and Josiah reformed the Church and the laws, who was the son of Manasseh himself. And the civil lawyers themselves, which make two sorts of tyrants—the one sort without title and the other of exercise; that is, one sort of unjust usurpers and the other unjust governors—so we also make two kinds of Popes playing the tyrants over the Church: one sort they call intruders, who are thrust in there unlawfully, and the other abusers, abusing their authority; showing thereby that which may fall out in the succession of magistrates and in the commonwealth may also fall out in the succession of prelates in the Church. 

Furthermore, if ever there were any Church which could allege a good succession of pastors, it was the Church of the Jews, for they were of the house of Aaron, from the father to the son. Besides them no one else could sacrifice. Moreover, it was promised they would continue forever. And when the Prophets exhorted them to reformation, the priests continually responded saying: “the Law shall not perish by the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet.” But the Spirit of the Lord answered them, “Say not we are wise and the Law of the Lord is with us, for it is certainly in vain that He made it; as well as making the pen of the scribes because the wise men are confounded” (Jeremiah 8:8-9). And seeing they have rejected the Word of the Lord, what wisdom can they claim? 

Likewise, when they boasted to Jesus Christ they were the seed of Abraham, ‘I know it well,’ saith He, ‘but the Devil is your father.’ And in very deed this successive and hereditary wisdom crucified Christ and rejected the salvation thereof; as also this selfsame succession, although it be only pretended, since they worship Antichrist while maintaining their own destruction. Moreover, I demand what these allegers of succession would have answered to the followers of [heretical] Paul of Samosata, who had one succession of bishops to Constantinople, and the other to Antioch.  

[N. B. Mornay points out that the followers of this condemned heretic could also claim a line of succession in important churches: one line associated with Constantinople; another associated with Antioch. Therefore, succession of persons by itself proves nothing. What matters is whether that succession is joined to the true doctrine. Without the succession of sound doctrine, a chain of bishops is worthless—even if it can be traced back through famous cities like Antioch or Constantinople.] 

Also, what will they answer to the succession alleged by all the Greek and Eastern churches? To be short, what will they answer to the reformed churches of England, Denmark, Sweden, a great part of Germany, etc., through all which there is at this day the succession from bishop to bishop, and from pastor to pastor. If they will allege the Pope’s supremacy, we deny it also, and this is yet another question. If simply succession, then they have lost their cause. If the succession of doctrine is the controversy in question, then we gain this point, for the simple succession of persons without the succession of doctrine is worthless. They allege the ancient Doctors have used this argument, and we deny it not. But they must mark therein either that this was against heretics that denied the holy Scriptures, or else they were always adjoining it to the succession of doctrine. 

St. Augustine used this argument against the Manichees, but they rejected the majority of the Scriptures, especially the book of Acts to the end to deny the ascending of the Holy Ghost and to establish Manichee in His place. They also alleged miracles, antiquity, etc., but Manichee remarks immediately after, “You, on your part allege nothing similar, but that only you and your people hold the promise of the truth. Notwithstanding, if you could prove it, I suppose it ought to be preferred before succession, antiquity, miracles, as well as anything else.” When disputing with the prophane who deny the Scriptures, we use their prophane authorities and books against them. However, against the Donatists, the Arians, the Pelagians and others, who accept the Scriptures we dispute by the Scriptures. [……….] 

Irenaeus says they are not always true ministers though they seem to be, but they are true which keep the doctrine of the Apostles. Tertullian presseth the heretics of his time, who for the most part denied the Scriptures, to show that their predecessors were the Apostles or the Apostles’ scholars: but by and by afterwards he requires consanguinity, or kindred of doctrine, preferring it before all succession; that is to say, that they were not only the sons of the Apostles, but also their doctrines were the daughters of the apostolical doctrine. Chrysostom saith that the pulpit maketh not a minister, but a minister the pulpit. To be short, a man shall not find any other Father of the Church which hath spoken in any other sense. And indeed, since no one can pass on to his successor any greater right than he himself possesses, St. Paul has forbidden us to listen even to the Apostles or to angels themselves if they preach any other Gospel than the one he preached.  

Then does it not follow logically that the successors of the Apostles are to be rejected if they preach otherwise? It follows logically that neither succession of place, nor of persons is worth anything, but only the succession of doctrine which we have said before is the true and infallible mark of the pure Church. 

Mornay refutes miracles as a mark of the true Church 

Now when we speak of the publication of the Law by Moses, or of the confirmation of the Gospel by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, it is certain that they [miracles] were generally wrought, as well for the Samaritans as for the Jews, for heretics and for sincere and sound professors, for the pure churches as for the impure; forasmuch as the only purpose [of miracles] was to show He was the true God who gave forth the Law, as well as proof that Jesus was the true Christ promised in the Law, whom both the one and the other [i.e., the Samaritans and Jews] made profession the desire to receive and worship. And therefore, the argument [that miracles is a distinguishing mark of the true, pure Church] was, in reality, common to both.  

Concerning the other [signs] which they allege especially in that same state where they say Antichrist bears dominion, I grant they are effectively false miracles because they bear witness to falsehood: but if any are [real and] true, still, they are not sure testimonies of the truth. The Heathen had their devilish oracles in the temples of their false gods, and some, in effect, were [actually] true, as their disciples would point out to prove their religion righteous.  

[N. B. Thus, miracles do not distinguish the true Church from the false since they both can claim miracles.] 

Simon Magus, who claimed to be a disciple of Christ, wrought miracles. So did Appolonius of Tyana [died c. 100 AD]. But for the most part they were illusions which the Devil uses to [fool] the outward senses, as Augustine observes. But God wrought great miracles among the Samaritans despite their strange idolatry. For example, when he had the Assyrians eaten by lions as vengeance for the contempt He felt for His enemies [2 Kings 17]. Its purpose was not to authorize their faults and abuses. 

God wrought some miracles even before the coming of Christ to show all the nations the power of His name. Yea, it should not seem strange when He works miracles to testify to His truth in newly discovered lands, in order to vanquish the devils that reign there. Therefore, since the Samaritans and heretics could both attest to miracles, it is no sure proof of a pure Church. This was the argument used by Augustine when the Donatists used miracles as proof of their orthodox doctrine: “You allege miracles in which a man is not to be heard in respect of the place, but in regard to his desire. We will not prove our Church by succession of bishops, nor by the authority of councils, nor by the number of miracles, nor by visions or dreams.”  

All such things are to be allowed as they are done in the Catholic Church, but they prove not that it is Catholic [i.e., universal]; for that depends upon the Scriptures. Our Saviour Christ does not hide from us the fact that He will cast into everlasting fire those that have wrought miracles in His name. This is not then, as our adversaries say, a gift that sanctifies them that do them. It [adversaries] shall come with miracles, to seduce if it were possible even the elect. And St. Paul saith that Antichrist shall come according to the efficacy of Satan, in all power, and signs and miracles of deceit. It is, therefore, a small gift of the Holy Ghost [i.e., miracles are not a sufficient or decisive work of the Spirit for] identifying, sanctifying and purifying the Church. There is more in the matter than to do so: for some of these miracles shall not be altogether false in effect, but only in their end, that is because they tend to a false end, to establish the seat of Antichrist, as St. Augustine hath taught us upon this place. It is also foretold us that many false Christs [shall come]. And Saint John Chrysostom, who agrees when he saith they are not only illusions, but true and effectual, tending to bring in falsehood. Now if miracles approve the purity of the Church and the entirety of its doctrine, then Antichrist hath gained the cause. If not, then it is quite a serious error to assert that the miracles wrought under the Papal See ought to be alleged for confirmation of purity. Instead, to the contrary, seeing that no other miracles are promised before the [second] coming of Christ, but His own [i.e., at His return] we should suspect that they prove the Roman See is that prodigious see of Antichrist which was before foretold us. Let us follow then, amidst these difficulties, the instruction that Jesus Christ hath given to all Christians in the person of His disciples. He wrought miracles before His birth, but no man has control over his own birth, and therefore there could be no abuse in it. In His lifetime He wrought a great many miracles, which they beheld and saw: He was fastened to the Cross, dead, and buried, and yet afterwards they saw Him eat and drink with them. But of all those famous magicians, their enchantments died with them, neither was there ever one raised up again. For it was enough for Him to say unto them at His departure, ‘You have seen the singular miracles which I have wrought. You ought therefore not to doubt that I am the same who was appointed and promised to you.’

[N. B. This is a summation of several Scriptures: John 5:36, john 10:25, 37–38, John 14:11, Acts 2:22, Matt. 11:4-5.]

For confirmation, He always sent them to the Prophets, to Moses, to the Psalms, to the holy Scriptures: to the end they might mark what they have seen according to what was foretold them by the Spirit of God, and what He had foretold them was now accomplished. 

Mornay explains the difference between true and false revelations 

Touching revelations and visions, which are a kind of miracles, we have the plain text which decides the matter. “If there shall arise” (saith the Lord) “a false prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the miracle which he hath told thee come to pass, saying, Let us go after other gods… thou shalt not hearken unto him” (Deut. 13). There are then true prophets and visions, true in effect and false in their end, and the test of their truth, as we learn by this text, is the doctrine they teach. Likewise, when Saint John, to the end to keep us from false prophets, bids us to prove the spirits and adds, “Hereby shall you know the Spirit of God: Every Spirit that confesses Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God,” etc., that is to say, prove the spirits by the doctrine they preach. Therefore, Saul and Caiaphas prophesied, but as St. Augustine says, “As Baalam’s Ass once spoke, yet for all that they, too, might have once spoken truth. For the Devil is able to conceal his lies by speaking truth occasionally.   

We conclude that all the aforesaid marks are not the infallible marks of the sound and pure Church. First, because they are not substantial, only peripheral. Secondly, because they are common to both true and false churches and marks should differentiate, not hold things in common. Thirdly, they need to be proved and approved by another mark, doctrine: seeing it is said that in the end Antichrist shall come and seduce the majority of the people and that he shall sit in the Temple of God, that is to say, in the Church itself, and in one of the most famous places, and that he shall work strange signs and wonders, we conclude on the contrary, that antiquity, multitude, succession and miracles are in our day the marks of the Church of Antichrist, rather than the Church of Christ, His chaste spouse. To her Christ has given one mark: “He that is of the truth heareth my voice,” which is to say, He that abideth in my Word is my disciple. 

CHAPTER FOUR 

The holy Scripture is the undoubted touchstone to test the purity of doctrine which is the mark of the pure Churches. 

Our adversaries object that doctrine is a common argument, as is the claim to have the pure doctrine on their side and therefore cannot be alleged as a mark of the pure Churches. I answer: this is indeed a common bragging point of all heretics, but it is not always a common mark, but rather particular and proper to the pure Churches. For both the true Christians & heretics may have antiquity, multitude, succession, and miracles, as we have already proved: — however, there is none but the sound and Catholic [i.e., universal] Church that can have truth and true doctrine which consists in faith & love because the truth without love is nothing (1 Cor. 13). This dispute can only be decided by the Judge of all: the God-breathed Scriptures. 

The controversy between us comes down to the pure service which God expects from us. Now it is not in man’s power to judge how God expects to be served; much less is it to be expected of an uneducated peasant to write books or for us to decide how Princes are to be dutifully served. For between man and man there is always a mitigating human factor which comes into play, but between man and God there is no mitigating factor, nor can there be one because God is sovereign and almighty. Man, on the other hand, has a natural prejudicial selfish interest in himself alone (James 4:12; Deut. 12:8, 32; Jer. 7:27). This is the reason why God is the only Lawgiver unto His people, giving them a Law which specifies what He requires of them. And to cut off any machinations, He expressly forbids them to add or take away anything from His Law. For He says He will be served according to His pleasure, and not according to what looks good in man’s eyes. This truth is summed up in 1 Samuel 15:22 and Proverbs 21:3: “I will obedience and not sacrifice.” 

The priests were men who often would not be content to obey this command. However, so that the example of the sons of Aaron may be a warning to everyone: when they offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded, they were consumed by fire sent from heaven. And yet notwithstanding, as men are great lovers of their own inventions, they loaded the people with traditions, ceremonies, and glosses, whereas the Law was given to convince them of sin, to the end that they might seek mercy in Christ. Instead, they found other means for their salvation. But God, through His Prophets, whom He had sent from time to time, always called the people back to the Law by publicly declaring His Law and Gospel. “To the Law and the testimony,” saith Isaiah 8:20, “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” And because they did not observe it their priesthood was turned into a curse, and God was ready to divorce His people, and so, to cut off with one blow all their madnesses. Malachi recommends the Church observe both the Law and ordinances given by Moses until the coming of Elijah, that is, of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ. See and understand there was but one Law in the Church of the Jews until the coming of the Gospel of grace, which the Prophets expounded. Through them false worship, contrary to the true, was exposed. And men ran not to prescription of long possession, which thing had been sufficient to authorize Ishmael against Israel. To be short, He, of whom it is only said, “Hear Him,” (Matt. 17:5), to teach us by His example, hath given so great authority to the Law that He will have the people thereby to judge whether He be Christ or not. “Search the Scriptures vigilantly,” He says, “for you think that by them you have everlasting life, and they are they which bear witness of Me (John 5:39). The Judge of the world attributed so much to the Law, that He will have the world judge by the same Law whether He be the true Messiah, a deceiver of the people, or the Saviour of the world. And why so? Because it is not the word of Moses, nor of Isaiah, nor of any men, but His who sent Him. 

Now by the coming of our Savior Christ the holy Scriptures have lost nothing, but rather have the greater authority, “God, who had spoken to our fathers,” saith the Apostle, “sundry times and in divers manners, hath in these last times spoken to us by His own Son.” This Son is God Himself; this is the essential Word; this is He by whose coming the Church waits for the manifestation of all things. The word then that proceedeth from Him ought to have an infinite and absolute authority, and much less may one now add unto it than ever. [….. garbled text …..] To be short, He came to give light to those in darkness, promising never to forsake us. He hath left us light to guide us, and seeing He is light itself it is such a light that, if we follow it, we cannot be deceived. Now this is the same written Word of God which is the true image of that essential Word in which he hath imprinted all that is necessary for us [to know and do], to the glory of God, as well as all we need know regarding our salvation. The Apostles received this Word from His mouth, to preach the same to all the world. By so doing, they were true and faithful Ambassadors. Again, the Spirit of God, through whom they preached, was in them, teaching them all they should say, to the end that it would be believed for all generations. Thus, we now have it in our day, as if registered by four sworn Notaries of the Holy Ghost and expounded in many Epistles of the Apostles. Finally, these registers of the kingdom […… too garbled ……]. The Churches have always thought the Scriptures, which they called Canonical, are the rule, square and compass to guide and determine all matters. See then in the Christian Church we have now that which was under the Law: one rule to judge the right from the crooked, a square to direct our building, a compass to guide our ship, a Law to judge counterfeits, and a God in His Word to determine all matters which shall arise in the Churches. All that is agreeable to that Word of God is of God, for that is His own Word. All that is not agreeable to this Word, is of man. No man in the Church has any right to make any laws concerning the service of God. The Son of man alone, God and man, has this power, of whom it is said, “Hear Him” (Matt. 17:5). The Primitive Church allowed nothing but the Canonical Scriptures when debating heretics. By citing the Scriptures alone, they stopped the mouths of any heretics who arose with unfounded interpretations. […….. garbled text ……..] 

Our Catholic adversaries always cry, “the Fathers, the Fathers, the Fathers,” but the Fathers themselves were judged by the Word. “This controversy,” saith Augustine, “requires a Judge: Let Christ Himself then be Judge and tell us why He died. Let the Apostles be judges with Him, for Christ also spoke in them. It is said God did not spare His own Son, etc., but had given Him to death for us.” See then the Judge before whom he called the Pelagians, from whom our adversaries have borrowed their doctrine. Against the Donatists his ordinary words were “We have found Christ in the Scriptures which is where we must also find the Church,” Also, “Let not these words I say be heard anymore between us, but rather let the words be from the mouth of Jesus, for we have the books of the Lord to which we both give confession that we believe and obey.” Again, “the canonical Scripture is the rule for all, while the Epistles of bishops have their importance dependent on the person; Councils can be amended and undergo constant correction. Also, where shall we feed the sheep of the Lord? Upon the mountains of Israel whose mountains are the altars of God’s Scriptures. Whatsoever shall be preached from them which are in His Word should be tasted. Whatsoever is not from His Word, cast away so as not to be deceived by false teachers.” [Mornay then cites St. Cyprian.] 

“That which I find there agreeable with Scripture, I accept it with praise; that which I find not agreeable to the Scripture, by his good leave I reject it. And there is no doubt (saith he in another place) but that when he seeth all clearer and brighter than when he was conversant in darkness, that he is very glad to know how profitable it is for us, that in the writings of Christian orators and learned preachers a man may find…” [garbled text]. 

[Mornay spends several pages citing Church Fathers, including those scholars the Roman Catholics claim for their own.] 

CHAPTER FIVE 

There is no other Judge of our current controversies but holy Scripture and how everyone can judge the same way.  

Now seeing then that they doubt the Scripture is not on their side, let us hear at their hands that they refuse it and slander it as much as they can: let us also see whether they can allow any other judge besides it. I would ask them whether, of all the ancient Doctors, they would choose anyone who has been free from those same objections which they raise against the Word of God—or whether they will accept them all. 

———————————————————————- 

[N. B. Mornay is putting his opponents in a dilemma. They will not accept Scripture as the judge. So, he asks: will you then take the ancient Doctors (Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, etc.) as your judges instead? 

He offers them only two options: 

1. Choose one Doctor who is free from the same kinds of faults they complain of in Scripture — which he says they cannot do because every Father has some error. 

2. Accept them all as judges — “or whether they will accept them all.” 

If they accept them all, they immediately run into a new problem: the Fathers contradict one another (chiliastic interpretations, Anabaptism, Montanism, predestination, etc.). Then someone still has to decide between those contradictions. The only competent referee for that, he argues, is Scripture. 

So “or whether they will accept them all” means: If you will not pick one faultless Father, are you then willing to take the whole body of the Fathers as your judges? He expects the answer to be no — and that is the trap.] 

———————————————————————– 

Concerning any one alone they cannot, for in every one of them there may easily be found either one error or another: but they have so many errors to defend, that to defend all, all the errors of all times and ages would not suffice. Moreover, they would be ashamed to deny that their style is more obscure than the style of Scripture. Also they know in their own conscience that in the most principal points they [the Fathers] are on our side, and yet there is not any one of them which they will accept in all things, forasmuch as they condemn in Irenaeus the error of the Chiliasts, as well as the interpretation which he made of the Apocalypse concerning the Church of Rome; in Cyprian, Anabaptism; in Tertullian, the heresy of Montanus; in St. Augustine, predestination; and so likewise of others. Will they then receive all alike for judges? But then who shall be the presiding judge in the contrarieties of their doctrine and interpretations? For everyone knoweth that there shall be found some discrepancies everywhere. If it be the holy Scripture, that is the thing which we desire. But if they refuse the Scripture as being a party to the dispute, or reject it for any stronger reason, then we will not accept them [our adversaries] as judges either, since they themselves are parties against us.

[N. B.  If all the Fathers are made judges, who settles their contradictions? If Scripture does, that is what we ask. If Rome will not let Scripture judge because it is “a party” to the case, then Rome cannot sit as judge either—for Rome is a party against us.]

In like manner shall it be with the schoolmen, if they take them for judges, although they be the principal authors of the errors of the Church of Rome: for between Thomas and Scotus, and their armies set in battle array, and fighting one against another, who shall be judge? It remains then that they choose either one of the Councils, or else all the Councils together. If they choose one, we know that in every one, for the most part, there is handled as yet but one thing: as for example, in the Council of Nice, the matter of Arius; in the Council of Ephesus and of Chalcedon, the matter of Nestorius and Eutyches, and so likewise of others: but of these points there is no contention between us. If they will have all, I demand who shall be presiding judge in the errors which the ancient Fathers confess, and in the contrarieties among them? The second Council of Ephesus approved Eutyches; the Council of Chalcedon condemned him. The second Council of Nice maintained the worshiping of images, but that of Frankfurt, assembled about the same time by Charles the Great, pulled them down. The first Council of Nicaea, according to the use of the primitive Church, permitted the marriage of ministers; the Councils of Neocaesarea, Mainz, and the second of Carthage forbid it. The Councils of Constance and of Basel [set the Pope under the] Church, yea they make him equal with other bishops: those of Florence and of Trent, upon pain of the black curse, have set him above all. 

To be short, the Council of Carthage excommunicated and cursed him to the devil that calleth himself Universal Bishop, or chief Priest. And the Council of Trent excommunicated all those which hold not the Bishop of Rome for such a one. I demand then in these contrarieties, and a thousand others of like consequence, who shall determine the matter? Shall it be the Church? Now the Church is that which hath said sometimes one thing and sometimes another: for they hold that the Church is represented by general Councils, and those for the most part are such as we have spoken of. These are then churches contradicting one another, or rather one contrary to itself. 

Moreover, if it be the Church, yet we deny that it should be the Church of Rome: for it doth not belong (say they) to a particular church to be the judge of that which is universal, which is represented by general Councils. It remaineth then for them to prove the supremacy of the Church of Rome above the universal Church of Christ: but if they cannot prove it by the holy Scripture, none of the other churches will believe them. For they did not believe Christ Himself bearing witness of Himself, but they, by the holy Scriptures, knew it was God who sent Him. And seeing other churches have their Doctors, councils, and traditions as well as the Church of Rome, it must follow that the Church of Rome must prove her high prerogative and title by the Scriptures. And if the Scriptures must be judges of the Church of Rome and her prerogative—which pretends and bears men in hand to be the judge all other churches— then there cannot be a more competent judge than the holy Scripture. Without it the Church of Rome is no more than any other church; and from it, whether she will or not, she must derive whatever preeminence and authority she claims. 

Now if they object that there is no longer any need to judge of our controversies because they have frequently already been judged by Councils: Saint Augustine teaches us that Councils may err, and that the former Councils were amended by the latter, and therefore he does not debate the Arians using the Councils against them. Secondly, if this point have any place, what will they say then unto us, why they have detract from the first Council of Nicaea, which is the first Ecumenical Council, regarding the marriage of ministers, and the supremacy of the Pope, who in that Council was made equal with the other Patriarchs? And wherefore the matter was so decided, would they have it yet pleaded again in the Council of Carthage, etc.? Why would they have the Council of Trent declare the Pope the Vicar of God on earth, when the Council of Carthage had already excommunicated anyone who would call himself the chief Bishop and head of the Church? 

Moreover, in the most approved Councils the majority of the disputed points were not yet in controversy because the errors we speak of had not been fully realized but had crept in little by little. They began to grow and increase only after the tyranny of the Pope was brought into the Church, who also played the tyrant over the Councils. Moreover, we make a great difference between the Councils, for we accept the first Council of Nicaea, as well as others, because the word of God governed there, which God always accompanies with HIs Spirit. But we do not receive the Second Council of Nicaea where idols were established and the holy Scripture was alleged as text proof, which is an outright mockery of God and His word, and was accompanied by none other than the spirit of Satan. It is said, they say, “that God created man to His own image, therefore we ought to have images.” Also, “no man lights a candle to hide it under a bushel.” Therefore, “we ought to set Images upon altars,” Also, “God is named marvelous in His saints, therefore we ought to behold His glory in Images.” I ask then, what man would believe their arguments based on a foundation of such [perverted] “proofs” for the lawful use of Images? 

Now there are an infinite number of other instances where a man may plainly see the style of the spirit of Antichrist, always alleging scriptural proofs worse than that used by Satan to our Lord Jesus Christ. In short, if a man would not decide a court case by certain previous sentences, why should he follow that same method in matters of conscience—especially when those sentences were given without the parties being summoned or heard? 

[N. B. The argument is an analogy from ordinary justice to the conscience. Mornay is using a legal analogy to attack the claim that earlier Councils have already settled the Reformation controversies.

In civil court
In a court of law, you would not treat every previous sentence as automatically binding, especially if: 

it was only a particular kind of ruling, 

or the people affected were never summoned, 

or they never had a chance to be heard. 

A judgment given in someone’s absence, without a hearing, has no proper legal force against that person. 

In religion
The Roman side says: “There is no need to judge these questions again; Councils have already judged them.” 

Mornay replies: if you would not accept that kind of procedure in an ordinary court, you have even less reason to accept it in matters of conscience. 

The Reformers (and the churches they represent) were not parties at those later Councils. They were not called, not heard, and not allowed to plead their cause. Therefore, those conciliar “sentences” cannot be treated as a fair or final judgment against them.

The conclusion
A Council that decides a cause without hearing the other side is like a court that condemns a man in his absence. Such a sentence cannot bind the conscience. The case must still be tried by a competent judge — which, for Mornay, is Scripture.

But even if we all grant that the holy Scriptures are the rule by which all doctrines must be framed, they will still ask me, in order to settle the matter amid so great disagreement among us: who shall be the one to interpret and apply them? 

Concerning us, we are parties against them, and as touching them, they are parties against us. Who then shall be the judge? For, say they, let the Scripture be so great a judge as men would have it, yet it speaks not so as to determine and pronounce sentence. 

To this I answer, first, that when a man is assured of the square in the measure, or of the compass in the ship, there is no mariner so unskillful that doth not perceive whether the ship keep her right course or no; nor any man so slender-witted that doth not know, in applying it, which is straight and which is crooked. And therefore, let them only grant us that we guide the precepts of our salvation according to the rule of salvation contained in the Old and New Testament, and we will therein submit ourselves not only to a free and lawful Council, but also to learned and unlearned, to the ministers and common people, and to all Christians for whose salvation it was written, who by themselves shall find in this Word the judgment of the Word, and shall pronounce a definite sentence of the same. 

Furthermore, in every art there are certain principles and grounds, whereupon all the rest undoubtedly depend.  Geometry hath her axioms, physic her aphorisms, and the civil and canon [law] their general rules, by which they determine all difficulties which shall arise in their laws. Now, say I, that divinity also hath her rules and grounds, and the law of God hath her certain principles, able to decide all controversies which are amongst us: yea, and those so much the stronger and easier, as we are most assured that there is no kind of doubt, contradiction, or contrariety in them to make them void or unstable.  

Now we have three sorts of differences or controversies with the Church of Rome: the one sort consists in things plainly forbidden in the Word of God, the other in things which are not commanded, and the last in the interpretation of certain points which are either forbidden or commanded, which both of us receive, but diversely. 

Concerning the first kind, we have a rule in the law of God, that we must rather obey God than man. This is so easy that even little children may comprehend it. When we see man command one thing and God another, we cannot doubt who we ought to obey. By this rule we cut off images, relics and all kinds of idolatry which the Papacy commits, and which are expressly forbidden in a hundred places in the Word of God. 

Concerning the second, we have another rule: God is the only lawgiver unto His people. ‘Thou shalt not,’ He saith, ‘neither add nor diminish from My law.’ Christ saith, ‘God will not be served according to our traditions, but according to His commandments.’ St. John and St. Paul say that the holy Scripture is sufficient for our salvation. Chrysostom saith, ‘Where the Scripture is silent, man must be silent.’ St. Jerome: ‘Prattling without proof of the Scripture ought to be of no credit.’ This is a rule commonly given to all people, and whereof also the people are capable of understanding. Let the people now read the Old and the New Testament and let them mark if they find one single word, directly or indirectly, secretly or plainly, specifically or generally, which speaks of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of Purgatory, of the invocation of the saints, and of other similar points which are in controversy between us. 

Contrariwise, if they shall not find therein, from line to line, that Christ is the only sacrifice once offered up for all, that there is one only washing in the blood of Christ, that there is only one God to be called upon in the name of Jesus Christ—if they find there the doctrines which we condemn, then let them condemn us, and cry fagot and fire against us. If not, then let them be judged by the rule which is afore stated, which they have abused, and have caused men to search their salvation in those things which the Doctor of their salvation hath not taught them; and consequently, where they can find nothing but destruction. Yea, I say more, if the learned would take pains to read the holy Scriptures as did the Doctors of the primitive Church, they shall not find one single word; or if they do find any such place, it will be the kind of thing that will make for even more doubt. Whereof then they will conclude forasmuch as Christ and His Apostles never taught such doctrines, nor has the primitive Church believed such doctrines; nor has anything written come later which is not doubtful, therefore we must keep silence as did Christ regarding these doubtful doctrines. For example, 400 years after Christ the Church knew nothing of the invocation of the saints, for there is not one word found in the ancient writings, unless it condemned the Painims [Pagans] in serving their gods. Of Purgatory, the first Doctors of the Church spoke not one word. Augustine was ambivalent regarding this, saying it was no great matter if there was or was not one. St. Gregory began to believe due to visions and that was 500 years after Christ. 

The Mass has a similar history and yet these were made articles of faith which resulted in the burning of Christians. By such reasoning, the Catholics might as well have burned the primitive Church. By this one single rule therefore, comprised in a few words and easy for everyone to understand, we cut off the Mass, Purgatory, prayers for the dead, invocation of saints, the Pope, his pardons, indulgences, and almost all that hath troubled Christendom for this long time. 

But to defeat this rule, they would wrest into their purpose certain places in Scripture by the hair, to the end to make us find therein their lewd inventions. 

[N. B. I.e., they drag certain texts in by the hair of the head to make them say what they want them to say. It is an accusation of forced and strained interpretation.] 

As for example: ‘It shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come’—ergo, there is a Purgatory—which must be understood as St. Mark has expounded it by these words: ‘It shall never be pardoned,’ according to the Hebrew phraseology. Also: ‘If Moses and Samuel were before Me to pray for the people, I would not forgive them’ [Jeremiah 15:1]. “Ergo,” they say, “we must pray to the Saints.” Whereas quite contrary, by the plain words of the text, a man can gather it is a vain thing to call upon them because the meaning of the Prophet is quite clear in their citation of Jeremiah 15: The crimes of the Jews were so heinous that God would not forgive them, no matter who interceded for them. To be short, even according to the example of Jeremiah, in the foregoing chapter, when he had made earnest prayer unto God for the people, God answered that if Moses himself, who was most dear unto Him, should pray unto Him for this people, He would not hear him. Again, sometimes they have certain allegories by which they attempt to prove these matters. But we demand of them whether their doctrines are necessary to salvation, yea or no. If they are considered necessary, then we have another certain rule: That the Word of God is clear to salvation (Romans 1:16; Acts 13:26; James 1:21). For that same light has come down from heaven to teach us, and it has not done so obscurely, or by beating about the bush. The Holy Ghost came down upon Christ in the likeness of a dove, and upon the Apostles in great brightness. Their doctrine, therefore, was plain and evident, and they were not Doctors or teachers of darkness. Therefore, let the Catholics cite places in Scripture in which they do not wrest their proper meaning, meanings which are far from their intended purpose, and we are ready to yield to them. 

This is the rule St. Jerome gave: “Allegories and dark [obscure] places prove nothing.” And St. Augustine saith: “All that pertains to salvation is plainly and clearly set down in the Scripture, and that which is dark [obscure] in one place is plain and clear in another.” 

Now, concerning the third point, we have a rule which all the ancient fathers have given us: that Holy Scripture is a light to itself. And that which is dark in one place is made plain by Scripture itself in another place. Therefore, the determination of all matters must be drawn from comparing those places where they are treated. Besides this, we have two marks to direct ourselves by, toward which the whole of Scripture tends: the glory of God, and love toward our neighbor. Moreover, we boldly accept all the Doctors of the ancient Church for the interpretation of matters belonging to this third kind — namely, in those places and treatises where they expressly handle them. And wherever they are, or shall seem to be contrary, we willingly refer ourselves therein to every man according to his own common sense and judgment, who has read the Holy Scripture. 

For example, there is a controversy between us whether these words, “This is my body,” are a figurative speech or not. First of all, I compare, or weigh together, the places of the Evangelists, and I find in Saint Luke: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood,” which cannot be explained without a figure. And I know that flesh and blood are both of equal importance in the Sacrament. Further, I consider that the question here concerns a Sacrament, and that this is the customary manner of speaking common to all Sacraments. “The rock was Christ” is one place; “Baptism is regeneration” is another, and so on. 

[N. B. Titus 3:5 and John 3:5 are typically cited as examples of baptismal regeneration]

Finally, I find in St. Augustine these words, “In figurative speeches always keep this rule: If it is a manner of speech that according to the letter commands you to do that which is good, or forbids you to do that which is evil, immediately you may judge that there is no figure. For you have found there the scope and aim of Scripture, namely, the glory of God and love. But if you take it according to the letter [i.e., literally], and it seems to command you to do that which is evil, or to forbid that which is good, then you shall immediately judge that in very deed there is a figure [i.e., symbolic]. For example (says he), “Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. According to the letter, it seems that Christ commands us a foul and heinous thing. This, therefore, is a figurative manner of speech, by which he commands us to communicate with the passion of the Lord, and thoroughly to fix in our memory that his flesh was pierced and crucified for us.” When I see then that it is so figured in this way, that St. Augustine himself alleges it to us as an example of figurative speeches, I resolve myself that this, together with other texts of Scripture compared in the same manner, proves that such manners of speaking in the matter of the Supper cannot be taken otherwise than figuratively. 

Now by these rules, then, shall the matter of the Supper, justification by faith and works, free will, and such other points be determined — points which rest upon the interpretation of the texts of Scripture, which both the one side and the other would draw to their own meaning and intention. 

I ask then of every Christian man, what more we may justly attribute to the judgment of the ancient fathers? For where we have a plain prohibition from God, everyone will agree with us that men can do nothing, and that no interpreters are needed. Again, where we have no commandment from His mouth, there it is even less appropriate [to rely on them]: for where there is no text, there can be no gloss. 

Those matters then remain open for interpretation — the matters from which these commandments are taken and interpreted in different ways — in which we most gladly accept the interpretations of the doctors of the primitive Church, and of the most notable teachers in all ages. 

[N. B. Where Scripture is crystal clear, the Fathers are unnecessary. Where Scripture requires careful comparison and interpretation, the Fathers are welcomed as useful guides — but Scripture itself remains the final rule.] 

To conclude this article, then, we say that true doctrine is the infallible mark of the pure Church — that is, the pure doctrine thereof duly administered; and the undoubted touchstone of pure doctrine is the pure Word of God contained in the Holy Scripture, which God has delivered to be the rule of His Church. 

That the same [Holy Scripture] is perfect and is to be understood by those who desire their salvation — both by itself and when compared with itself. Yet for the deciding of controversies founded upon it, we willingly admit the interpretations of the most ancient [Fathers]. 

Briefly, because we do not find this purity in the Church of Rome, but the quite contrary — neither the law of God obeyed but made subject to the will of the Pope and his upholders — we hold the Church of Rome most impure. And we mark the Pope who governs there as a notable mark of Antichrist, lifting himself up above God, because he sets the law of God behind his own commandments and vain inventions. 

CHAPTER 6 

That the visible, professing Church may err in matters of faith and salvation.

Because our adversaries know very well they cannot defend — neither by the Holy Scripture nor by the example of the primitive Church — the false doctrine which crept in among them concerning the most principal points of Christian religion, especially if a man should examine them piece by piece: therefore, they have thought it good to defend all at once, namely, to maintain that the Church cannot err, especially in matters that concern salvation. 

For (say they) seeing that Christ is the head of the Church, He guides the same by His Spirit, and this Spirit is the Spirit of understanding, which inspires into the Church in time and place all that is necessary to lead her, in such sort that she cannot err. But as they assure themselves of defending all their Babylon by defending this bulwark, so it is also certain that once this point is proven, the argument of their opponents can no longer stand. 

When they speak of the Church in this matter, they understand properly the Clergy, represented by a general Council, and not the common people, of whom they make no account — a thing which many of them even condemn as contrary to Holy Scripture. Nevertheless, I am content in this matter to speak after their manner, in order to avoid all cavils and evasions. 

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, as of one body — not of that church there, nor of this one here, neither of one nor of the other, but of all Churches alike. Now this head is to the Church as reason is to a man: namely, to rule and guide the same by His commandment. 

Now so far as desire obeys reason, and the body the head, a man is in good condition: his senses, his movements and actions are in their perfection, and there is nothing in him that does not savor of the good government of reason. Contrariwise, when desire casts off obedience to reason and will not be subject to its government, but gives itself to drunkenness, riot, and all kinds of excess, then he falls into a disorder of his whole body; the vital parts are offended by it; he loses one member and one sense after another — sight, hearing, and all his powers depart from him. In short, by the just judgment of God, reason itself is oftentimes taken from him because he made no account of it. 

The same may fall out, and many times does fall out, in the Church. Now so far as the Church obeys Jesus Christ her head, hearkens to His commandments (which is reason itself), and follows His government which is set forth in the Scripture, she cannot err in the path of salvation: she is sound, pure, and perfect; and He also takes pleasure to lead her, and inspires into her His Holy Spirit, in order to enlighten her even in the midst of darkness itself. 

But when she treads His government under her feet, and makes no account of hearkening to Him, but presumes to be wise enough of herself to govern herself: then it is no marvel if she falls as it were in pieces, and loses one sense after another; if her eyes lead her into the pit; and if the Spirit of God abandons and forsakes her, because she made no account of the Word, with which He is inseparably joined and knit together. 

For as it is most certain that Christ does not suffer His flock to err, so it is also as certain on the other side that He does not count any as His sheep except those who hear His voice — and those hear His voice who hearken to Him speaking in the Scriptures, making them clearly understand His will. 

God, having first sent His Prophets, has now in the end sent from heaven His own Word, which has said to us, “Search the Scriptures”; and this is that same Word also which has sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. If we then will feel the Spirit, it is necessary that we hear the Word, for the Spirit is sent from the Word; but the clergy of Rome make no account of this Word. Instead of hearkening to it, they will be heard before it; instead of obeying it, they will make commandments of their own, in respect of which the commandments of God have been neglected; yes, they have abolished and cut off certain commandments entirely, and that openly. It follows then that they cannot boast either of the Spirit or of the leading thereof, inasmuch as this Spirit proceeds from the sending of the essential Word, who has left us His Word in the Holy Scriptures. 

Some compare this truth to a king who wills to communicate his authority to a parliament in order that they may obey his laws and distribute them to his people; but if the parliament shall abuse them in order to make itself obeyed above the king and the laws themselves, he will straightway take his authority away from it. Now God and His law, in respect of the Church, are far greater than these: for there can be no reconciling that which is infinite and that which is finite. And therefore, is it any wonder if He has taken from the prelates of the Church of Rome the gifts of His Spirit, when they would give authority to their vain traditions above the law itself, and that under the shadow of His Spirit? 

We say the Spirit and the Word are inseparably joined and knit together, and cannot be separated without great sacrilege, inasmuch as Jesus Christ, who is the Word itself, has so taught us. “When that Comforter shall come, that same Spirit (I mean) of truth, he shall lead you (says He) into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you, and shall bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you,” etc. 

If this Spirit hears the Word and speaks nothing of his own, by a stronger reason the Church should do the same, if she is governed and led by the same Spirit. 

He also says to His Apostles, “I will be with you till the end of the world.” This He understands by the power of His Spirit; but He had said before in the same verse, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded” — that is to say, my Word. 

And therefore, Saint Paul, preaching the Word both by living voice and also by writing, nevertheless calls his ministry “the ministry of the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:8), because it is the Spirit that gives efficacy and power to this Word. 

The Scripture is called the Old and New Testament, or Covenant; and in all covenants there are conditions of both parties. Concerning the Old, we see that the law was kept in the Ark of the Covenant, upon which God manifested His presence unto His people when they sought Him for counsel — in all that time wherein the people forsook the law of God to serve Baal, we see that God likewise answered not their demands, not vouchsafing to assist those by His Spirit who made no account of His Word. And as concerning the New: 

“Behold my covenant that I make with them, saith the Lord: My Spirit that is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy [seed] forever,” etc. He joins the Spirit with the Word in plain words, as if the covenant were conceived in these words: “My Spirit shall be in thee, but mark this, that the words that I have put in thy mouth do not depart out of thy mouth forever.” 

Neither ought we to say this is too much to abase the Spirit of God, to bind it back to the Word. For this is always to measure God by Himself, and this also is the only measure that He has given us. For if spirits are to be discerned by doctrine (as Saint John teaches us), and doctrine (as we have already proved) by the Word contained in the Holy Scriptures, it follows then that the Spirit of God must be considered in the Holy Scriptures which were left unto us by the Apostles and gathered by the primitive Church to the end that there we might have a lively portrait and outline of the Spirit, who had taught the Apostles according to the Word in order to discern the spirits of Satan, who without any warrant from this Word dared to teach false doctrines in the Church. The Church then is led by the Spirit of God in the understanding of His will, but only insofar as she searches for it in His Word. That is to say, to the one who searches the will of the Lord in His Word, the Spirit is given therein as an interpreter. But to those who make no account of the text, there is no need for an interpreter; and therefore, to those who neglect the Word to follow their own inventions, the Spirit is not given as an interpreter. 

For the Spirit of God and the spirit of man are not mingled together, unless a man forsakes his own spirit and his own fancies, to be led and conducted by the Spirit of God. To all those therefore who allege the leading of the Spirit without the Word, we will answer with St. John Chrysostom that which follows: 

“Many,” (says he), “boast of the Spirit, but they which bring their own [interpretation/Gospel], pretend the Spirit falsely. As Christ witnesseth that He spoke not of Himself, inasmuch as His doctrine was taken out of the Law and the Prophets, under the title of the Spirit, any doctrine not contained in the Gospel, we believe not. For as Christ has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so the Holy Spirit has fulfilled the Gospel.” 

Now Chrysostom had in hand in this sermon to extol the Spirit, for there he taught that the Holy Ghost ought to be worshipped as the true God. And yet notwithstanding, Chrysostom thought it no abasing of the Spirit when he measured it according to the Gospel — no more than did our Saviour Jesus Christ when He is measured by the Law and the Prophets. 

They object to us that God is sure in His promises, and that therefore He keeps the covenant that He has made with His Church. We answer that in very deed the Word of God endures forever; but in all these said covenants there is a condition: “If ye keep my word” — however much in His mercy He many times bears long with our iniquities. 

And therefore, we must not conclude, “God is sure; therefore, the Church cannot err.” But much rather say: Seeing that the Church errs so greatly, and so oftentimes forsakes Him, it must needs be that God is sure in His promises and full of mercy. For it is certain that very often He keeps His covenant with her, however corrupt and diseased she may be — even then when she provokes Him to a divorce, so that she treads the contract of marriage under her feet, and when she has enlarged her bed to all comers (as the Prophet says) — as may plainly be shown in all times and states of the Church. 

When our adversaries attempt to prove that the Church is before the Scripture, they begin at Adam. This, therefore, is the place from which we must begin. 

God, having created Adam, forbade him to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: that is to say, He commanded him to order all his affections and desires according to His holy will, and to seek all his felicity and all his knowledge in this one point of cleaving unto God. If he did not, He signified unto him by this that he should die the death — that is to say, he should be separated from God, who is the soul of our soul, as our soul is in our bodies. 

In this covenant, we see a plain condition. Adam, though altogether full of graces as he was then, rather loved to follow his own fantasy than to be ordered according to the Word of God, and to hearken rather to the voice of Satan than to his Creator. Just punishment followed upon him and upon all his posterity: man remaining corrupted, not only in his body and outward senses, but also in his reasoning and understanding, in such sort that reason itself, for the most part, served to no other end but to make them so much the more unreasonable, and understanding nothing but instead turning them from their salvation. And yet, for all this, we may mark in our foolish inconstancy the constant love and goodness of our Creator toward us, His unworthy creatures, when He promised even immediately afterward to our first parents the Seed that should bruise the head of the Serpent, in which alone they might obtain mercy. This [covenant in the Garden] was a conditional covenant, broken on man’s part by the sin of the first Adam, and repaired again in the person of the second Adam by the assured goodness and only bounty of the Creator. 

Now if this Church, even from her first root, was thus polluted; if from her beginning, even then when she was full of knowledge and integrity, when she enjoyed the presence of God, she failed so shamefully because she turned away from the Word of her God to her own desires — can any man nowadays, in the obscurity, ignorance, and vanity wherein we are all born, boast himself that he is able to walk uprightly without this Word? 

Our adversaries, in order to avoid the force of this argument, try as hard as they can to minimize the sin of Adam. They would rather accuse God of cruelty — as if He had punished all mankind merely for eating an apple in a simple act of disobedience — and would rather empty the Cross of Christ of its meaning (the very Son whom God delivered to death for the reconciliation of the world) than admit that the Church can err in matters of salvation. But the Doctors of the Christian Church, and those that are most sound among the Jews themselves, teach us far otherwise: namely, that the sin of Adam consisted especially in this — that he was turned wholly from God; that he believed the promises of the Devil more than the threatening of his Creator; that he pretended to make himself equal with God; and that he sought his felicity and his knowledge apart from Him and apart from His Word. 

In short, that this was a heresy so close to unbelief, and a sin linked with so many other sins, that none other but the Son of the eternal God, by the sole sacrifice of His death, could repair and redeem it. “He forsook” (says Saint Augustine) “his God, in order to be [master] of himself”; and such condemnation followed his pride that he who otherwise might have had a spiritual flesh now has a carnal soul. 

Someone may say that this was a great punishment — but he who thinks the punishment great cannot properly measure how great the iniquity of that sin was, seeing it was so easy for him not to have sinned. For as Abraham’s obedience is praised because when he was commanded to offer up his son — a thing so hard — he nevertheless obeyed: even so also as great and as incomprehensible a disobedience occurred in Paradise where the commandment had not any kind of difficulty. 

Now the obedience of Abraham (says the Scripture) proceeded from faith, for which reason he was called the father of the believers [Romans 4:16]. The disobedience then of Adam proceeded from unbelief, for which reason he is the father of all unbelief — which since that time has been and is in all mankind. 

Behold then what was the first state of the Church, in which nothing else was to be seen but a growing and continuing from worse to worse, even until the second [Adam]: as may be seen in the corruption and confusion which was in the time of Noah and Abraham, and amongst the Israelites in Egypt, where God reproaches them that they were stained and defiled with all kinds of idolatry. 

Now the whole second state of the Church, that is to say, under the Law, is full of such like examples. God made a covenant with His people of Israel, to be their God, and that they should be His people. The promises of this same covenant are very great and excellent: “I will walk in the midst of you; I will have My tabernacle among you forever; My name shall be in Jerusalem; I have sanctified it, to the end it may be there always; I will answer between the two cherubim.” 

But always this condition was set to this covenant: “If you shall be My people, if you shall serve Me, if you shall ask counsel at My mouth,” etc. Otherwise, He says first, “I will chastise you with My rods, to cause you to return unto Me”; but if you shall make no account of it, He adds straightway afterwards, “I will reject the people that shall forsake My law. I will cast off Judah from before My face, as I have rejected Israel, and I will forsake the city of Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I have said, ‘My name shall be there.’ Even as I have done to Shiloh (says He), even so will I do to you, yea even unto you.” 

[N. B. These are blended statements taken from 2 Kings 23:27 and Jeremiah 7:12–15.]

This is what the Spirit of God says in the time of Asa, by the prophet Azariah: “The Lord is with you, because you are with Him. If you seek Him, you shall find Him; if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” And a little after he adds, “Wherefore have you been so long a time without the true God, without a Priest, without a Teacher, and without the Law?” etc. 

Now when the Lord says in a thousand places, “If you shall forsake Me…” — this is no matter of impossibility, but a thing that not only oftentimes comes to pass and is possible, but is also so easy and so ordinary, or rather so natural to every assembly of men, that even in that same Church (which might enjoy the manifest presence of the Lord, and might hear His voice when it took counsel at His mouth) we see all too many examples. 

Aaron was a prophet, and a little after was made high priest: he had seen the wonderful works of God, and though he had seen them both day and night going both before and behind him, yet notwithstanding he made for himself a golden calf, and said to the people, “Behold, O Israel, the gods which brought you out of Egypt.” 

If, in this controversy, they will understand the Church by the people: see, the people have become marvelously strange idolaters. If they will understand (as they claim) the Church by the Clergy, then behold not only idolatry, but the Church of God is even prostituted to idols — that is to say, behold an adulterous wife, provoking her husband as much as lies in her to make a divorce from her. 

Under the Judges also, as many tyrants as there were who oppressed the Church of Israel, there were also many marks of their adulteries. Gideon himself, after he had felt the power of God by his hand, made an ephod, and the people went a-whoring after it. Micah also did the like; and the Spirit of God has told us the cause thereof: because there was no government in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes, and so the Word of the Lord was rare and scarce in that time among them. They had, notwithstanding, the Law of God and the Ark of the Covenant, but the disastrous misfortune was that they neither read it nor took counsel of it. 

Now it is not only said, “Have the light,” but “Walk in it and follow it.” In the days of Saul, it is said that no man sought the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant — that is to say, that no man took counsel of God in His Word. And herein we may see the judgment of God when the Ark was taken by the Philistines: namely, that it was for the contempt for God and His Word. Under Joram, Baal was worshipped in Judah, even until the time of Joash, who renewed the Covenant with the Lord. Under King Ahaz, there was a strange altar, even within the Temple itself, upon which he sacrificed to false gods: and Uriah the priest was the one who had it set up. 

Under Manasseh, idolatry was so monstrous, so public, and so universal, that there appeared not any face of the people or Church of God. And the cause thereof is immediately added as before: namely, that the law of God had been a long time hidden and buried, in such a way that they could no longer know what it was. And if men mark what was the state of the Church of Israel, they shall see that it was nothing but public and continual idolatry, even from the beginning of their schism until their utter overthrow. 

Those corruptions in the visible church of that time were not a passing folly or a short illness that soon cleared up. Instead—as you can see plainly in the reigns of three or four kings who truly served God—they were only brief spells of sanity and sound judgment in the middle of a general madness.

This is that time of which the Prophets cried out: “You, you are called by the name of Israel, and you swear by the name of the Lord, but you serve Him not in truth and in righteousness. You have said unto a piece of wood, ‘Thou art my father,’ and to a stone, ‘Thou hast begotten me.’ You, you have prostituted yourselves under every green tree. You have abandoned Me by the space of innumerable days, and you have gods according to the number of your cities,” etc. (Isaiah 48:1 ff.) 

To be short, all the Prophets which were sent even until the coming of Christ, in all the Prophets all the chapters are in a manner nothing else but testimonies of the idolatries and adulteries of the Church with strange gods, who for the same threaten her and signify unto her a divorce if she does not return unto the Lord (Jeremiah 2, 3, 13, 14). 

In the meantime, he that shall mark what manner of band and company that was in this time which our adversaries call the Church (understanding by it the Clergy, and Priests, and Scribes, and the ordinary prophets) — a man shall find that the true Prophets which were sent from God had no greater enemies than those. That they were those who imprisoned them and put them to death as disturbers of the Church — yes, so far that our Saviour Christ says that it could not be that a prophet should be murdered outside Jerusalem. 

And when the Prophets said unto them, “Turn you unto the law of the Lord, reform the Church, forsake your idolatries, burden not the people with so many of your vain traditions,” etc., they had the selfsame answer that our adversaries have: “We are the Temple of the Lord, we are the Church, we are the watchmen of the people; the law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet; our Church (no matter what) cannot fail. Come then, let us strike [Jeremiah] with our tongue, and let us not hearken to his words,” (Jeremiah 18:18). 

But the Prophets show them very well how the promises of God ought to be understood: “Say ye not, ‘Here is the temple of the Lord,’ for I have abandoned Shiloh, which I had chosen, and I will reject you also if you continue; but rather repent and amend your ways” (Jeremiah 7:12). Say ye not, “The Law shall not perish from the Priest,” etc., because for a long season Israel and Judah were without the true God, without a Priest, without a Teacher, and without the Law, because you had forsaken His Word. Seek, therefore, the Lord, and you shall find Him.”

[N. B. These are blended statements from Jeremiah 18:18 and 2 Chronicles 15:2–4.]

“Your priests” (saith the Lord) “have broken My Law, and they have defiled My holy places. They have not said, “Where is the Lord? They understood not My Word, and they have not known Me. Your prophets have prophesied lies, saying, ‘The Lord hath said thus,’ whereas the Lord never spoke it. They have prophesied in Baal and have gone after the things that are vain.” 

“Your watchmen are blind, and your prophets are snares of the fowler. Thou wilt demand a vision of the prophet, but the law shall perish from the priest, and the counsel from the ancient, and the night shall be unto you for a vision, and darkness for a divination. The sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.” (2 Chron 15:3; Ezek. 22; Jeremiah 2:8; Ezek. 7; Hosea 9:8; Isaiah 16:10; Micah 3:6). “They shall all cover their lips because they shall receive no answer from God. Seek, therefore, the Lord in His Law, and you shall find Him” (Micah 3:7; Jeremiah 29:13). 

Behold how the true Prophets, who in comparison of these prelates were accounted the offscouring and muck of the world, beat back all their vain presumptions of not being deceived. To be short, the Church of that time was thrown down far beneath that of Samaria or of Sodom. Her prelates were called the princes of Gomorrah; her councils and assemblies, conspiracies and conjurations against the Prophets of God; her sacrifices, whorish and adulterate. And of all those that the Lord sent to exhort them to reformation, there can hardly be found anyone who for only a little while escaped the cruelty of this assembly, which drew all the titles and prerogatives of the Church to itself. 

In the midst notwithstanding of this horrible confusion, God knew His Church. “For if the Lord,” saith Isaiah the Prophet, “had not reserved even a small remnant, they had been as Sodom, and should have been like unto Gomorrah,” [Isaiah 1:9]. And he saith in another place, “Behold me, Lord, and my children,” [Isaiah 8:18] — that is to say, the disciples that Thou hast given me. 

Finally, when the Jews would not hearken to the wholesome exhortations of the Prophets, God would even constrain them by His mercy, and therefore sent them even Salvation Himself from heaven, that is to say, Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord. But the [Jewish] Church used Him badly. He had no greater enemies than the Priests, the Scribes, the Doctors, the Pharisees — that is to say (as our adversaries speak), the clergy, those who had the Law committed unto them, those who seemed to be the light of the Jewish Church. 

If He spoke anything of the reformation of the [Jewish] Church, then they accused Him of saying He would destroy the Temple; if [He spoke] of the grace of God, then [they accused Him] of blasphemy against the Law; if He spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, then [they accused Him] of striking at the majesty [and kingdom] of Caesar; if He wrought any miracles, [they accused Him] of using the power of the Devil; if He alleged the Scriptures, then they demanded of Him where were the letters of His Doctorship, reproaching Him for the fact that He was [nothing more than] a lowly Carpenter’s son. 

To be short, all the arguments the Jews used against Christ are the same our masters use against us today: “We [Catholic clergy] are the children of Abraham; we are the keepers of the Scriptures; it belongs to us to expound them, and not to you who have not received holy orders as we have done.” 

And yet notwithstanding all this, these [Jewish clergy] were they who, with their glosses, traditions, and unwritten verities, with their successions, interpretations and councils, most cruelly persecuted Him — even to the snatching Him out of the hand of the heathen magistrate, who judged Him innocent, that they might crucify Him. 

I now ask our opponents: what outward mark of a true Church can they demand that this Jewish Church did not already have? If it be antiquity, they were from Abraham; if it were calling, they were Priests and Scribes; if it be a place, theirs was the Lord’s house; if it be a council, this was solemnly held against Christ in Jerusalem, who was there expressly condemned (John 11:47). Whether they consider the assembly of the people or of the Prelates, this was the visible Church. And yet they cannot deny that this Church has most foully erred in the matter of salvation, crucifying Salvation Himself — unless they will deny that Christ was our Salvation. 

But the reason hereof is very apparent: which is, that they sought Him not in the Law and the Prophets, but in their traditions, Cabals, or unwritten verities. 

But the shepherds in the fields knew Him, while the pastors of the people set their dogs upon Him. This also is the reason they were likening [the promised Messiah] to an earthly king who would divide the kingdoms of the earth among [His] own — whereof it came to pass that there was not anyone who did not promise himself a crown, or the government of some country, whereas [the shepherds] saw that the true Christ was poor, naked, evil-entreated, never promising His [disciples] a place in which to lay their heads. In short, their claim to be the visible Church made it virtually impossible for them to acknowledge Him as the true Christ. In fact, if they had accepted anyone as the Messiah, that very acceptance would have been, to anyone who had read the Scriptures, an infallible proof that he could not be the Christ — because the Prophets had expressly foretold that they would not recognize Him, [e.g., Isaiah 53:1-3.] 

Behold then what has befallen the Jews (saith St. Paul): “To whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service of God, and the promises.” Of whom also the fathers are descended, and of whom also according to the flesh Christ Himself came, etc. — that is to say, that for having rejected the Lord of glory, their poverty was made the riches of the Gentiles, and their rejection the reconciliation of the world. In such sort that God, instead of turning away from mankind because of the blindness of His own people, has taken occasion thereby to adopt all peoples for His people. 

Let us not say therefore any more that the Church cannot err because God is firm in His promises; but rather that God is truly sure in His promises and constant in His mercies, forasmuch as He makes no divorce with her, albeit she has abandoned Him and strangely played the harlot — so enlarging the bowels of His compassion toward mankind, and turning His great wrath into so unspeakable mercy: as at this day we see in our time, in the great number which He has withdrawn, and daily withdraws, from the swinish filth of Popedom. 

It now remains to consider whether the Christian Church which is under grace has had special grace not to err. Wherein we have always to call to our remembrance that the Church at this day is universal — that is to say, spread throughout the whole world — and that the promises of God are no longer tied to one place or to any one people, but are stretched over all peoples and places where He is served and worshipped. 

Now this universal Church has goodly and great promises: “I will make an everlasting covenant with them,” saith the Lord, “I will put My sanctuary in the midst of them forever. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Behold that which Ezekiel the Prophet has foretold of the covenant made by the coming of Christ with His universal Church (Ezek. 37:26). Jesus Christ also saith Himself: “I will be with you until the end of the world,” (Matt. 28:20). Also, “I will send you My Spirit which shall teach you all things,” (John 14:26; John 16:7). 

But to the end that we do not imagine, as the Jews did, ourselves to be a visible Church which is always [faithful] whatsoever she does, the condition is evermore added: “If you shall hear My voice, if you be My people, if you shall teach that which I command you, if you shall love Me and abide in My Word.” “For if you shall not abide therein” (saith our Lord), “you are not My disciples;” [John 8:31] ,and those which are not His disciples cannot boast that they are taught by His Spirit to the end that they may not be deceived. 

The prerogative then that the visible Christian Church has is not that she cannot err in her particular parts, but rather that, being universal, when one part does fall, the other does help it up; and when the one does go astray, the other may bring it into the way again — yes, and the particular members do their duty when the more apparent leaders of the Church do guide it to destruction. 

On the other hand, the very fact that the Church is universal should rather overthrow this presumption that the whole Church cannot be deceived. For when any particular temple [i.e., “church”] is overthrown or profaned, the true worship of God does not cease (as it once did under the old covenant). Instead, from the ruins and remnants, other assemblies can be raised up elsewhere — even in places where no such church had ever existed before.  

St. Paul feared lest the Serpent which seduced Eve through his subtilty should turn the Church of the Corinthians from Christ and His simplicity, if she were turned away from His Gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3). He meant then that she might err. He also chides the Galatians, who after they had Christ drawn as it were lively before their eyes, and crucified amongst them, that they were so suddenly carried away to another Gospel. This therefore is not only a thing possible, but a thing (I say) which heretofore has come to pass, even while the Apostles lived. 

To be short, he warned the Thessalonians that Antichrist, that son of perdition, should sit in the temple of God — that is to say, in the Church — where He would confound all things; and that even in Paul’s time this mystery of iniquity began to work. It could not be that she erred only in minor matters. She erred even in the serious matter of salvation itself, because she [the professing Christian Church] was prophesied to receive and embrace her own destruction right into the midst of her own heart. 

The which thing if we shall mark by experience, we shall find that everywhere where Jesus Christ sowed the truth and the good grain by the hands of His Apostles, the Devil that watched while the husbandmen slept, sowed his darnel and lies, and finally so bestirred himself in tilling and plowing it, that he choked the seed of our Lord in many places, until he had brought to pass that he was acknowledged as the master of the harvest. 

The zeal of those of the circumcision, in the time of the Apostles, began that mixture in the Christian religion. Saint Peter himself winked at it. Saint Paul called this “making the Cross of Christ of none effect.” Saint Augustine in many places calls it heresy. 

Now from hence it came that the disciples of the circumcision, who went to preach the Gospel to many peoples of the East and the South, there reared up Churches where the doctrine of grace was mingled with the Law, the shadows with the body — whereof it is that many still hold circumcision together with baptism. 

I say nothing of the infinite heresies which put their heads under diverse names, making for several factions, but rather of that which then came to pass in the bodies of the most flourishing Churches, which afterwards greatly increased and multiplied. 

On the other side, the people who were called from Paganism to Christ — especially when the Church had some rest, and consequently less zeal, care, and purity — coming out of such a bottomless pit of idolatry, could not altogether forsake their old customs. They had built many beautiful temples to their idols, and it seemed a good thing to dedicate them to saints and martyrs. Instead of their hunting-places they honored the relics of saints; in place of their images of Mars, Jupiter and Janus, they took pleasure to have images of St. Paul and of St. Peter, etc. And whereas they had a custom to make prayers for their fathers that died, as well as sacrifices and lighting candles, following the opinion of Plato concerning purgatory, they willingly continued it, lest they should fall from their humanity, and therein only changed the form. 

Some of the pastors, who had come out of the same Paganism, thought it good; others bore with it, lest they should at the beginning go back, hoping in time utterly to remove it from them — as St. Paul did the ceremonies of the Law from those of the circumcision — and to convert their zeal and humanity into a better custom. […………………….] 

Now I demand of the Church of Rome’s prelates whether or not those other churches err in matters concerning salvation. They will say they do err in the matter of salvation because they reject images and because they worship not the bread; because they communicate under both kinds; because their ministers marry; because they know nothing concerning Purgatory, etc. 

To be short, because they do not only err in many notable articles such as these, but above all because they do not acknowledge the dominion of their Pope, which is (to hear themselves speak) the principal article that men ought to believe in order to be saved. 

It follows then by their own confession that the Christian Catholic [universal] visible Church had no such privilege by the coming of Christ as to exempt it from the possibility of falling — yes, even in that which concerneth salvation — notwithstanding all the promises and pretended covenants which we have already mentioned before. 

But if now they do not err in the matter of salvation, then it must needs follow that the Church of Rome itself must err, which has so long a time excommunicated and cut off from salvation, as much as in her lieth, so many peoples and nations which have not erred in the way of salvation; and, what is more, that she is justly excommunicated by the aforesaid churches for those damnable doctrines which they condemn in her. 

To this they will answer us that these churches had no such privilege as did the Church of Rome, and that the See of St. Peter has this prerogative of not erring, being the chief amongst the Apostles. 

Without entering into the weeds of these goodly pretenses, which shall be discussed in the chapter following, it must follow then (seeing these seats have so much authority) that Jerusalem, which is called the seat of God, could not err; that the church of Christ also being there gathered together, had this prerogative, seeing that Christ, the head of the Church there, preached and accomplished the work of salvation. Likewise, that the church of Antioch must have it much more than that of Rome, seeing it was the first See of St. Peter, and the first church where the name of a Christian was heard. 

And yet Jerusalem which crucified Christ, the Christians of Palestine, of Antioch, and of the countries round about, in the judgment of the Church of Rome, are out of the way of salvation. 

It follows then that St. Peter’s See, pretended to be at Rome, even if it is granted to them, did not exempt them from error. Besides, omitting the fact that St. Peter himself has erred and was reproved by St. Paul, I demand whether St. Peter’s See gives this prerogative to the Pope, or rather to the Church of Rome. If to the Pope: Marcellus sacrificed to the idols of the pagans; Liberius was an Arian; and Anastasius an Acacian. Moreover, each one delighted to abrogate the decrees of his predecessor — as Nicholas those of John XXII, Gregory those of Pelagius, and Innocent those of Gregory — and that in matters which, according to their own judgments, concerned the faith. 

Sylvester II, John XIX, and Gregory VII (witness all the histories of their times) were magicians — that is, the successors of Simon Magus, who was at Rome as well as they, and not of Simon Peter; they were the disciples of Satan, not of Christ. John XXIII held the opinion that there was no life after this, whereupon the Council of Constance called him a devil incarnate. Many others were deposed by the Councils, not only as heretics but also as atheists. John VIII [Pope Joan] also was found to be a woman and a harlot, deluding both the See and all the College of Cardinals. 

Briefly, they say that the Virgin Mary told St. Bridget that the majority of the popes are in hell; and the Cardinal of Ragusa, in the time of the Great Schism, maintained that the Pope might err in the faith; Cardinal Cusanus, that he might be an infidel — which thing also the Divines of Paris have always maintained. 

It follows then that this See neither exempted them from error, heresy, nor infidelity, but rather increases unto them their own condemnation. [………………………] 

CHAPTER NINE 

By the Pope calling himself the head of the Church, when he is not the head of the Church, he is the Antichrist in the Church. Antichrist cannot be received into the Church with any other but the popish doctrine.

The Pope not being the head of the Church, as he claims, and having no other titles to prove his alleged ‘Lieutenantship’ which he so proudly exercises, we say he’s the plague of the whole body, a tyrant in the commonwealth, Antichrist in the Church. And to prove this I will not enter into a specific explanation of the prophecies which are in Daniel, the 2^nd epistle to the Thessalonians, as well as the Revelation, which in previous times were obscure, but now are made clear. For many learned men, not only in our time, but 300 years ago [i.e., the Waldenses and Albigenses] have made those books understandable and plain, despite the ignorance of the world and cruelty of the Pope. However, I say that even if he were not so clearly portrayed to us in those aforesaid Scriptures, we would know his identity by his doctrine: that he is the very Antichrist who was to threaten the Church; nor could there be anything in Christendom more pernicious than the doctrine which he has introduced. 

First, to take away all doubt, the Scripture speaks to us of many Antichrists. For every heretic which sets himself against the truth is in very deed an Antichrist. But Scripture speaks unto us of a particular one amongst others who shall have his seat in the Church of God, usurping God’s place, who as Origen saith, ‘must be the great Antichrist among other Antichrists.’ This is he of whom we now speak. 

Secondly, when the Scripture [2 Thess. 2:3] speaks of Antichrist it states he shall be an Apostate, or a falling away from the faith [apostasy]. Also, it states that the mystery of iniquity began to work in Paul’s time [v. 7]. His destruction will not occur until the coming of Jesus Christ [v. 8]. Again, he must build his greatness upon the ruins of the Roman Empire and give it life, [Rev. 13:3, 12, 15], so that the beast, that is to say, as all the ancient fathers have expounded as this Empire: namely St. Augustine in his 20^th chapter of the City of God, as well as Chrysostom understood this place where Paul handled this matter. We know the Roman Empire fell little by little, piece by piece. From this it follows that Antichrist is not one man who must come in one instant of time, but is an estate, seat and succession of men, an Empire lifted up against Jesus Christ. The Scripture in Daniel notes Empires are described as beasts, [Dan. 7:23], so, too, is this Empire, as Augustine agrees. 

Thirdly, Antichrist is called that false prophet vomiting out blasphemies against the Most High. His Empire, therefore, consists of both false doctrine and arms. He is called a woman and a whore, so he will come by way of pleasantries, trickery and flatteries, deceiving men through his cunning craft, drawing them to his spiritual whoredom which is idolatry. He is also called the Son of Perdition as was Judas. Again, he shall not assail the Church with open force but will destroy her with a kiss. He shall not enter through a breach, or by a strong scaling ladder, but by counterfeiting the keys of princes’ emblems, secretly like a thief. And in very deed the Empires which consisted of force and arms are described in the Scriptures as wolves, lions, bears and other similar ravening beasts, whereas for this you have but women, whoredoms, cups, drink offerings and enchantments; that is to say, trickery, craftiness and clever deception. Because of this the schoolmen have concluded that this chief Antichrist cannot be Mohammad, or a scion of the Empire of the Turks. 

Fourthly, he is properly called Antichrist and not ‘Antithee’ [i.e., ‘opposing God’], that is to say, contrary to Christ the Mediator and not simply ‘against God.’ Therefore, he shall particularly be against Christ Jesus our Lord. And all the doctrine of Christ consists in the office of the Mediatorship, and in the benefit of His death and passion. Understand, then, this will be the special doctrine that Antichrist will chiefly labor to abolish. It is oftentimes said that he will sit in the Church of God being acknowledged as God. Now it is certain that if he were to say he was Christ, or should preach directly against Christ, the Church would not suffer him in the Church for very long. It is likewise said he shall have two horns like a lamb yet speak as the Dragon; that is to say, he shall counterfeit the doctrine and holiness of Christ, although he speaks nothing but impieties, as does Satan. It follows, therefore, in order to make these marks agree it must be that Antichrist, of whom this controversy swirls around, he must speak publicly as if he were a disciple of Christ, whereas in deed and effect he is actually against Christ; he will honor him in words, and yet as much as he is able, will rob Christ of His glory. 

[N. B. Today there are liars who falsely claim heroic military service. They are known as “stolen valor” claimants. The Pope is a “stolen glory” claimant.] 

And to settle the question as to whether he is the true Antichrist we need merely observe how, under the shadow of Christ, he overthrows Christ’s doctrine, putting himself in Christ’s place. St. Augustine understands this matter completely. He says, “Let us not regard the tongue but the deed. Antichrist is a liar who makes a profession of Christ, and yet, in effect, denies Him.” Further, he says, “How is it I say he denies Christ in effect? Because Christ is come in the flesh, to the end that He should die for us.” Chrysostom says, “He must be known by his doctrine and not just by titles, miracles and words of holiness.” St. Hilary says, “Antichrist shall be contrary to Christ under the guise of hypocritical feigned holiness.” And in another place, he says, “O ye fools who are moved and ravished and caught in love with words and gorgeous ceilings of Churches. Do ye doubt that this shall one day be the seat of Antichrist?” 

It now behooves us, therefore, to consider who it is that sits in the Church who speaks more of Christ while least esteeming Him, who honors Him more with traitorous kisses, blaspheming all the more against His coming, and its purpose, proving he is the prophesied Antichrist. 

Let us begin with the person of the Pope. Christ declared His kingdom was not of this world and fled when they would have made Him a king. Christ rendered obedience even unto the least magistrates and commanded all His disciples to follow His example. Contrarily, the Pope says he is king of the whole earth, authorized to dispose of all Empires, treading Emperors under his feet, authorized to burn with fire, and authorized to condemn to Hell all those who will not acknowledge him as such a one with these powers. This [erroneous] belief of his stems from the fact that Christ said, “All power is given to Me of the Father; as well in heaven as in earth.” Now I ask of anyone [to use common sense]: Is there any similarity between the doctrine preached by Christ and that of the Pope? And is it not mockery to allege the powers of Christ? And is it not against Christ being God and the Son of the Eternal God who willingly condescended to abase Himself lower than the Angels and under the form of man agreed to work the salvation of the world? When, on the other hand, another man quite contrarily lifts himself up above kings, above the Angels, and above the heaven of heavens, causing men to dispute whether he is not simply a man but a partaker of the divine nature with Christ and has the fountain, root and Spirit of Christ in him. 

To be short, whereas Christ submitted himself under heaven, earth and hell, the Pope will command kings, Angels and devils and all this under color of the key of the Word which Christ delivered to His ministers. I ask, God being made man for the salvation of the world, how it came to be that this man who makes himself God should be any other than that Son of Perdition who came for the perdition of the world. 

Mornay explains the Gospel in simple terms

But we must see how he has, as much as lay in him, made void the coming of the Messiah, the cross of Christ, and the salvation we have by Him. It is our opinion that mankind does nothing but continually offend God, and it is as possible for us of our own nature to keep ourselves therefrom as it is to stop breathing. These offenses are infinite in nature being committed against an infinite God, deserving an infinite punishment. Nor is it possible for all mankind together to satisfy God’s justice. It was necessary, therefore, that the Son of God descend from heaven to satisfy, by His infinite merit for our infinite demerit. Not one man could ever hope for the mercy of the Father if His justice had not been executed against His own Son. This is that which all holy Scripture teaches: that Christ was sent for the salvation of the world; that He is one and only Savior; that He was slain from the beginning of the world for the salvation of those that believe in Him, etc. And this is wherein all the benefits of the coming of Christ consists, as well as all the treasure of the Church.

How the Pope does the contrary  

But see how this “good governor” of the Church dispenses with this. First, he buried and forgot the Scripture by forbidding the reading of it by the people, leaving them nothing but Rosaries, Legends of the Saints and other such baggage. That is to say, as much as he possibly can he has put out the light so that his illusions might have greater force than God’s Word. And we have seen many burned simply for having read it. Moreover, whereas the Law was given to convince a man of sin, and the Gospel to teach him the remedy in Christ, the Pope’s theologians have taught that a man, of his own nature, can love God above all things: that it is possible for him to fulfill the Law. Furthermore, they teach that at the beginning man was saved by keeping the natural Law, then afterwards by fulfilling the Law of Moses, and now by Christians keeping the Gospel. If this is true, what shall become of Paul’s declaration, “The Law engenders sin and has come upon us to multiply transgressions” (Gal. 3:19; Rom. 3:20, 7:7.) Also, what preeminence shall the Gospel have over the Law? Christ above the shadows? And why has His coming changed the Law into grace? Now there is no shorter or readier means to turn the people away from their Physician then to persuade them that they are whole, or if they feel a disease has come upon them, to convince them they might cure themselves without any Physician. [……………………………………garbled text] 

Behold another craft of Antichrist to abolish the [effectual] coming of the Messiah: whereas the people should only be directed to Christ, the only Physician for sinners, the Pope directs them to men, and by little and little (so well he acquitteth himself) they are all directed to himself. However, Jesus Christ teaches all sinners are to call upon Him, [Romans 10:13, Acts 4:12, John 14:6], whereas the Pope sends the people to the Virgin Mary and Saints. The truth be told, all the merits of the Saints are as nothing if they died without Christ because they are now experiencing eternal hellfire. Moreover, they pervert the Scriptures by alleging the seed of the woman is Mary who will bruise the head of the Serpent [Gen. 3:15].

[N. B. Following the Latin Vulgate, the historic Douay-Rheims Bible translates the passage as: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”]

They also attribute and apply all that is said of the Father and Son in David’s Psalter to Mary. “In thee have I trusted, O Lady. Have mercy upon me, O Lady. The Lord hath said to my Lady, Sit, my mother, at my right hand,” etc. By similar blasphemies which they call “Our Lady’s Hours” are the chief devotion of the most devote. Now seeing the Virgin Mary put in Christ’s place, I ask: What remains for Him? For if by bringing forth a child Mary had accomplished the salvation of those that call upon her, what need was there for Christ to deliver Himself to death for our sins? 

From this same root sprung the Fourteen Saints that we must call upon in the time of our necessity; the Patrons of each profession; the Physicians for every disease. We must worship them by vows, Pilgrimages and Offerings; also, their Images with censings, paintings, etc. The Church of Rome has gods, not as the Jewish Church had, according to the number of their cities, but rather almost as many as the number of their citizens: the result being the salvation of the world is divided among many persons that the world was no longer saved by the one and only Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, who by His death purchased life for us. 

[N. B. The Patron Saint of the USA is the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of the Immaculate Conception. She serves as a heavenly advocate, protector and intercessor for the nation and its people.]

To help sins which are the diseases of the soul, the Roman Catholic Church has the merits of the Saints, both the quick and the dead, whereof a great number (as St. Augustine testifies) are in Hell, or at least in danger of being there. For remedies against dangers of the body, such as sickness, loss of goods, fire, shipwrecks, whippings, wounds, poisons, they have Saints who are specialists in giving aid to all these things. This is what the Pagans had. However, in Roman Catholicism there was one thing remaining which pertained to Christ. At the conclusion of prayer, by custom He was named without any thought really given Him, similar to that of a notary signing a document. What more can be said of the abominable impiety the Popes have introduced to Christians? What about St. Francis? He is a new Christ whose Franciscans have taught these opinions, both by their preaching and publishing books. Or they teach he could save all men from everlasting death that lived after him unto the end of the world through his merits. Or that he that takes the habit and apparel of St. Francis has the same virtue as if clothed with Christ through Baptism. Or that to die or be buried in his habit was to guarantee deliverance from the pains of Purgatory. To be short, by comparing Jesus Christ with him they make Jesus far more inferior to all things. Also, in order to show that women do not have less privilege than men, they have taught that the Virgin Mary, by the merit of her virginity, can save all women who put their trust in her. Also, that St. Claire came at the same time as St. Francis to save all those who should call upon her, even unto the end of the world. And what would have been the end of these blasphemies if men had not resisted them? Do we think there would have been any mention of Christ in our days? I do not preach fables. The books that men made 400-500 years ago are full of this kind of doctrine which hitherto they dare not disallow. These were the required readings of the seminaries and of those who were seeking the most notable chairs when Luther began to reveal Antichrist. 

Furthermore, behold the absolution they gave to their penitents: “The passion of Christ and the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary, of St. Peter, of St. Paul, and of the other male and female Saints of Paradise, be unto thee in remission of thy sins.” To this, the Franciscan friars join St. Francis inseparably with Jesus Christ. See then how the Popes, contrary to the Word of God and uniform doctrine of all the ancient Fathers, have [not] taught the people the remission of their sins in Jesus Christ alone and Him crucified. And because of His alone sufficiency for our salvation, St. Paul testified he neither knew nor would know any other thing [1 Cor. 2:2].

But as the Pope and his supporters had turned the people away from Christ to the Virgin Mary, and from the Virgin Mary to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the old Saints, and from the old Saints to the new, whom they had canonized according to their fantasy. But they don’t stop there: they send them to their Temples, Chapels, Sepulchers, Bones, Relics and Images. Finally, they have gone so far astray that by little and little he [the Pope] drew all to himself in the place of Jesus Christ our Lord; as well as the blood of Jesus Christ shed upon the tree of the Cross is the [only] satisfaction of the sins of all those who believe in Him, [Heb. 9:22; Rom. 3:25].

This is the only mark [i.e., statement regarding the satisfaction of sins] in the entire Old and New Testament. But the Pope, the contemnor of all [true] religion, would have the world believe that he was the treasurer of this great ransom paid for our sins and to be a partaker we must go to him. He will distribute this benefit to whom he thinks it good. And thus, all men began to buy salvation from him, which only the blood of Jesus Christ purchased for us, and nothing nor no one else could purchase. Had you committed all the world’s faults, you might very well have had recourse to the Pope’s [false] pardons and indulgences. All offences, even murder, incest and Sodomy were taxed and set for the payment of a certain monetary sum. Once paid, the Pope would give you full remission of sin. This pardon was ratified and delivered to the most generous benefactor, and the Book of Taxes confirms it, which was imprinted with their own consent before the light of the Gospel was made clear again in these last ages. They first sold these indulgences to specific persons, then to families, then to towns. After this they were sold to commonwealths and then whole kingdoms without exception to any persons, yea, even for the term of 4,000 years. 

[N. B. Refer to my post of the TAXE SACRE PENITENTIARIE APOSTOLICE.]

The doctrine of Christ says, “He that shall believe in Me shall have remission of sins,” [Acts 10:43]. The Popes, on the other hand, say, “He that shall give me money will avoid Hell.” Meanwhile, any enemy of the Pope was prayed sent to Hell, bound hand and foot, yea, whole kingdoms and nations. If you desired Paradise, he can command the Angels to carry you there, as well your parents and friends. This appears in the Bull of St. Clement V for the knights of the Order of St. John at Jerusalem. If any feared Purgatory, having committed all the mischiefs of the world, yea, even having lain with the Virgin Mary; and as the [Pope’s] preachers of the pardons of Germany [John Tetzel] have been known to say, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” Yea, they came this far and the books written by the Pope’s theologians seals it, and the disputes within the schools over the power of the Pope to quench the fires of Purgatory also prove this doctrine existed. By this, men believed the Pope more merciful than Christ, who never freed men from the pains of Purgatory; whereas the Pope, merciful as he is, delivered an infinite number every day. 

Amazingly, there are those who will read this and yet still cleave to him even though the horns of Antichrist have been revealed, despite his attempts to hide them. But the learned have read and may still read, as the aged have seen, the books extant and now in use, available to everyone to see.

Mornay responds to those who believe the RCC teaches fundamental truths of Christianity and should be recognized as legitimate.

Yea, but some will say, “In the midst of popery men have always believed the true God, and they have always taught that Jesus Christ is God, the eternal Son of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity was always amongst them in its entirety and quite sound.” I respond: I pray you, what does it avail a man to know there is one God, the righteous judge, but always feeling guilty? What does it avail him to know that Christ, the Son of God, came into the world to convict it of sin, unless he likewise knows that through his death he hath delivered all those that have believed in Him from everlasting death; and that He has overcome the Devil and abolished Hell for the believer. The only purpose of the coming of Christ was for the office of the Mediatorship between God’s righteousness and men’s sins. He that taketh to himself or transfers to another the office of this Mediation in effect abolishes the coming of Christ. Now I demand to know who this can possibly be, but he that is crowned with the triple crown, worshiped of kings and princes, who opens Heaven and shuts Hell, who kindles and quenches Purgatory as he thinks it good. But let us go further: Jesus Christ has left to us two sacraments for His badges and marks, while the Pope has his sacraments as marks for himself, and in greater number. And so that his sacraments might be more esteemed than those of Christ, he has profaned them with all kinds of profanities. We hold Baptism as an entrance into the Covenant of God, he has applied it to Bells in mockery –  

[N. B. In the Roman Catholic Church, the “Baptism of Bells” is a traditional, highly symbolic ceremony used to bless a new church bell before it is hung. They are washed with water, anointed with oil and given a saint’s name, who serves as its protector.] 

– wrapping Baptism with infinite superstitions. But more importantly he wishes to advance himself above Christ by having his theologians teach that the same grace which descends upon the baptized, descends upon those who take a monk’s habit. That this habit gives him full remission both from the trespass and punishment of all his former sins, which is more than that of original sin. And as long as he continues to endeavor to wear this habit, it is to him as a new Baptism. 

The Mass is nothing less than abominable idolatry

Concerning the supper, which is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, he has taken one half from the people contrary to the express institution of Christ and the continual practice of the Church for 1,000 years. Rather than retaining the supper as instituted by the Lord, he has changed it into such an abominable idolatry, the likes of which the Pagans and Heathens have never imagined. After having made new mediators, a new Christ and new Sacraments, what further remains but to make a new Gospel. Now about the year 1192, they made a new Gospel under the name of a Carmelite named St. Cyril, by whom they taught God the Father governed in the time of the Law and the Son in the time of grace, but now by the coming of the four mendicant orders, aka “begging friars,” the Holy Ghost began to reign till the end of the world and only those who believed this new Gospel will be saved. And had not the LORD by His infinite mercy stirred up the Waldenses and certain other good people to resist this monster, no doubt there would have been no further mention of Christ in the world. I omit a thousand other false doctrines that men may read elsewhere. I only content myself to have shown that the Pope has turned Christians away from Christ as much as possible in his lifetime, abolishing the fruit of His coming. Such actions are the proper and particular office of Antichrist. Now if it is true that without the Mediatorship of Christ the Christian Church is not joined with Christ, just as the body is to the head by the neck, what more could the Antichrist do but take the Church by the throat and strangle it.

The Jews and Turks detest Christianity thinking Roman Catholic Idolatry is Christianity 

Concerning the Jews and the Turks, whereof the Jew for having been so long without Prophets, and the other for their ridiculous and foolish doctrine of their Koran, might have been converted to the true Christ, but they have seen such impiety in the Popes and their courts—such scorn of religion even among those who wear the religious habit, and such outrageous Idolatry amongst [professing] Christians that both, among whom nothing is more forbidden then Idolatry, have held Christianity in great detestation. In conclusion, I ask what more can Antichrist possibly do to make Christ unprofitable to Christians, and abominable to Jews and Pagans? Shall we wait until he preaches Atheism and godlessness in Temples to declare him the Antichrist? Yea, but they which see but the sun and moon and the order of all things will spit in his face. [I.e., even those who infer there is a God simply through creation would reject him.] What then? Must we wait until he preaches the gods of the Romans before we can identify him as the Antichrist? And what difference shall we make between the worship of Castor or Pollux and that of St. Katherine and St. Nicholas since they each make us forget our salvation. And since he has neglected preaching in the Temple, which is necessary to do, despite having taken possession, it follows that the Pope and none other is Antichrist who, under the name of Christ, has spoiled Christ of His rightful place. 

Now other than his doctrine, which is the essential mark, is the circumstances of persons, Simoniacs, Pagans, Atheists, Whoremasters and Sodomites who he surrounds himself, to wit, in the City of Seven Hills described in the Revelation, the times of the 666, which falls out justly to the time that the Pope made others acknowledge him as Universal Bishop, exempt from subjection to anyone. By this alone, there can be no doubt of his true identity.  

[Now let us review some testimony of the ancient Church Fathers.] St. Irenaeus, the scholar under Polycarp, and Polycarp under St. John, the author of the Apocalypse, disputing about Antichrist, saw him in no other city but Rome, and in the Romish Church. And this because his seat should be in the Latin Church and that he proved 666 is found in the words ‘Latin’ and ‘Latin Church.’ Thus, men saw the birth of this monster in Rome, back then as we see it tottering and decaying today, due to the special grace of God. St. Chrysostom, commenting on 2 Thess. 2, pointing to the decline and decay of the Roman Empire: “Antichrist shall come and not without cause. For as long as this Empire is formidable, it will not be subject to anyone. But this being destroyed, he shall invade the power of the Empire, once it’s void, and take the power to himself. This he will do as man and God. For all prior kingdoms were destroyed, the kingdom of the Antichrist will destroy that of the Romans, and he by Christ, after which his power will be non-existent. This same theologian taught Antichrist will come under the mask of holiness, with miracles, superstitions and counterfeit godliness. 

Anyone familiar with the history of the Papacy will concur. He also comes with feigned religion. Moreover, Chrysostom says, “Take heed of Antichrist. It is villainous to be so enamored by [Church] walls. You abuse yourselves by reverencing goodly buildings as the Church of God. For that is where Antichrist shall have his seat. We need not search for him, as some suppose, among the Barbarous (uncivilized), but in the clearest and most manifest place of the visible Church.”  

St. Jerome, writing to Marcella, says: “This Babylon and this whore clothed in purple, who is described to us in the Apocalypse, signifiés nothing else but Rome. [Mornay cites Cardinal Cusa, who admits that Bede and all ancient expositors view it as Rome.] Augustine says, “Babylon is the first Rome, while Rome is the second Babylon.” He also adds, according to 2 Thess. 2, “Antichrist shall come towards the end of the Roman Empire and shall not be one man only, but a multitude of men who shall be called Antichrist. He shall sit in the Temple of God as though as if he and his supporters were the Church of God itself.” [Mornay cites another quote]: “he shall renew Idolatry; he shall scatter the doctrine of the Gospel: and to this end he shall keep Magicians, Conjurors and Enchanters,” etc. Now everyone knows the false miracles wherewith he has abused the people by leading them away from Christ. And many have seen how the Popes come into their office using magic and sorcery, that is to say, how they were created by the Devil; not by spiritual kinship with Peter, but rather with Simon the Magician. Let them read that which their own story writers [i.e., comparable to modern screen writers] have written, such as: Cardinal Benno, Peter the Monk [Peter Damian], Voltaire, Sabellius and Platina. Their writings I readily omit, lest I make the readers quake for horror of such wickedness. St. Gregory, Bishop of Rome, who lived closer to those wicked times than others, spoke more clearly than those who were before him. He said, “Let it not seem a light thing unto thee that Antichrist shall avow himself to be God: for I say confidently and boldly to you that whosoever shall call himself ‘Universal Bishop’ or ‘Minister,’ and will be so called, he is the very forerunner of Antichrist.” In another place he says, “He is Lucifer who advances himself above the Angels and presumes to sit at the right hand of God. This will bring the whole Church to ruin.” Now he spoke this the more frankly because it was at that time the Bishop of Constantinople took that title. But behold, a short time after his death his prophecy, re: Universal Bishop, was fulfilled in Pope Boniface III, his successor, who to accomplish that which the Spirit of God foretold us by His Apostles, doth so much prevail by his threatenings that he obtained that title from Emperor Phocas, the murderer of Emperor Maurice and his children. The Popes which followed always built upon this precedence. Against this open apostacy, the churches of Greece, Dacia and Illyricum, etc., opposed this, accusing Pope Symmacus before Emperor Theodoricus, king of the Goths, for considering himself above subjection to any. Spain and England also refused to receive legates from Rome for many years. Claude of Turin, in the time of Charles the Great, wrote a scholarly treatise against the supremacy of the Pope, as well as his doctrine. Yea, about the time of the reign of Hugh Capet [king of the Franks, 987-996], there was council held at Rheims which denounced the Pope, denying him all obedience while pronouncing him Antichrist. Finally, because of the breeding of many superfluous and evil humours affecting the Church, it was skillfully managed through the divisions and factious entities that they would all lead to subjugation under Antichrist. 

Should we read the writings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux in 1140, we should find nothing but lamentations of the ruin of the Church under the captivity of Babylon or thunderings against the company of Antichrist. He claimed the Pope’s Court was a pack of devils; usurpers with an unlawful and intolerable authority; that there were not any greater claims alleging Peter’s succession; that the bishops of his time were nothing more than merchants, enriched with riches of the whore; that instead of guarding the spouse of Christ, they made her a thing to be sold in the open market, prostituting and laying her open to all the lechers of the world for fornication. A short time later, commenting on Psalm 91 [90 in Latin Vulgate], Antichrist will have his seat in the South, and adds, “What difference then is the estate of our Church from the Psalm’s pestilent estate which walks in darkness? How is our Church different from the seat of Antichrist? Therefore, your Pope’s Court is the very seat of Antichrist.” [……………..garbled text] 

Francis Petrarch, the archdeacon of Parma and canon of Padua, in the year 1350 was called a scholar and poet, “the light of his age.” But I will not say how he explains the court of Rome in his Sonnets under the name of Babylon, calling it “whore,” “the school of error,” and the “temple of heresy.” Some will say poetry allows such verbiage. But I beseech the reader to read his Latin Epistles which are full of seriousness, zeal and doctrine. In these he says in plain terms: “In the Pope and his shavelings there is neither godliness or truth; that the Pope’s chair is the chair of lies; that this is the falling away of a people who, under the banner of Christ rebel against Christ, and fight for Satan; that they esteem the Gospel as fables, and the promise of life to come as dreams.” He compares the Pope to Judas, who betrayed Jesus Christ with a kiss. He also compares his clergy to the Jews, who said to Him, “All hail king of the Jews;” as well his Prelates to the Pharisees, who in mockery clothed Him in purple and afterwards crucified Him in the mount of Calvary.” After this Petrarch said, “Deny it now if you can that you are she [the great whore, Mystery Babylon] that John saw in the Spirit, the woman who sits upon many waters. You are none other than that Babylon, the mother of the whoredoms of the earth; drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus; you are she who has made all the kings of the earth drunken with the Cup of your poison. If you deny this, show us another who better agrees with prophecy. If you can’t, then wait for that to fall on your own head which John the Evangelist predicted, Babylon the great is fallen and is made a habitation of devils, etc. But why do I say, ‘Wait for it?’ Yea, you have fallen already. For how does the Son of Perdition differ from the Devil? You are in very deed a kingdom of devils which, in the shape of men, already reign in you.” And in another place, he says, “let it not ever grieve you (my friend) to return from these princes of darkness. And what would you see in the court of Rome? Christ in exile? Antichrist reigning in His place?  Beelzebub the judge? Wolves let loose? Lambs in the stocks? Good God, who shall deliver the world from this oppression? Who shall gather the sheep together? Who shall vanquish these wicked Pastors? Shall there never be a limitation and end to this miserable and evil condition?” 

Now that which caused this man to be moved to cry so loud, we can be sure caused many others to lament in their hearts. To be short, the most notable spirits the world brought forth in the most ignorant ages, which were engulfed in the thickest darkness, some saw this more clearly, others through, as it were, a cloud; unless blinded by worldly ambition and glory, insomuch that when abomination had come to its full age God raised up Jan Huss, Jerome of Prague, Wickliffe, Luther and others who boldly published and reclaimed it so that all the world understood it. And in order to learn more we will focus on the good Fathers of the Council of Trent by making this syllogism: 

“Whoever will be called Universal Bishop is the forerunner of Antichrist, the father of the son of pride, and a very Lucifer,” saith St. Gregory the Pope and principal Doctor of the Church. But Boniface III, his successor, took this title and those who followed him continued it, increasing it more and more. And the Council of Trent excommunicates all those who will not acknowledge him for Universal Bishop. Ergo, the Pope is Antichrist, and all who do not acknowledge for Antichrist are excommunicated by the Council. 

Mornay answers another Catholic rebuttal

Yea, but the clergy of Rome will say, If the Pope was the Antichrist whereof the Church was threatened, we who are the Church should have known him. I answer, though he was Antichrist you would not have acknowledged him as such. The Pharisees used a similar argument when Christ came: “If this was Christ, who should better know Him than we? We have the Church, we have the Scriptures, we are the interpreters thereof; we are the eyes of the people. It cannot escape us, that we should not know Him.” And yet, in the meantime, the Council of Jerusalem condemned and crucified the Messiah as a deceiver. Moreover, the great Rabbis and Pastors, along with an infinite number of the people soon followed that same miserable Simon Bar Kokhba to ruin and destruction, acknowledging him for the true Messiah, to the end (saith our Savior) that the word of the Prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Who hath believed our word? And to whom was thy arm manifested?” They have the Word and His manifestation, but they see not. They have ears but they understand not. “The Lord hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,” etc. And now I say unto you the same thing has come upon you. Upon you, (I say), who boasts of the name ‘Church’ when claiming you should have known the identity of Antichrist. For he has already come with all the signs and wonders which the Spirit of God has already foreshown unto us: who is in the same place, at the same time, by the same man, and in the same apparel. There is no prophecy which does not agree with him. Nor can it agree with any other, but with him only. In the meantime, the Church, that is to say, the Roman Clergy, have received him as their Spouse. The Council of Trent has declared him to be “God on earth,” excommunicating all those who will not cleave unto him. And the princes of the earth have lent him their arms to persecute and to murder those who would expose who he really is to the world. And why? Because the Word of God must be fulfilled, which He had spoken by the mouth of the Apostles: “He shall sit in the Temple of God boasting himself as if he were God. He shall make all the kings of the earth drunk. He shall abuse and deceive all the world because they have not loved the truth. God shall give them up to a strong illusion to the end they may believe lies. And even as the Council of Jerusalam condemned Christ, the Council of Trent approved Antichrist. The clergy crucified salvation itself. The great Doctors of the Law were blind because Christ showed them a spiritual kingdom, not the temporal they waited for. And the prelates of the Romish Church have taken pleasure to shut their eyes because Antichrist has brought them a temporal kingdom which they sought. But notwithstanding death, the cross, and conspiracies of all the world, the spiritual kingdom of Christ was victorious over all the kingdoms of the earth. And notwithstanding the temporal kingdom of Antichrist and all his adorations and conspiracies of all the kings and princes of this world which labor to uphold him, it must be destroyed by the breath of Christ’s mouth and that he falls and perishes. 

They demand hereupon “What then became of our Fathers after such a long time in which this tyranny of Antichrist came into the Church?”

[N. B. The question concerns why the Church Fathers were negligent in pointing to the Pope since he had been reigning for hundreds of years, according to the Protestants.]

Of the great Rabbis and Masters who ask this question, I ask what they have done therein to them who had their souls in keeping, and who, though they were in charge of men’s souls, were instead more interested in how to heap up great riches and to build great houses? I, again, ask them, What became of the poor people in all the Eastern Churches, whose number was far greater than the Latins, when by the Pope’s excommunication sent millions to Hell for 700 years? To be short, to quote the Lord, “Shall the Son of man find faith or love in the world,” when He comes to destroy Antichrist by the Spirit of His mouth? It shall be as the days of Noah or Lot in Sodom. But to the poor people who have been deceived by Antichrist and his maintainers, I answer as follows: 

First, the false doctrine of Antichrist did not come all at once but was introduced little by little until it grew to its full measure, so it was not so deadly in the beginning as it became at the end in full strength. But even when it was strongest, God has always reserved many in all countries who mourned under his tyranny; yea, and there were some who cried out as loud as they could, as we have already shown. And indeed, 20+ years ago one would have said there was not nearly as many on earth who knew the identity and doctrine of Antichrist as there were in France. And yet, at the first liberty granted to the towns, such [discerning] people were readily found. 

Secondly, since our adversaries continue to make a difference between the Church and its people, snatching the name of Church to only refer to its prelates when it is common to all Christians, so we likewise do well to similarly make a difference between the people cleaving to the Church of Rome and the faction of Antichrist; between those who live under Popedom and the upholders and maintainers of the Pope; between the enchanters and those they enchant; between the Pharisees, whom Christ called a generation of vipers and that poor sick woman whom He called the very daughter of Abraham. We say that among that poor people who were deceived for such a long time under the darkness of Antichrist, there was a part of the body of the visible Church, but the Pope and his maintainers were the bane of it, for they stifled and choked these poor people as much as could. We say this was the Church of Christ, but Antichrist held it by the throat, to the end that salvation and life might not be poured upon it. That it was a flock of Christ but governed partly by hirelings and partly by wolves. So, then we consider these people as members of the universal Church, but in the scabs and infections which cover them we mark the poison of the Papacy. In them were the buds of whoredoms committed by the Church of Rome with Antichrist. 

To be short, we say the people were of the Christian commonwealth, but the Pope with his proud and seditious faction were Catilines, bent on destroying and setting it on fire. Cicero truly called them a plague, not members of the commonwealth. [………..] We say Antichrist is bred into the Church of Rome and is a disease and pestilence of the Church which has infected and infested the whole body so that there appears no more health or soundness in her, being the death of the body, had not God by His singular mercy opened salvation to us. 

Thirdly, we say this poisoner, with his accomplices, have poisoned the fountain of life – the doctrines of salvation – with all the venom he could muster to turn the invaluable meat given to us by the Lord for our nourishment [into death.] But that GOD had given grace to some to abstain from it, or to vomit it up, to others to discern it from true meat, and to certain others to overcome it by the soundness of their ‘complexion.’ Many have escaped him on a daily basis, notwithstanding his accursed intention and purpose. For example, we know that the majority of the people have been ignorant of his wicked doctrines which the schoolmen have written about, that is to say, of the principal blasphemies of the Papacy.    

Also, that the majority never believed they could merit everlasting life by their own works, despite what was preached. Albeit that through custom and ignorance they went to Saints and Images and frequented Mass and pilgrimages, yet notwithstanding, in their conflicts in death they always principally clung to the cross of Jesus Christ; and no matter what the Franciscans preached in their ears, the habit and wounds of St. Francis could not pull it away from them. We have an example of St. Bernard of Clairvaux himself, and we have seen many more in our time. Indeed, there are instances where Bernard favored the contagion of his times. It was hard to do otherwise. But see his refuge in his last days when he was tempted of the Devil. He said, “I confess I am not worthy of it. I know that by my own works I cannot obtain the kingdom of Heaven. But my Lord hath obtained it by a double right, by an inheritance from the Father, and by the merit of His passion. Now he is contented with the one and giveth me the other. And when I attribute it to myself by the gift He has made unto me, I cannot be confounded. My merit is the mercy of the Lord. And I am not poor in merits because He is rich in His mercies. I have greatly sinned, but I will comfort myself in the stripes of my Lord.” 

Likewise, we assure ourselves of the mercy of God, as did a great number hold onto the foundation of Jesus Christ in the past. The Apostle spoke of such in 1 Cor. 3, where despite the efforts of the Devil’s shaking of that foundation, they still held onto it. 

Finally, we say with St. Cyprian, that if my predecessors, either by ignorance or foolishness (notwithstanding holding the foundation of Christ) have not kept and holden that which our Lord hath taught them by His example and authority (as it is most certain they did not) that the mercy of our Lord might pardon them. But as this good Doctor added: we cannot hope for this, for this very day we are admonished and instructed by Him. But we will discuss this matter in the next chapter. 

CHAPTER 10 

Every [true Christian] is bound to separate from the communion of Antichrist; Romanists are the Schismatics, not those who separate from them.  

Because of the foregoing explanations, we have no need to add anything to the reasons for our separation from the communion of the Pope and from those false worshipers who have besotted the Church. For discerning he is Antichrist, of whom the Church is warned and threatened, and his synagogue is the same Babylon of idolatry, out of which we have an express commandment to come out of her that we be not partaker of her sins and plagues and drink the cup of the wrath of God which is prepared for her. Should we do otherwise, we will be charged with a vile and abominable fault. Indeed, if it were lawful for the true citizens of Rome, the city being under the power of the Gauls to retire themselves into the town of Ardea to where Camillus was exiled, and all the ancients were of the opinion that the commonwealth of Rome was then at Ardea where their leader was exiled; albeit the walls were still around Rome. By a stronger reason we ought to retire from the Temple which Antichrist has invaded and profaned with many pollutions, not being able at the first attempt to drive him away; so that having gathered the true servants and champions of Jesus Christ from under his claws, we shall by the grace of God be strong enough to drive him away to place, again, the true service of God. And if it is true that a Lieutenant who has revolted from his Prince is considered a traitor, much more are we traitors against the honor of our God; to Him who has vowed to save us by His blood, if we should fight against Him under the command of Antichrist, who has invaded the Church, claiming the Lieutenantship, when he is nothing but the least Bishop. Nevertheless, to satisfy all doubts concerning this matter, I will examine the issue more thoroughly. 

When it pleased God to give us grace to discern the false commission of the Pope, making himself Head of the Church, as well as examining his doctrine for those marks he was prophesied to have, we found him to be the Antichrist and none other. Those who were called to preach the truth, preached this in the Church; they who were called to teach have declared and published this; and many to whom God gave zeal and courage have protested it loud and clearly, even in the midst of flaming fire. Some have shown this truth to the people in the commonwealth. Some cried it aloud in the ears of princes. Some have offered to verify the impiety of his doctrine in a free general Council. In the Council, instead of disputing by the holy Scriptures, they have refused the Scriptures; instead of harkening to lively reasonings according to the faith, they burned them against the faith. To that end they passed a decree that “faith is not to be kept with heretics.” Despite our calls for a free Council, they always condemned us without requiring our presence or testimony. Some pro-Roman Catholics have retorted that all this has been discussed and put to rest long ago. They have cut us off from the Church of Rome and proceeded against us by fire and faggot, by the sword, by wars and by cruel murders. And finally, by excommunication. 

Following the example of the Apostles when they, too, were excommunicated by the Jewish leaders for preaching Christ, we began to gather ourselves together to serve the Lord. We did this at first secretly in corners, afterwards more freely because it was neither lawful to communicate [have communion] with those Idolatries brought in by Antichrist, neither were we of sufficient power, at first, to call that Antichrist out of his seat because he was held up by the mighty kings of the earth. Instead, we labored all we could to deliver ourselves and all who would harken to us, having left his servitude and bondage. 

Now I ask what it is our adversaries can find fault regarding the matter itself or the way we proceeded. If they look upon the matter, our separation is not for light matters, but for manifest Idolatry, for making void the Cross of Christ, and for perdition which reigns in place of salvation. To be short, we withdraw from this Prince of Confusion, who revolts against our Lord. […..] Now if everyone were to wink at him, who would uncover his true identity? If all were to cleave to him, who shall chase him away? If all the world held their peace, where is the Spirit of the mouth of the Lord who shall destroy him? Now if they shall deny he is Antichrist, we shall submit ourselves to prove it. Then there is no question of our separation, but only of our doctrine. If they will reprove and condemn us for the manner of our proceeding, they condemn the Apostles, who having overrun all Israel, ran into a thousand dangers in the midst of the Temple to the end they might make Christ to be received into His own house. And finally realizing they were being stopped through excommunications, imprisonments, etc., they received Him secretly in their private houses, preaching Him in small assemblies, until at last, they brought the whole world into His subjection. 

Notwithstanding this, our adversaries cry out that we have broken the communion of the Church; that we have set altar against altar; that we are schismatics, etc. This was the same outcry of the Pharisees against the Apostles: “You have violated the Temple, the altar, the Law,” etc. And hereupon kings and nations arm themselves against us on all sides. To these charges we must make a perfect response. 

First, the communion of the Church does not consist of a local communion or union; nor the separation by the removing of locations. The true Christian communion consists in the union of faith and love which Augustine called the neighborhood and dwelling together of the hearts, as well as agreement of doctrine. While true separation is in the contrariety of these. 

Now concerning the union of faith: it consists in that heavenly doctrine commended to us in the Old and New Testaments tending to make us feel our sin and to show us the only remedy in Jesus Christ crucified. And for this we and all the ancient prophets suffered and were killed. And for withdrawing ourselves from under the yoke of Antichrist, who shamefully treads the truth of Christ crucified under his feet, we are persecuted, excommunicated and murdered. Therefore, we are united in the faith with the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, ancient Doctors, and generally with the whole Church that existed before the Law, under the Law, and under Grace; yea, and under the tyranny of Antichrist. If they deny it, we will submit ourselves to prove it. By confessing we are not united with them, they are confessing they are not united with the ancient Fathers. Therefore, they ought not think it strange we renounce communion with the Papacy. 

Concerning the communion of love which consists in suffering and bearing the evils of one another, and in not lightly condemning one another: we hold them to be the true members of Christ who worship one God in spirit and truth, hoping for their salvation in Jesus Christ alone, the Son of God come in the flesh and crucified for the sins of the world, which is the foundation of salvation for all men. We desire all union and agreement with them no matter the country or region, and whatsoever corruption still remains in them, not only in manner, but also in points of doctrine, bewailing the bodily servitude which they endure, and praying the Father of Lights that it will please Him to enlighten them more and more by His Holy Spirit. Contrarily, every man knows the Pope’s Consistory has excommunicated all the Eastern Churches 600 years ago for not submitting to the Bishop of Rome, which is an article which only concerns his ambitions, so the Lord let them be invaded by the Turks. Rather than submit, they chose to experience extreme hardships. And regarding the union of love amongst those who cleave to the Pope: there is nothing more dear to them then their own lives, while we have been put to the fire, water and sword for exposing them to the truth, praying God every day that He will enlighten them by His Spirit. 

On the other side, the Roman Consistory does use all means to pursue us to death. By the space of these 60 + years with so many people groaning for a free general Council, their lack of love shows itself by not granting us either a general or national Council through which they could attempt to show us our errors. Instead, they claim these matters are already decided and ought to not continue. This is a frivolous answer which we have shown before. I ask what assembly, even among the heathen, would be so barbarous as to refuse to reopen a suit that had already received a final judgment, when the only point is to bring two parties into agreement. [I.e., even pagan courts would reopen a decided case if justice between two people required it.] This, therefore, is in the Roman Consistory where there is manifest doubt of their doctrine or else a shameful lack of love in such a weighty case concerning the salvation of most of professing Christianity. In short, we agree and are joined together with all Christians in the doctrine of the Bible, but we reject the Pope’s poisonous glosses and traditions. We have been willing, as brothers, to share the truth with our brethren at the risk of our lives, even in the midst of their churches. The Pope, on the contrary, instead of listening to us—and fearing to be exposed—has excommunicated us, hunted us, and driven us out. It is, therefore, the Pope and his greasy followers who have broken the communion of the universal Church, and not we, who, in order to remain in it, are ready to submit ourselves to all reason and to face every danger. 

Secondly, they allege altar against altar, if we consider the nature of the Christian Church, this is not far from the point. In ancient times under the Law there was but one Temple and one altar, and they were forbidden to sacrifice anywhere else. That is why we still see that the Jews scattered throughout the world do not sacrifice. And therefore, those who set up altars at Dan and Bethel, even though they sacrificed only to the true God, and according to the sacrifices ordained in the Law, were nevertheless guilty of death. They had broken God’s express command, who would have obedience and not sacrifice; and because, in Jesus Christ who was to come—figured by the one city of Jerusalem, by one Temple, and by one altar—they were bound to keep themselves apart from the society of all other peoples. This is why we never read that the Prophets established any order of the service of God in any other place, even when the Temple at Jerusalem was defiled with idolatry. Rather, they preached openly against those who maintained that idolatry, and still, they did not sacrifice anywhere else. 

But by the coming of Jesus Christ, as we have often said, it is otherwise. For now, all the world is considered like Jerusalem, like the altar and the like Temple of the Lord. We do not pray toward the East, rather no matter where we turn, we turn toward God, looking always to Jesus Christ. Therefore, when the Apostles preaching Christ could not be received in Jerusalem or the Temple, they preached Him in houses. And when they were driven from thence, they shook off the dust from their feet, in witness against them, and went to preach elsewhere. When they were also forewarned by the Holy Ghost of God’s vengeance coming upon that city which had crucified Christ the Anointed, they made no difficulty, says Eusebius, in withdrawing the assembly—that is, the true Jerusalem and the true children of Abraham—from there, and gathering them together in the little town of Pella near the Jordan. 

If, therefore, the temples of Constantinople have been turned into the temples and churches of Mohammed, it is altogether otherwise with the altar of Jesus Christ, as we have often said. For wherever we turn, we turn to God; we always look to Jesus Christ. Christians may serve God and offer him the sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving at Pera, hard by Constantinople. And if Antichrist is seated in the Church of Rome, amidst his temples, we may serve Christ in the porch. And if we may not preach against him under the roof of the Church, we will do it under the roof of heaven, which is also the Temple of the Lord. And this is the cause why (being forbidden by kings and princes upon pain of rebellion to preach in temples against the idolatry committed there, and being likewise commanded to avoid idols and to publish the truth) we have gathered the truly faithful together, to serve God together according to His Word. We have withdrawn Jerusalem to Pella, by the example of the Apostles and according to the liberty which Jesus Christ has given to the Universal Church. But by separating ourselves from Rome, we have remained in heavenly Jerusalem, founded upon the doctrine of the Apostles from which it [Rome] has separated herself, and we have not built an altar against the altar of the Lord. […………………………………………….garbled text] 

It is our emphatic view that we would consider ourselves traitors to God who created us, to Christ who saved and regenerated us, to the Church who has birthed us, and to be short, to our brethren and to ourselves if we do not protest against Antichrist’s blasphemies, if we do not withdraw from obedience to him, or if we do not renounce his communion. To be short, if we do not make him known to everyone, to the uttermost of our ability, so that the world can be delivered from his tyranny. [……………………………………garbled text] 

CHAPTER TWELVE

Conclusions

The Church is either considered visible or invisible. The invisible Church consists of those whom God has chosen to everlasting life, in all times and places. The visible Church consists of all those called to it, in all times and places. 

Notwithstanding, there is one Church, but considered diversly: that which is visible as corn is with chaff; and that which is invisible as the corn threshed and fanned. 

The visible Church was first without the Law, afterwards under the Law, tied to one certain place and family [Jerusalem; Jewish]. Now through grace it has spread throughout the world; no one place has privilege over another; whereof it is called ‘catholic,’ that is to say, ‘universal.’ 

The Catholic Church consists of all assemblies of [professing] Christians in all regions whom we call Churches; just as we call parts of the sea the ‘sea,’ [i.e., ‘Sea of Galilee;’ ‘Red Sea’] distinguishing them by their names, such as the Church of Greece, the Church of Africa, etc.  

The parts or members of the body of the Church differ in purity: some are pure, while others have differing degrees of impurity. The pure Churches are those in which the Word is purely preached, and the sacraments are duly administered, albeit that in respect to God nothing is truly ‘pure.’ The pure ones are called sound and true Churches, while the others (although improperly called as such) are called ‘Catholic’ Churches. 

The impure are those in which the Word of God and His sacraments are ill administered, whatsoever other outward marks they pretend. And because the whole doctrine of Christ consists of faith and love, we call those that are impure in the doctrine of faith, heretical churches; while those who have separated themselves from unity due to lack of love, we call schismatical. Some are both heretical and schismatical, like the Church of Rome, as are those who cleave to it this very day. For they maintain many damnable heresies, persecuting and excommunicating those who desire reformation. 

However, we do not deny them the name of ‘Church,’ just as we do not deny a man the name ‘man’ though he be diseased or insane. 

To discern the pure Churches from the impure, God has given us His Word contained in the Scriptures which is perfect and clear to teach the way of salvation; for its Author is the perfect Father of Lights. This Word, therefore, is to be the ultimate Judge in all controversies, as well as for the reformation of the Church, as was the Jewish commonwealth; abolishing that which God has forbidden, as well as holding that as forbidden in His service which He has not ordered, looking to that which He has commanded, interpreting His will by itself [i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture] concerning those things which are held in controversy. 

The Churches that follow that will cannot err, for that is the way of salvation, and following that, God also guides them by His Spirit who enlightens them and is inseparately joined thereto. 

Contrarily, the Churches that depart from it may and do err, yea, and that in the matter of salvation, since they are out of the way of salvation. Neither can they boast of the Spirit, for God only bestows it upon His sheep. Only those who hear His voice are considered His sheep. 

Therefore, the Church which follows man’s fantasies, and not the Law of God, has greatly erred in all her particular states and times, even until the crucifying the Son of God; that is to say, the Church of Rome doth adore and worship the son of perdition, that is to say, Antichrist. 

The Church is a body and Christ, the Son of God, is her head, giving her efficacy to minister His Gospel, through HIs Spirit, and by the selfsame assisting all those who truly call upon Him. And this is where the government and administration of the Church is through the Head of the Church. As touching the ministerial Head, no one man may be that Head. For the Church, by the coming of Christ, is spread throughout the whole world. No one person can exercise that ministry throughout the world, only those many pastors charged to represent Him. 

Indeed, when our Savior ascended, He did not order one person to fill such an office; neither did any of the Apostles fill any such office. Besides, the entire primitive Church never knew of such a thing. 

Wherefore, following the Word of God and the opinion of the same [sound and true] Church we hold that the Papal See, which under this false title exercises tyranny over all the world, is Antichrist. This may be verified by doctrine alone, without other proofs and circumstances. 

Notwithstanding that this Papal See placed in one part of the Church, is not the Church, neither a part of the [true and sound] Church, but is a pestilence to the body of the Church, which has corrupted and infected all it possibly could, and has utterly choked it, being bereft of the special mercy of God. 

We do, therefore, depart from the Papacy – not from the Church – from idols, not from the temple; from tyranny, not from the commonwealth; from the plague, not from the City [of God]. We are fully ready to knit and join ourselves when Antichrist and the evil which he has brought in is removed. 

While waiting for this, we reform the Ministry of the Word of God, and as soon as we can, His service according to His institution, by the example of the Apostles excommunicated out of Jerusalem, which is not to build altar against altar, for by the coming of Christ all the world is His altar. 

Our ministers who have begun this work have the same calling that our adversaries pretend. For they were elders and theologians ordained as they were, and by them, yet our ministers have done nothing but followed their calling, whereas the others have utterly abandoned it. 

Thos who followed after the early Protestants had a much better calling then our adversaries. For besides the fact of their being ordained by those early Protestants who had the authority to do so, they were also ordained according to the practice of the Apostles and ancient Canons which are neglected in the Church of Rome. 

Moreover, besides this ordinary vocation, the extraordinary wonders which God has wrought in these last times by their Ministry sufficiently witness the favor of God proving they are doing the work of God, not men. 

FINIS