Traditions for those which have been called so have been rejected even by the Roman Church it self or having received them they have laid them aside again In short they sometimes pretend to Traditions where there are none and where there are they have forsaken them and in several Cases they pervert them and turn them into another thing As they have done for instance with Purgatory-fire which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgment and not till then but they have kindled already and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein As for ancient Customs sometimes called also Traditions they have not been always alike nor in all places one and the same But the Church of England declares That whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions i. e Customs and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly c. They are the very words of our XXXIVth Article of Religion Which teaches withal That every particular or National Church hath Authority to change and abolish such Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority c. And now what hath this Babbler to alledge out of our Bible against this Truly Nothing at all but only the word Tradition which he is very ignorant if he do not know that we own For we affirm That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions And of such the Apostle speaks in 2 Thess II. 15. 2 Thess II. 15. which is thus expounded by Theodoret Keep the Rule of Doctrine the words delivered to you by us which we both Preached when we were present with you and wrote when we were absent So that the things which were spoken were not different from those which were written but the very same He spoke when he was with them what he wrote when he was gone from them Whence it is clear indeed That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth were of equal Authority with what was written as this man gravely saith for they were the same And it is also certain as he adds That before the New Testament was written all was delivered by word of mouth But what then Therefore Apostolical Traditions are to be received Yes because what was delivered by word of mouth was the very same which afterwards was written But here is no shadow of proof that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written Nor is there more in the next place 2 Thess III. 6. 2 Thess III. 6. but much less for there is not a syllable of word of mouth and Theodoret expresly says That by Tradition here the Apostle means not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Words but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Works that is he bids them follow his Example as St. Chrysostom also understands it which he proves to be the meaning by what follows where he saith the Apostle teaches what he had delivered by his Example For your selves know how ye ought to follow us for we behaved not our selves disorderly among you c. v. 7 8. Wherefore as I may better say than this man doth in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let all good men withdraw ftom them who thus falsly pretend to Tradition when they dare not stand to the Interpretations of the best of the Ancient Fathers and walk disorderly by breaking their own Rule which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous consent Counc of Trent Sess IV. From hence he runs back like a distracted man who catches at any thing at random to the First Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 2. which one would have expected in the Front But perhaps he was sensible it had nothing in it but the bare word Tradition to his purpose and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader 's mind would be possessed with a false Notion which would make any thing go down with him And the truth is there is nothing here for his turn For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apostle be about matters of Order and Decency as one would think by what follows concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered they themselves acknowledge such Traditions do not oblige in all places and times If the Apostle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine how doth it appear that now they are not written As that about the Holy Communion is which the Apostle speaks of in the latter part of that Chapter v. 23 c. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition I mean shamefully forsaken it by leaving off the ministration of the Cup to the people which according to what the Apostle saith he received from the Lord and delivered unto them ought to be given as much as the Bread Consider then I beseech you with what Conscience or Sense this man could say That we reject all Traditions when we receive this for instance more fully than themselves And how he abuses St. Paul in making him as schismatically uncharitable as himself by representing him as disowning us for his Brethren which St. Austin durst not do by the Donatists who are so far from forgetting him in all things that we remember him and his words better than they do and keep to his Traditions as I said just as he hath delivered them unto us Poor man he thinks he hath made a fine speech for St. Paul and made him say to us quite contrary to that he says to the Corinthians Whereas according to Theodoret another kind of Interpreter than he the Apostle dispraises the Corinthians as much as he makes him dispraise us For these words saith he do not contain true Praise but he speaks ironically and in truth reprehends them as not having kept the Orders which he had set them As if he had said You have full well observed the Traditions which I left with you when there is such unbecoming behaviour among you in the time of Divine Service Which no body need be told unless he be such an Ideot as this is not a form of Commendation but of Reproof Lastly He comes from express Scripture to none at all for he betakes himself to Reasoning and asks a very doughty question If nothing be to be believed but only what is left us written wherein should the Church have exercised her self from Adam to Moses the space of Two thousand six hundred years Let me ask him another How doth he prove nothing was written all this time Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him if not out of Ancient Records It is more likely there were Writings before his than that there were not However our saying There were can no more be confuted than his saying There were not can be proved If the Reader be not satisfied with this he bids him see more Scriptures and names near a dozen places in
Epist LX. Edit Oxon. and one Voice all the Roman Church hath confessed that is their Faith which the Apostle praised was be come famous as it follows in the next words and while they were thus Unanimous thus Valiant they gave great Examples of Vnanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est They were all stedfast in their Faith which this poor man construes as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholick Church By translating those words thus The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Which he vehemently denied ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons That every mans Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed and commanded those to return home who had appealed to Rome which he shows was most just and reasonable unless the Authority of the Bishops in Africk seem less than the Authority of other Bishops to a few desperate and profligate persons who had already been judged and condemned by them Epist LIX This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius to which I could add a great deal more if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush if they have any shame left who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church St. Austin of whom I must say something lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him and the whole Church of Africk in a Council of Two hundred Bishops made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church and therefore could mean no such thing as this man would have in his Book of the Vnity of the Church Where he saith in the 3d Chapter That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings but out of the Divine Oracles and if the Holy Scriptures have design'd it in Africa alone c. whatsoever other Writings may say the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause and none be the Church but they But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise designing the Church to be spread throughout the World And then he goes on to say Chap. 4. that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head but yet do so dissent those are his words which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously from his Body which is the Church that their Communion is not with the whole Body wheresoever it is diffused but is found in some part separated it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church than of any other part of the Catholick Church and in truth makes them like the Donatists since their Communion is not with the whole Body which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion but they are found in a part of it seperated by themselves The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin I assure the Reader is as much besides the matter and therefore I will not trouble him with it And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom in his Apology against Ruffinus But this I find L 3. the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle viz. I. Rom. 8. admits not such deceit and delusion into it c. Where it is to be noted That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle is one thing and the Roman Church another And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time was certainly most pure but who shall secure us it is so now If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so we should not believe it because it is not what they then believed nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time but much altered in many Points And suppose St. Hierom had told us It is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholick Faith it must be meant of the then Roman Faith and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith No nor more than is said for thus Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople writes in an Epistle * Council of Ephes p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome We also have obtained the name of New Rome and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith the Prophets and Apostles mark that he doth not say on the Roman Church whâ—re Christ our Saviour and God is the Corner-stone are in the matter of faith nothing behind the elder Romans For in the Church of God there is none to be reckoned or numbred before the rest †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also c. i. e. if he were alive Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City as he had theirs at Old Rome for we as well as they following his Doctrine and Institutions wherein we are rooted are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith wherein we stand and rejoice c. X. The Reformers he saith hold That the Church's Vnity is not necessary in all points of Faith Answer THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes where he saith IV. Ephes 5. there is One Faith Which we believe is necessary to make One Church every part of which blessed be God at this very day is baptized into that one and the same Faith and no other contained in the common Creed of Christians called the Apostles Creed Therefore so far Church Vnity is still preserved But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith Nor should the Differences which may be among Christians about such matters break Unity of Communion And if they do those Churches which are thus broken and divided by not having external communion one with another may notwithstanding still remain both of them Members of the same one Catholick Church because they still retain the same one Catholick Faith Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time and the African and Roman in Stephen's time differed in external Communion and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ This is more than I need have said in answer to him but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies not our Opinions We believe as the Apostle teaches us IV. Ephes 5. IV. Ephes 5. and from thence conclude That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith truly so called that is all things necessary to be believed Nor do we differ in any such things and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church II. Jam. 10. The second
in the bond of Peace For he speaks here saith Theodoret of concord and the Rule is the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine by which if we walk't it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this that they have broken all Communion by their Tyrannical impositions and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine VI. Gal. 16. The next place evidently speaks of the self-same thing that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith we are sure of the Divine Favour In short the Rule here spoken of is that of the New Creature mentioned in the foregoing words v. 15. But the 4th Text 2 Cor. X. 15. more fully shews this man to be a meer Trifler with words without their sense For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule or line of Faith as he dreams but only of the bounds and limits of those Countrys in which the Apostle had preach'd the Gospel as Menochius himself interprets it This he might have learnt if he had pleased by the very next words where the Apostle saith he did not boast in another man's line or rule of things made ready to his hand i. e. those Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles glorying as Menochius well glosses in other mens Labours as if they had been his own Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures by the Regions in which the Apostles preached An excellent proof that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture because St. Paul had his own Rule and others had their Rule that is not one and the same for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line i. e. in those places where others had done it already Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits when they write on this fashion Either they have no understanding of what they write or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers who understand nothing else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff 1 Cor. XI 16. From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians Chap. XI 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second could he have found the Word Rule there which was all he sought for not regarding the Sense But alas he could find only the Word Custome in that place which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule And what is this Rule as he will needs have it of which the Apostle is there speaking Is it about any matter of Faith No only about Womens praying bare-faced without a covering over them which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church So the same Menochius whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church because he saith in his Preface he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers And what Church doth St. Paul here mean only one Church or all that he had planted He himself answers We have no such custom nor other Churches of God neither therefore you not only cross us but the whole Church as Theophylact expounds the words And to the same effect Theodoret he shows that these things did not seem so to him only but to all the Churches of God Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this of all the Churches for any thing wherein we differ and see whether we will be contentious Tho' I must tell them that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times tho' never so many hundreds and the Authority of those few Pastors as this man calls them which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves infallible men and other Apostolical persons who were guided by their directions And now he comes to tell us by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture instead of telling us by what names the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called For the good man when he had gone thus far had forgotten what he was about The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no service For it is Rom. VI. 17. saith Theophylact to live aright and with an excellent Conversation Or that Form of Doctrine saith Menochius which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching Unto which is there opposed not disunion and disorder c. as this Scribler pretends but their serving sin But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alledges else he would not have had the impudence if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it to mention the next place of Scripture 2 Corinth X. 16. A thing made ready to hand 2 Cor. X. 16. He should have said things made ready if he would have stood to his promise of quoting express words of our Bible For so it is both in our Translation and in the Original and even in the Latin Translation it self By which is meant as the same Menochius judiciously observes Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit And so Theodoret he reproves those saith he who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers c. Let the Reader here again look about and see if he can spy a word about disunion discord disobedience c. in this place of which this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges 1 Tim. VI. 20. In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling and opposition of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust not the Churches trust as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text. And what is this depositum or trust but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel unto which he opposes the new Phrases and the new Doctrines which the School of Simon Magus had brought in as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret whose words are these They that had their Original from Simon were called Gnosticks as much as to say men endued with Knowledge For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent they said God had revealed to them This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge From whence I think it clearly follows that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures Which is the Doctrine he saith let the Romanists mind this which all that have the dignity of Priesthood ought carefully to keep and propose to themselves as a certain Rule and by this square all that they say all that they do In short Tertullian de Prescript C. 25. understands by the thing committed unto him that Doctrine
which the Apostle delivered in this Epistle To which Theodoret adds the grace of the Holy Ghost which he received at his Ordination That is his Office committed unto him and all the Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on him to qualifie him for this Office He bids us see more in several other places of Scripture whose words he is not pleased to recite and therefore I shall pass them by Because if there had been any thing to be seen in them to his purpose he would have set them forth at large And there is as little to be seen in the Fathers whom he mentions to confirm his pretended Catholick Doctrine And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus and Tertullian without alledging their words But he adventures to set down some words out of Vincentius Lirinensis tho he doth not tell us where to find them We need not go far indeed to seek for them they being in the beginning of his Book where he that is able to read it may find a full confutation of the Romish Pretences For having said that the way to preserve our Faith found is first by the Authority of the Divine Law Secondly by the Tradition of the Catholick Church He raises this Objection which shows how much the first of these is above the other Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect and abundantly sufficient unto it self for all purposes mark this which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cause what need is there to joyn unto this the Authority of the Catholick Sense To which he answers that the Scriptures being a great depth are not understood by all in the same Sense But Novatian understands them one way Photinus another Sabellius Donatus Arrius c. another And therefore because of the windings and turnings of Error the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation should be directed according to the Rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense Thus he ends his Book as he begins it We have not recourse to Ecclesiastical Tradition because the Scripture is not sufficient to it self for all things but because of various Interpretations But then he immediately subjoins in the entrance of his Book what that Catholick Sense is Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where and always and by all Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide our selves and from which the Church of Rome hath departed For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron where he expresly owns this Rule p. 22. Edit Lond. 1612. And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himself which this Writer should have been so honest as to have confessed For in conclusion Cap. XXXIX he saith that the ancient Consent of Fathers is to be studiously sought and followed not in all the little Questions of the Divine Law or Scripture for alas there is no Consent but only or chiefly in the Rule of Faith That is in those Questions as he explains it Cap. XLI on which the Foundations of the whole Catholick Faith rely And further he observes That all Heresies cannot always be confuted this way but only those which are newly invented as soon as they arise before they have falsified the Rules of the Ancient Faith and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients by the spreading of their poison For inveterate Heresies and such as have spread themselves must not be impugned this way but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture or at least-wise by the Universal Councils of Catholick Priests wherein they have been convinced and condemned I have been the longer in this because he is a most worthy Witness as this man calls him by whom we are willing to be tried And so we are by Tertullian some of whose words he also at last adventures to alledge out of two Chapters of his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks But as he jumbles together words far distant one from another so he durst not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX which would have explained the reason why sometimes they disputed not with Hereticks out of the Scripture because that Heresy of which he there treats did not receive some Scripture and if it did receive some Cap. XVII it did not receive them intire but perverted them by additions and detractions as served its purpose c. In short they would not acknowledg these things that is the Scriptures by which they should bave been convinced To what purpose then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures No let them believe saith he Cap. XXIII without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scripture just as the present Romanists now do From whence it is that he calls Hereticks Lucifugae Scripturarum men that fly from the light of the Scriptures L. d. Resur Carn C. XLVII Insomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the same Book Cap. III. Take from Hereticks those things which they have learnt from the Heathen that they may state their questions out of the Scripture alone and they cannot stand Unto which Rule if the Papists will yield their Cause is gone Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture and we desire no more Unto which it is manifest Tertullian appeals in other places so plainly that there is no way to evade it particularly in his Book of the Flesh of Christ Cap. VI. Let them prove the Angels took Flesh from the Stars if they cannot prove it because it is not written then Christ's Flesh was not from thence c. And again in the same Chapter there is no evidence of this because the Scripture doth not say it And plainest of all in the next Chapter I do not receive what thou inferrest of thy own without Scripture Let these men blush if they can who thus shamelesly pervert all things to a wrong sense as they do these two words Rule and Form of Faith Which this man hath the Confidence to say is the knowledge of Tradition But how we should know any Tradition to be true which is not contained in the Scripture is the Question Especially since there have been so many false Traditions as is confess'd by all sides Besides it is so far from being true that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith or put it before the Scripture that Vincentius expresly puts the Divine Scripture in the first place as our Guide and then the Ecclesiastical sense as a means in some cases to find the sense of Scriptures Cap. XIII And Tertullian as expresly in that very Book which he quotes and in the Chapter preceding makes the Apostles Creed the Rule of Faith Which is all contained in the Scripture and needs the help of no Tradition but that to prove it But after all I must ask what 's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
Vniversal Mâ—narch over all the Earth Which is as reasonable from these Principles as one visible Head of the Church But to answer his question plainly There is no one visible Head here because Christ the Head of the Church both Triumphant and Militant hath ordered it otherwise Having placed saith St. Paul 1 Cor. XII 28. in the Church first Apostles not Peter or any one alone over the rest but the Apopostles were left by Christ the Supreme Power in the Church Here I cannot but conclude as that great and good Man Dr. Jackson * L. III Chap â— doth upon such an occasion Reader Consult with thy own heart and give sentence as in the sight of God and judge of the whole Frame of their Religion by the Foundation and of the Foundation which is this Supremacy of Peter by the wretched Arguments whereby they support it For from the other Scriptures which follow in this Writer their Arguments stand thus David was made Head of the Heathen XVIII Psal 43. therefore Peter was made Head of the Church Instead of the Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands XLV Psal 16. therefore Peter ruled over all the rest as a Prince Simon he sirnamed Peter III. Mark 16. therefore he had authority over all because named first The same is gathered from I. Act 13 merely from the order of precedence which must be granted to one or other in a Body where all are equal Finally Christ's kingdom shall have no end I. Luke 33. therefore St. Peter must reign for ever in his Successors St. Paul was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Corinth XI 5. therefore what common Reason would have concluded therefore there were more chief Apostles besides Peter and St. Paul was not inferior to the greatest of them not to Peter himself These are his Scripture-Arguments for their Supremacy And his Fathers affirm nothing at all of Peter which is not said of other Apostles Particularly St. Chrysostom who says no such thing of Peter as he makes him in his 55th Hom. upon Matthew expresly says St. Paul governed the whole World as one Ship Hom. 25. upon 2 Corinth and frequently calls him as well as Peter Prince of the Apostles and calls them all the Pastors and Rectors of the whole World in his 2d Hom. upon Titus And to be short the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew commonly ascribed to St. Chrysost calls all Bishops the Vicars of Christ Hom 17. Finally there is no Title so great which is not given to others as well as Peter by ancient Writers even the Title of Bishop of Bishops the name of Pope Holiness Blessed and such like XII We hold he saith That a Woman may be Head or Supream Governess of the Church in all Causes as the late Queen Elizabeth was Answer NOne of us ever called Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church unless as it signifies Supream Governour And that indeed we assert she was and all our Kings are of all persons whatsoever in all Causes But because some leud People perverted the meaning of this our Church took care to explain it in one of the Articles of Religion that no man might mistake in the matter unless he would wilfully as this Writer doth who could not but understand that it is expresly declared Article XXXVII that when we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government we do not give to our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments c. but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself That is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers This is our avowed Doctrine Now what do our Bibles say against this Nothing but a woman may not teach 1 Tim. II. 12. c. 1 Tim. II. 12. And do not we say the same that our Princes may not minister the Word or Sacraments What a shameless sort of People have we to deal withal who face us down that we affirm what we flatly deny And when he pretends faithfully to recite the words of our Bible after the New Translation as he doth in his Preface here he gives us another Translation in the second Text he alledges 1 Cor. XIV 34. But take it as it is it proves nothing but his folly and impudence unless he could shew that Queen Elizabeth preached publickly in any of our Churches But see the Childishness of this Writer in alledging these Texts against the Queen which make nothing against our Kings who are not Women sure And we ascribe the same power to them which we did to her and no more to her than belongs to them From Scripture he betakes himself to Reasoning which proceeds upon the same wilful Mistake we cannot call it but Calumny against our express Declaration to the contrary That we give our Kings such an Headship or Supream Power as makes them capable to minister the Word and Sacraments From whence he draws this new Slander That many hundreds of them have been hang'd drawn and quarter'd for denying this Power VVhereas every one knows the Oath of Supremacy is nothing else but a solemn declaration of our belief that our Kings are the Supream Governors of these Realms in all Spiritual things or Causes as well as Temporal and that no Foreign Prince or Prelate hath any Jurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in these Realms c. Now what can he find in his Fathers to oppose this There were none of them for above 800 years who did not believe this that Emperors and Kings are next to God and the Pope himself ought to be subject to them L. II. 1. The words of Optatus speak the sense of them all There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor And none can deny the Ancient Custom to have been that the Clergy and People of Rome having chosen the Pope the Emperor confirmed or invalidated the Election as he pleased Adrian indeed would fain have changed this Custom Anno 811. but still it continued a long time that the Election was not accounted valid till the Emperor's Confirmation And he cannot but know if he have read his own Authors that after Adrian's attempt above forty Popes from John IX to Leo IX were all created by the Emperors who frequently also deposed Popes And Popes were so far from having any such Authority over the Emperors that when Pope Gregory VII adventured upon it it was esteemed a Novity not to say an Heresy as Sigebert's words are ad Anno 1088. which had not sprung up in the World before But the Reader may here observe how well skill'd this Man is in the Fathers who places John Damascen in the very front of them
found in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. L. V. cap. 30. Latin for saith he They are Latins who now Reign but we will not Glory in this For it being the Common Opinion of the Church the Latin i. e. Roman Empire was that which hindred the appearance of Antichrist Irenaeus might thence conclude that Antichrist should reign in the Seat of that Latine Empire when it was faln And Antichrist not being as I have proved a particular Man this Number must be common unto all that make up that Antichristian Rule in the Roman Church In which the Popes are all Latins and they are distinguished from the Greeks by the Name of the Latin Church and they have their Service still in the Latin Tongue as if they affected to make good this Observation that in them is found this number of the Beast But I lay no great weight upon this Opinion of Irenaeus tho it will be very hard for them to confute it 1 John II. 22. As to the 1 John II. 22. we do not say the Pope is the Antichrist there meant and yet for all that he may be the Great Antichrist For it is to be observed That St. John saith there v. 18. that there were many Antichrists in his time and this Antichrist who denied Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh or that Jesus was the Christ was one of them yet not a single Person but a Body of Men there being several Sects of them under Simon Magus Cerinthus and the rest who belonged to this Antichrist All which Hereticks their own Church acknowledges were the foreruners of the Great Antichrist whom we are seeking after and can find no where but in the Papacy From hence he runs back again to the 2 Thess II. 4. where those very Characters 2 Thess II. 4 c. which he saith do not agree to the Pope are those whereby we are led to take him for the Man of Sin He being manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That wicked One we translate it who will be subject to no Laws and sits in or upon the Temple of God that is the Christian Church where he exalts himself over all that is called God that is all Power on Earth whom he makes subject to his decrees which he would have received as the Oracles of God and that by a blind Obedience against Mens reason which is more than God himself requires of us The Original of his Greatness was out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire His coming was with lying Wonders and whatsoever this Man fancies our Lord Jesus Christ tho not yet come will come and certainly destroy him When the kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever XI Rev. 15. The last place upon which he adventures to discourse is V. John 43. V. John 43. where we have only his word for it that when our Saviour saith If another shall come in his own Name he means especially the wicked Antichrist Why him especially Or him at all And not rather any one who should pretend to be the Christ As several did according to our Saviours Prediction XXIV Matth. 5. such as Theudas Barchozba mentioned by Josephus and another of the same Name in the time of the Emperor Adrian And indeed there are such clear Demonstrations which I have not room to mention that this word another ought not to be restrained to one Single Person such as they make the Great Antichrist but signifies any body indifferently who pretended to be the Christ that we may well conclude those to be blinded who make Christ have respect to the Great Antichrist and from thence conclude the Pope not to be that Antichrist because the Jews do not follow him Alas they see as little concerning Antichrist as the Jews do of Christ as was truly observed by an Eminent Divine of our own long ago For as the Jews still expect the Messiah who is already come and was Crucified by their Fore-fathers so they of the Roman Church look for an Antichrist who hath been a long time revealed and is reverenced by them as a God upon Earth Thus Dr. Jackson * Book III. On the Creed Ch. 8. who ventures to say further That he who will not acknowledge the Papacy to be the Kingdom of Antichrist hath great reason to suspect his heart that if he had lived with our Saviour he would scarce have taken him for his Messias * Ib. Chap. XXII p. 452. They that have a mind to see more of this Man's folly may look into the other Scriptures he barely mentions where they will soon discover how much they make against him What the Fathers say about this matter I have already acquainted the Reader which is so positive and unanimous that it is sufficient to overthrow what some of them say conjecturally Particularly upon the place last mentioned V. John 43. concerning which they speak with no certainty as they do of the rise of Antichrist after the Roman Empire was removed out of the way which gave the greatest advantage to the Bishop of Rome to advance himself unto that unlimited Power which he hath usurped over the Church of God In short this Man hath stoln all his Authorities about this matter out of Feuardentius's Notes upon Irenaeus * Lib. V. C. 25. where he makes this alius another to be Antichrist because he is alienus à Domino an alien from the Lord which is not the right Character of Antichrist whom St. Paul makes to be no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary who opposeth our blessed Saviour And to shew that this is a meer Accommodation he adds in the next words that he is the unjust Judge whom Christ speaks of that feared not God nor regarded Man It any one can think the Fathers intended to expound the Scripture and to give us the express sense of it in such Speeches as these he hath a very strange understanding XIV That no Man nor any but God can forgive or retain Sins Answer THE strength of these Men lies only in their deceit and fraud They dare not represent either their own Doctrine or ours truly For this Proposition is both true and false in divers regards It is true that none but God can absolutely and sovereignly forgive Sin But it is false that no Man can forgive Sins Ministerially and Conditionally For by Authority from God Men appointed thereunto do forgive Sins as his Ministers by Baptism by the Holy Communion by Preaching and by Absolution The only Qustion is Whether their Absolution be only declarative or also operative And in this if we be not all agreed no more are they of the Roman Church For P. Lombard did not believe that the Priest wrought any Absolution from Sins but only declared the Party to be absolved And the most Ancient Schoolmen follow him such as Occam who says according
as he fancies receiving succor after death I cannot conceive For it signifies our dying as Menochius himself expounds it departing this life as Theophylact who knew of no other sense unless it be understood saith he of Pusillanimity being condemn'd Nor doth St. Austin in the next place XXIII Luke 44. say that Souls may be holpen in Purgatory But expresly declares if no sin were to be remitted in the last judgment our Lord would not have said of a certâ—in sin it shall not be remitted in this world nor in the world to come Which the Thief hoped for when he Prayed Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom And if the Theif had any such erroneous Notion in his head which we do not believe of going to Purgatory when he died our Lord presently freed him from that false conceit by that gracious promise This day shalt thou be with me in Paradice It is a lamentable Cause which must be supported by such an Author as Jason of Cyrene whose Book is of no credit But if it were the place he cites 2 Maccab. XII 44 45. proves nothing but Prayer for the dead which doth not infer a Purgatory For the Greeks use Prayer for the dead who believe nothing of Purgatory And indeed the Text it self tells us their Prayers had respect not to the deliverance of those Prayed for out of the flames of Purgatory but to their Resurrectien And if they had believed Purgatory they could not according to the Popish opinion have prayed for these men who died in mortal Sin being defiled by things belonging to Idols which were found under their Garments Now the Romish Church doth not admit such people as die in mortal Sin into Purgatory See how weak all their proofs are of this great Article of their Faith For there is no greater strength to be found in the rest of his Texts which he hath jumbled together after a very strange fashion as if a long row of Chapters and Verses would do his business Nor did the Fathers in the Six first Ages know any thing of this Doctrine Gregory indeed called the Great began to talk of it and laid the foundation of it But his Authority is not great being much addicted to Fables and relying upon pretended Revelations Visions and Apparitions And as for Origen's Purgatory St. Austin saith * De haeres â— 43. What Catholick Christian is there whether learn'd or unlearn'd who doth not vehemently abhor it And yet this man is not ashamed to alledge his Testimony by which the Reader may make a judgment of the rest XLVIII That it is not lawful to make or have Images Answer THIS is another shameless slander as his own Bellarmin confesses â— 2. de Eccles Triumph c. 8. who says the opinion of Calvin himself is this That Images are not simply forbidden but he admits only of an Historical use of them The sum of our Doctrine is this That it is not lawful to make an Image of God and so some of their own Church have confessed nor to make any Image to be worshipped If we should have further added That it is unlawful to make or have Images because of the danger of Idolatry we could have justified our selves by the Authority of as wise men as any in their Church For more than one of the Ancient Fathers were of this opinion who were never condemned by the Ancient Church nor was this reckoned among their Errors His Texts of Scripture are impertinently alledged XXV Exod. 18. For God might command that to be done XXV Exod. 18. which he forbad them to do without such a special Order And there is no proof that the Cherubins were made with Faces of beautiful young men as this Writer asserts but the contrary is apparent as many have demonstrated He belies St. Hierom also when he makes him say the Jews worshipped them which the best of their own Authors deny Particularly Lorinus a famous Jesuit upon XVII Acts 25. Concerning the Cherubims made by God's Command and other Images made by Solomon it must be said that they were only an Appendix and additional ornament of another thing and were not of themselves propounded for adoration which it is manifest the Hebrews did not give them And Vasquez saith the same out of Tertullian that no worship was given to the Cherubims alledging no less than twelve Schoolmen of that opinion Why should I trouble my self therefore any further with such a Writer whose next Scriptures are still about the Cherubims and therefore are already answered For he doth not believe I hope that when the Apostle IX Hebr. 1. speaks of the Ordinances of Divine Service that is Commandments about the Worship of God as Theodoret and from him Menochius expounds it and after many other things mentions the Cherubims of glory he intended they should have divine service performed to them If not then his observation is frivolous for no body denies there were such things as Cherubims in the most holy place where no body saw them much less worshipped them When he hath done with his Scriptures he goes about to prove so fond he is of Images that an Image is of divine and natural right because we always form one in our mind when we conceive and understand any thing As if it were all one to form an Idea invisibly in the mind and to make a vsible standing representation of it in Wood Brass or Stone Such Writers tire one with their folly and falshood which is notorious in what he quotes out of Saint Austin in the conclusion of this Chapter Who taking notice that some Pagans had forged a Story of I know not what Books written by Christ to Peter and Paul concerning the secret Arts of working Miracles says they named those two perhaps rather than other Apostles to whom those pretended Books were directed because they might have seen them painted with Him in many places Which whether it be meant in private Houses as is most probable or in publick places it is manifest St. Austin did not regard such Pictures for he presently adds in the very next sentence which this false Writer conceals these remarkable words Thus they deserved to err utterly who sought for Christ and his Apostles not in the holy Books but in painted Walls And it is no wonder if they that counterfeit in forging Books he means were deceived by them that paint XLIX That it is not lawful to reverence Images nor to give any honour to insensible things Answer NOW we are come indeed to the business but they seem afraid to touch it For first instead of saying it is not lawful to worship Images as it was before when Bishop Montague answered this Book now they dwindle it into reverence of them And then they fallaciously tack to this a Proposition of another nature that no honour is to be given to insensible things Which is a new Calumny for we do upon some occasions give honour
declared their Belief that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ who was made a curse for us and that through his Death and Passion of which the Cross was a Memorial they expected all manner of Blessings from God But all this was of Humane Institution for which we find no directions in Scripture None of the places he alledgeth say a syllable of it much less expresly mention this sign Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII VII Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads With what mark we are not told In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him and of blessing his Disciples but nothing of signing either with the Cross or any thing else which therefore is not founded in these or indeed in any other Scriptures The Fathers we know speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions but do they say it was founded in Scripture Not a word of that which is the only point And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now as many other Rites have been which were no less in use in Ancient times than that was particularly the Custom of Praying Standing not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day between Easter and Whitsuntide Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice and as it had been in use before and not then introduced but only confirmed so continued in the Church for 800 years and yet is now quite disused I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue as well as Bodily Protection which they in the Roman Church now expect from the Sign of the Cross for which there is not either Scripture or other Ancient Authority LII That the Publick Service of the Church ought not to be said but in a Language that all the People may understand Answer IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly This is our Doctrine which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible that unless the Bible contradict it self nothing can be found there to the contrary I Luke 8. St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spake when he ministred in the Sanctuary Nor do we find in the Bible the least mention of Publick Prayers he made there but only of burning Incense which the People well understood represented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance which they made without while he burnt Incense within Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer the meaning of which was as well understood by the People as what they themselves spake The Angel indeed tells him v. 13. thy Prayer is heard but this doth not prove he spake any words but rather lifted up his mind to God when the Incense ascended towards Heaven For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words But suppose he did how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times the Language of the Country Tho it is not material whether he did or no for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice And therefore this place if it prove any thing proves too much that the Publick Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People where they can neither hear nor see the Priest The XVI Levit. 17. XVI Lev. 17. is most absurdly alledged to serve this purpose because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven by virtue of his most precious Blood wherewith he entred in thither Besides the High-Priest of old said not one word while he staid there and therefore this can be no argument the People need not understand the Publick Prayers of the Church which are made not in such a Secret Place as that was but openly in the hearing of all the People Who by this reasoning may be shut out of the Church as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers and the Priest left there to a silent Service by himself Here Fathers being wanting for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue he pretends he hath no need of them tho he needlesly heapt them up where he could find a word that seemed to look that way he would have it But he supplies this want with a bold untruth That the practice of the whole Christian World for these many hundred years hath been against us who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand Which can be salved by nothing but by another proud falsity that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World For no Church uses Latin Service but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome all others use the Language of their several Countries Nay there are some who have acknowledged his Authority that would still have the Publick Service in their own Language which the People understood For shame let these men leave off Writing and betake themselves to their Prayers that God would forgive them their abominable Falshoods wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause particularly in this point about Publick Service in a Language the People do not understand Which they are sensible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul in 1 Cor. XIV and therefore this man thinks himself concern'd to attempt an Answer unto what we alledge from hence At first he distinguishes between Publick Prayer and Private which here is very idle for it is evident the Apostle speaks of Publick Prayers in the Church verse 19. When the whole Church came together in one place verse 23. Secondly He saith this place is against us because it proves the Common Service of the Church was not then in a Tongue which every man understood but in another Language not so common to all verse 16. Mark how he contradicts himself before he supposed or else he talk'd impertinently that the Apostle discourses of Private Prayers now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church of which he speaks but shews it was not in the Common Language What a brow have these men who can thus out-face the clearest truth That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons and condemns as utterly inconsistent with the very end of Speech as well as with the Edification of the Church this man makes to have been common allowed Practice Was there ever such Prevarication A man had better have no use of Reason than Discourse on this fashion no Tongue at all than talk at this rate expresly against the Apostle's Injunction who requires him who could not deliver what he spake