can prove these two things 1. That both parts of a Contradiction may be true For nothing is more obvious than that those Propositions are by many of the Roman Clergy delivered as the Word of God which are contradictory the one to the other For Example One says the Wood of the Cross is to be adored another that Jesus Christ only is to be adored in the presence of the Cross That the Pope has Power to depose Kings one makes it Heresy to deny another to affirm it 2. That that may be the Word of God which is plainly contrary to what God hath taught in the holy Scriptures for so are many things taught by many of their Pastors For example That the sacred Body of the Mother of Jesus is endow'd with a super-seraphical activity whereby she can render her self present in a moment to all her Devotees vieweth all their Actions Words and Concerns and can aid them at whatever distance at all times whatever their Calamities be c. p Contemplations on the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary p. 69. When the Representer shall have proved these two Propositions That Contradictions may be true and that that may be the Word of God that is plainly contrary to the Word of God we may then perhaps be perswaded to believe that the Roman Priests speak nothing but Oracles SECT II. That which is mentioned as the next Misconstruction Inference II. or false Inference of the Protestants is this That the Papist takes up all his Belief upon trust he is led through all the Mysteries of his Religion by the hand without seeing which way or whither he goes All from beginning to end is Blindness and Ignorance c. q Chap. 7. p. 49. And what says the Representer in answer to this A Papist believes as the Church of God that is the present Church of Rome teaches And does not he take all his Belief upon trust who without examination believes whatsoever his Church teaches But how does he know what his Church teaches his Priest tells him Well he believes as the Church teaches he believes the Church teaches this or that because his Priest tells him so does he not then take his Church's Faith and his own too upon trust from his Priest No For he does not believe blindly but knowingly and understandingly so far as the littleness of humane Reason and his own Capacity will give him leave How does this appear Because in order to this his Church has provided him of variety of Learned Books explicating to him the sense of the Scriptures as likewise the Articles of his Creed every Mystery of his Religion the ten Commandments the Sacraments and the whole Duty of a Christian and this in such numbers both in Latin and English and other Languages c. What Learned Books for the Vnlearned and in Latin too for those who understand not a word of Latin May they not learn as much from the Latin Bible as from a Latin Explication Well may they believe understandingly when their Church has provided them of such Books for that purpose which are above their Vnderstanding But besides these he has Books in English and other Languages In England he is better provided of Books than in other Countries But does he not take all these upon trust too since he is not suffered to examine so much as one of them by the Scripture Yea is not his Belief of these Books a plain Argument that he believes blindfold Because many such things are contain'd in them which if he impartially examined he could never yield his assent to That I may not be thought to speak at random I shall give a single Instance out of that great number I could produce in each of the Heads before-mentioned 1. For the sense of Scripture he must take it upon trust who takes that Dominion ascribed to the Blessed Virgin to be meant in these Texts quoted for it viz. that God hath given her sovereign Dominion in Heaven over the Angels the Queen stood at thy right Hand Psalm 44. on Earth over Men Kings reign by me c. Prov. 18. and over Hell and the Devil she shall bruise thy Head Gen. 3. r Jesus Maria Joseph p. 167 168. 2. For the Articles of his Creed He believes upon trust who believes Contradictions and so does he who believes that by the Catholick Church in the Creed is meant the Roman Catholick 3. For the Mysteries of his Religion I appeal to all Men whether he does not take them upon trust who takes them as they are delivered in a Book lately printed s Contemplations on the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary particularly this of the Nativity of the Mother of Jesus That Holy Mary being by a singular Priviledg in regard of her Divine Maternity perfectly innocent holy and full of Grace Wisdom and all Virtues in the first positive instant of the Infusion of her Soul she from thence forth ever exercised the sublime Operations of the Contemplative and Vnitive Life without recourse to Images of Imagination or dependence on sense by the help of abstractive Lights divinely infus'd representing 1. The several Essences Attributes and Motions of the whole Body of the Creation in their several degrees and stations 2. The Divinity of God with its manifold Emanations Operations and unexplicable Comprehensions 3. And the Humanity of Jesus with all the Orders of Grace Mysteries of Salvation and extatick Loves of the Saints whereby her great Soul was so compleatly actuated even in the Womb of her Mother that her Contemplations Sallies of Love and Vnions with God were restless ever increasing in their vigor and still expatiating through the vast Motions and Methods of Mystical Love. Thus Divine Mary became still more acceptable to God replenish'd with Grace and absorpt in the Abyss of supernatural Perfection which wonderfully encreased the languishings of Angels Souls in Limbo and of her holy Parents for the hour of her Birth t Ibid. p. 44 45. This is a Mystery and so are several others in the same Book which I fear the Vulgar are not able to believe knowingly 4. For the ten Commandments he must believe blindly who believes he has them intire in his Catechism when so considerable a part is left out Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the Likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above c. Or that he hath the fourth Commandment sincerely delivered in these words Remember to sanctify the holy Days We are told I know in the Abridgment of Christian Doctrine that the Church cannot be accused of the least shadow of omitting any parts of the Commandments u P. 113. But how can that be when it is before acknowledged that a great Part of the Text is omitted Because in no Catholick Bible is there one Syllable left out But what is this to the Vulgar who are not permitted to read any Catholick Bible who know no
more of the Commandments than what they find in their Catechism 5. As to the Sacraments Had he not need trust strongly who believes that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Order in saying Do this w Rhemes Test Annot. in Luke 22. v. 19. Abridgment of Christ Doct. p. 184 185. Behold here the Lights the Vulgar Papist enjoys Is it not now as manifest as Light it self That whosoever reproaches him with Blindness in the midst of so many Lights may with as good Reason prove him to be in the dark when Noon-day shines upon him Especially considering That besides these Books the Church hath given direction to all Parish-Priests to explicate on Sundays and Holy-days the Gospel and some Mystery of the Faith to such as are under their Charge c. But have we not reason to believe that the Explications of their Parish Priests are answerable to those we meet with in their Books and then notwithstanding these Helps and Assistances not only some but many of his Church may believe without understanding who cannot be condemned of Negligence and Sloth in the use of those means their Church has provided for them And if the Parish-Priests are generally as ignorant as many Learned Men of the Church of Rome tell us they are even they themselves believe without understanding and therefore much more the People But by what follows the Vulgar Papists are very blame-worthy if they know not the Scripture better than the Vulgar of any other Communion For it is an unquestionable Truth that when a Book contains high Mysteries of Religion Mysteries superior to all Sense and Reason and those not deliver'd in expressions suited to every Capacity but obnoxious to various interpretations that the People is in all probability likely to have more of the true sense of this Book and to be better informed of the Truth of the Mysteries it contains who are instructed in it by the Learned of that Communion and taught it by their Pastors Prelats and those whom God hath placed over them to govern and feed the Flock than any other People who have the Book put into their own hands to read it and search it and satisfie themselves In answer to which I shall propose a few Questions to the Representer 1st Whether it be an unquestionable Truth that when a Book contains not only high Mysteries but such things as for the far greater part are not above the Capacity of the Vulgar that he shall have more of the true sense of this Book who is instructed in it by his Pastors only than he who is instructed in it by them and studies it himself too In all Sciences there are some Mysteries now is he likely to understand any other Science better who takes only the Instructions of his Teachers than he who together with them diligently studies it himself also 2. Suppose nothing but high Mysteries were contained in this Book yet may not he as well understand these Mysteries who is instructed in them by the Learned and searches them himself as he that trusts only to the Instructions of the Learned 3. Is it for the sake of these high Mysteries that the reading of this Book is forbidden the Vulgar If so then 1. Why was it not forbidden sooner since these Mysteries were in it from the Beginning 2. Why are other Books publish'd for their use in which are Mysteries superior to all Sense and Reason and those not deliver'd in expressions suited to every Capacity but such as may be wrested by the Vnlearned and Vnstable to their own destruction Such I mean as the Contemplations of the Life and Glory c. Jesus Maria Joseph c. And therefore 4. Is it not evident that it is not for the sake of the Mysteries but of those things which are too plain and obvious to vulgar understandings that the reading of this Book is prohibited But he confirms what he says both by Reason and Scripture 1. By Reason Are not the Pastors more capable of teaching the People than the People are of teaching themselves An admirable Reason Let us see how it will hold in other matters Is not the Master or Tutor more capable of teaching the Scholar than the Scholar is of teaching himself He therefore will have more of the true sense of any Book in Logick Physicks or Metaphysicks that never looks into the Book himself but only hears a Lecture once in a Week or Month from his Tutor upon some part of it than he that makes the Book his constant study 2. As admirable are the Proofs from Scripture We know Moses gave the Book of the Law to the Levites to keep and read it every seven years to the People And in King Jehosaphat 's Reign the Priests and Levites did read it and teach the People so did Jeremy by God's Command so Isaiah so Ezekicl And did not our Blessed Saviour take the Book of the Prophet and read it and expound it to the People And was not this the Office of the Apostles and Deacons c. The Argument is this The Priests and Levites read the Book of the Law and taught the People so did Jeremy Isaiah and Ezekiel Yea our Saviour and his Apostles read and expounded the Scripture to the People Therefore they will understand more of the true sense of the Scripture who never read it than those who do What pity was it that Moses and the Prophets and our Saviour and his Apostles did not understand the force of this Argument for if they had they would no doubt have forbidden the People to read the Scripture and then we had never been pester'd with those Sects and Heresies that spring from it But they were altogether unacquainted with the Roman Politicks Tho therefore they read the Scripture to the People themselves and read it in the vulgar Tongue yet they left it free to the People to read it and not only so but laid it as a Duty upon them He adds For this intention was Ananias sent to Saul Peter to Cornelius and Philip to the Eunuch who professedly own'd he could not understand the Prophet in so necessary a Point as that of the Messias without an Interpreter x P. 51. None of which Instances make any thing for him but that of the Eunuch makes much against him For the Eunuch was reading the Prophet Isaiah tho he could not understand him and St. Chrysostom y Hom. 35. in Genes and others z Non intelligebat Scripturae sensum homo prophanus idiota tamen quoniam pio studio legebat subito mittitur illi Philippus interpres vertitur Eunuchus in virum tingitur aquâ ater Aethiops niveo agni immaculati vellere induitur subitoque ex mancipio prophanae Reginae fit servus Iesu Christi Eras Epist l. 29. Epist 82. observe that God as a Reward of his Diligence and Piety in doing what he was able sent him a Teacher And what follows hence First that they ought not
God caused it at first to be written in a Language understood by the Vulgar 2. He caused it to be directed and addressed to them 3. He commanded them to acquaint themselves with it 1. God caused the holy Scriptures to be at first written in a Language understood by the Vulgar That the Books of Moses and the Prophets were written in the common Language of the Jews is generally granted by the Romanists themselves Monsieur Mallet indeed has been so hardy as to say That it is most probable that the Books of the Law were not composed by Moses in the Vulgar Language of the Jews But the Arguments by which he attempts to prove it are not only ridiculous and in themselves false but in case they were true would be so far from establishing what he asserts that they would quite destroy it He that hath a Mind to see them exposed let him consult Monsieur Arnaud's another learned Romanist Confutation of his Book (b) De la Lecture de l' Ecriture Sainte contre les Parodoxes extravagans impies de Mons Mallet Out of which I shall at present transcribe but one Passage I shall say a Word only says he of Moses 's last Song because it is a demonstrative Proof that there is nothing in the World more manifestly false than that which Monsieur Mallet says is probable for there is nothing in all the Books of Moses that is more nobly written and in a more lofty Stile than this Song which he commanded the Jews to write and to learn by Heart and to sing often that it might serve as a Testimony against themselves if they should forsake the Worship of God. He therefore certainly supposed that they would understand it since his Intention was that in singing it they should be touched and affected with it (c) Je diray Seulement un mot de son dernier Cantique parce que c'est une preuve demonstrative pour faire voir que Mr. Mall appelle probable la chose du monde la plus visiblement fausse c. l. 1. c. 4. p. 55. As for the Books of the New Testament there is no question save of two only the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews but that they were all written in Greek which was then the most Vulgar Language in the World there being no other Tongue at that time understood by so many People And whereas it is objected that the Latin was the Vulgar Tongue of the Romans to whom notwithstanding St. Paul wrote in Greek The answer is easy That the Greek Tongue was at that time more generally underderstood and used at Rome it self It was more known to the Strangers there and particularly to the Jews whom the Apostle had in his Epistle a special regard to who were well acquainted with the Greek but for the most part ignorant of the Latin Tongue d Grot. Annot in Evang. S. Marci Epist ad Heb. And for the Romans themselves scarce any could be found no not among their Women who did not understand it In such common use was it that as Mr. Arnaud observes they taught it even their Parrots e De la Lect. c. l. 2. c. 13. If St. Matthew's Gospel was written at first in Hebrew as many of the Ancients affirm by Hebrew they meant that which was then the Vulgar Language of the Jews who dwelt at Jerusalem for whose sake his Gospel was primarily written This is asserted by such great Authorities in the Church of Rome as one would think no Romanist should reject particularly by Estius and Bellarmin I shall recite Bellarmin's Words and for brevity sake refer the Reader to Estius f Est Proleg in Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos super hac quaestione Qua lingua scripta sit Epist ad Hebraeos It is very probable says the Cardinal that the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syriac Tongue for Albertus Widmestadius and Guido Fabritius have proved it by the most convincing Arguments Neither do the ancient Writers Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Jerom who say these Books especially the Gospel of St. Matthew were written in Hebrew contradict these for they speak of that Hebrew which was the Vulgar Tongue in the time of the Apostles even as in the Gospel it self we frequently read that a thing was so call'd in the Hebrew when it is manifest that was so call'd in the Syriac For instance He went forth into a place call'd the place of a Scull which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha whereas Golgotha is not a proper Hebrew but a Syriac word g Bell. de Verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. Add to this That Eusebius says expresly that St. Matthew writ his Gospel in his Country Language and the reason he gives for it necessarily required that he should do so h Euseb Hist Ecclesiast l. 3. For the Epistle to the Hebrews it matters not whether it was originally written in Greek or Syriac because both these Languages were then generally understood by the Hebrews Tho Estius has produc'd such Arguments as will not easily be answered to prove that it was at first written in Greek To conclude this Argument Since God caused the Scriptures to be at first written in a Language the Vulgar were acquainted with who can be so sensless as to imagine that is was not his pleasure that the vulgar should read them 2. God at first addressed the Holy Scriptures to the Vulgar as well as to others I have written to him saith God the great Things of my Law i Hos 8. 12. Who was he to whom he had written them The Verse foregoing told us it was Ephraim who is there put for the whole Body of the Israelites The first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is directed to all that in every Place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus The second to the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Acaia For the rest of the Epistles I refer the Reader to the Discourse quoted in the Margin (k) The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Now can any Man who has not quite lost his Understanding suppose that God would not have these Epistles read by those Persons to whom they were written There are those Persons I know who pretend to think so who tell us That though St. Paul directed his Epistles to all Christians in general yet his intention was that the Pastors of the Church only should read them But can any thing be said more absurdly Are not those Epistles he designed for the Pastors directed to them alone as his Epistles to Timothy and Titus Why then should he direct his other Epistles to all the Saints but that it was his intention that they all should be made acquainted with them When his Epistle to the Philippians is directed to ALL the Saints at
I mean the Arguments by which the People were stirred up to rebel were transcribed from Popish Writers particularly from Mariana and Parsons out of whom he may see in some Books then published whole leaves together translated And therefore 5. The Divisions among the Vulgar are very rarely in comparison owing to themselves they are not to be imputed to the different Senses which they themselves in their private reading put upon the Bible but for the most part to the different Senses they receive of it from their Teachers For the truth of which I appeal to History and to the common Observation of Mankind If the Representer be not satisfied with this I desire him to answer but this one Question Whence came it to pass that so many of the Vulgar in England France Germany the Netherlands c. divided themselves from the Church of Rome before they had the Bible in a Language they understood That Division could not proceed from their reading of the Bible which was made before they had ever read it I cannot imagine what Answer he can give but that they followed their Leaders Wickliff Luther Zuinglius c. who first dividing from the Church of Rome drew the People after them The Division therefore took its Rise from the Learned and from them descended to the Ignorant The Trent Fathers therefore were miserably mistaken in denying the Bible to the Laity only they should have decreed in the first place that no Clergy-man should be suffer'd to read it that there might be like People like Priest And this the more prudent Bishops at Bononia were aware of when they advised Julius III not to permit any Mortal to read more of the Gospel than that little which is contained in the Mass (e) Consil de Rom. Eccles stabiliend apud Vergerium Tom. 1. I need say no more to expose the Falshood of this Assertion That the Divisions among Christians proceed solely or chiefly from permitting the Bible among the Vulgar But 2. If this were true yet it would not be a sufficient Reason for denying the reading of the Bible to the Vulgar For if it were so now it would have been so heretofore it would have been so in the early Ages of the Christian Church when there were as many Sects and Heresies as there are now It would have been so in the Time of the Apostles for in almost every Church planted by them Divisions presently sprang up It would have been so in the Jewish Church for they had their Sects as well as the Christians yea it would have been so from the very beginning when the Scripture was first publish'd But when the Bible was first written had this been a sufficient Reason would God have caused it to be written in the Vulgar Language of that People to whom it was given and laid his Command upon all without distinction to apply themselves to the study of it And in the succeeding Ages of the Jewish Church yea after the Babylonian Captivity tho some new Sects then sprang up among them so far was it from being thought a Reason why they should not read the Law that by the Laws of that Nation every Man was obliged to write a Copy of the Law for himself with his own hand And if the Case had been alter'd in the days of our Saviour would he not have told us Would he never have reproved the prying Multitude as the Representer is pleased to complement the People for reading the Law and the Prophets Nay would he have put them upon the reading of them as he plainly does as oft as in his Discourses to the People he quotes them for the proof of what he says And had his Apostles after him thought this a fit Expedient either for the Prevention or Cure of Divisions when they wrote their Epistles to those Churches in which Divisions were already sown as the Churches of Corinth and Colosse would they have addressed them to all without exception and exhorted all that the Word of God dwell in them richly And when in succeeding Ages the Church was miserably rent with Schisms do any of the Fathers prescribe this Remedy Nay tho St. Jerome St. Austin St. Chrysostom c. sadly complain of the abuse of Scripture by Hereticks yet do they not exhort all sorts of Persons to read it In a word The Church of Rome it self did not think this a fit Expedient till it was so changed from what it was in the beginning that if St. Peter and St. Paul should have been raised again from the Dead they would not have owned it for that Church which they at first planted I have I think said more than enough to the first Mischief II. The second which he gives as the main Reason Mischief II. why the Holy Scripture is not allow'd to the Vulgar of his Church without exception is this That if this be allow'd there will be as many different Bibles among them as there are Heads (f) Chap. 8. p. 54. that is The words of the Bible will be understood by them in as many different senses as there are Men For he thus explains himself Tho the Book of the Scriptures does certainly contain the Word of God yet to every Christian that reads it 't is the Sense and Meaning and not the Letter is more properly the Word of God. Now do You but reflect in how many different Senses the Letter of the Bible is understood and so many different Bibles will you find multiply'd by your Followers And tell me upon examination whether this be much fewer than Heads g P. 54. So wonderfully pleased is he with this Conceit that he presently falls into a fit of Raillery Don't you think there would be a pretty variety of Bibles there would be this Man's Bible and that Man's Bible such an one's Bible and such an one's Bible infinite number of Bibles But I fear I shall quickly spoil his mirth I shall not insist upon it That every difference in sense makes not a difference of Bibles as long as there is an agreement in all things material in those Points which by all the differing Parties are acknowledged sufficient to Salvation I need not beg this because they themselves are forc'd to assert it in their own defence For they acknowledg that the Vulgar Latin Translation of the Bible differs in many places from the Original That before Pope Clement's Edition there were many various Readings That the Bibles set forth by Sixtus and Clement are different each from other in many Places and yet they say they are not to be reckoned different Bibles because they do not differ in any thing material to the Faith. This being premised I return to his Argument which in short is this If the Holy Scriptures should be generally allow'd to the Vulgar without exception they will every one understand them in a different sense h Ibid. Therefore they ought not to be thus allow'd Now in that