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
of those inestimable Benefits they would receive thereby f Serm. 24. de diversis Thus I have shew'd the practice of the Christian Church to the twelfth Age not from the Testimonies of obscure and suspected Authors but of Men famous in their Generations and whose Names are held in great veneration in the Church of Rome Which I have the rather done because some Persons have had the confidence to bear the World in hand that in the Primitive Church a restraint was laid upon the reading of the Scripture An Assertion so manifestly untrue that we need desire no clearer Proofs of the contrary than those two or three Passages out of the Ancients they produce for it If the Reader desire to know when and upon what occasion this Liberty was first taken from Lay-men I 'll now tell him The first Synodical Prohibition was that of the Synod of Tholouse in the Year 1228 in these words We forbid that Lay-men be permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament unless perhaps some one out of Devotion desire to have the Psalter or Breviary for Divine Offices and the Hours of the Blessed Virgin but even those now mentioned they may not have translated in the vulgar Tongue g Prohibemus etiam ne Libros Veteris Novi Testamenti Laici permittantur habere nisi forte Psalterium aut Breviarium pro Divinis Officiis ac horas Beatae Virginis aliquis ex devotione habere velit Sed ne prâ— libros habeant in vulgari Translatos D'Achetii Tom. 2. p. 624. The special occasion of this Decree was the preaching of the VValdenses who taught that in Articles of Faith the Holy Scripture was the Rule by which Men were to judg that whatsoever was not agreeable to the Word of God ought to be rejected That the reading and knowledg of the Scripture was free and necessary to all Men both Laity and Clergy * Cent. 12. Ecclesiast Hist c. 8. By this time the Church of Rome had gotten such a new Faith as would not abide the old Test and therefore it was prudently done to deprive the People of the Scripture that they might not be able to discover those Errors into which they led them CHAP. III. LET us now see what the Representer offers to justify this Practice of the present Church of Rome so manifestly repugnant to Scripture to Reason and to the ancient Practice of the Church of Rome it self yea of the whole Christian Church throughout the World. Surely they must be very weighty Reasons or else they will never bear down so great a weight as lies in the other Scale against them Does he shew that God hath retracted his first Grant That he hath repealed his old Law and established one quite contrary in the room of it Does he shew That the Reason of the Thing is changed So that if the Primitive Fathers were alive again they would now with as much earnestness dissuade Lay-men from reading the Scripture as they formerly exhorted them to it Had he done thus he had spoken to the purpose But alas we find nothing of this nor any thing like it What then are his Reasons You shall now hear And I shall endeavour to represent them to the best advantage without abating one grain of their just weight They are all reducible to this one general Head viz. The Mischiefs that arise from the promiscuous reading of the Scripture several of which he mentions and insists upon and then acquaints us with the Reasons as he supposes of those Mischiefs That therefore my Discourse upon them may be the more clear and distinct I shall divide it into these three parts 1. I shall consider the General Reason 2. The Particulars he insists upon 3. The Reasons he gives why these Mischiefs flow from the free reading of the Bible SECT I. The general Reason he gives of this Restraint is The Mischiess that arise from the promiscuous reading of the Bible since these and infinite other Mischiefs arise from the free permitting the Bible among the Multitude He viz. the Papist thinks it commendable in his Church out of a true solicitude for the Salvation of Souls to prevent those Evils by teaching the true sense of this Sacred Volume without leaving the Book to be scann'd by them as they please and so not permitting them to turn the Food of their Souls into Poison or abuse that to their Destruction which was ordain'd by Christ for their gaining of Heaven (h) Chap. 7. p. 52. But if out of pure kindness to the Souls of the Vulgar they take away this dangerous Book from them Why do they give them other very perilous Books in the room of it I mean Images which they call Lay-mens Books tho by the Confession of many of their own Writers they are horribly abused by the Vulgar But to pass that This is the Argument they commonly insist upon and tho it hath been wretchedly bafled again and again yet for want of a better it is upon every occasion dress'd up anew and urged with as brisk a Confidence as if it had never before been heard of He says he does sincerely respect honour and reverence the Scripture (i) Chap. 6. p. 44. But methinks he expresses his respect and reverence as untowardly as the Lindians did toward their God Hercules whom they worshipped by throwing Stones at him For what is this but to say that the Bible is the most dangerous Book in the World since a Lay-man cannot read it without danger of being eternally undone by it And if this be to honour and reverence the Scripture I know not what it is to revile it The Representer will say this is a false Inference I shall be glad if he can make that appear for nothing seems to follow more naturally from the Premises He will say he does not impute these Mischiefs to the Scripture it self but to Mens Abuse of it (k) Chap. 7. p. 52. What then the danger is not the less if it be so apt to be abused that scarce any Man can read it who will not so abuse it Let us suppose there are two things the one of which is an excellent Antidote if rightly used but so hard a matter it is so to use it that not one in an hundred can be found to whom it doth not turn to Poyson The other is it self a rank Poyson yet may be so temper'd and taken with that caution that it may become an Antidote Is not now this Antidote however excellent in it self as dangerous as the Poyson But if these Mischiefs proceed meerly from Mens Abuse of Scripture why is it then denied to those who do not thus abuse it For in that he says Such as for the MOST PART are not capable of reading it as they ought have not leave to read it and those that are capable may have IN MOST COVNTRIES leave to read it as they please l Pag. 52. He
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
denied to the Vulgar yet when they are charged with it by Protestants they either take the confidence plainly to deny it or if they own the Charge as the Representer doth they endeavour to put such glosses upon it as to make their denial of the Scripture to be in effect but a better way of granting it For since it is not the words of the Bible but the sense and meaning of the words that is properly the Word of God while they withhold from them the Letter they provide means to acquaint them with the Spirit or the true sense of Scripture and so deliver it to them with much more advantage than People of any other Perswasion have it What others have formerly written for their Vindication in this Matter it is needless now to examine since it is not to be supposed but that the Representer hath said as much to the purpose as any of those who have gone before him I shall therefore confine the ensuing Discourse to what he hath said in his 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters And that it may be the more clear and satisfactory I shall shew these four Things I. What is the Practice of the Church of Rome in this Matter II. That this Practice is plainly contrary to the Will of God to the Reason of the Thing and to the Practice of the Christian Church for more than a thousand Years after Christ III. The insufficiency of those Reasons by which the Representer endeavours to justify it IV. Vindicate those Inferences the Protestants draw from it All that is said by the Representer may I think be reduced to one or other of these Heads CHAP. I. THough some may think it needless to insist upon the first of these since what the Protestants charge the Church of Rome with in this Matter is freely enough owned by the Representer himself * Chap. 6. p. 45 46. Chap. 7. p. 52. Chap. 9. p. 57. yet because some of that Communion here in England who for prudential Reasons are not so straitly tied up do confidently deny it it may not be amiss for their information to give some short account of it from better Authority than that of the Representer For which we need go no further than the fourth Rule of the Trent Expurgatory Index which is this Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible be promiscuously permitted in the vulgar Tongue by reason of the rashness of Men more Loss than Profit will thence arise In this Matter let the Judgment of the Bishop or Inquisitor be stood to that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor they may grant the reading of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue translated by Catholick Authors to such as they shall understand can receive no hurt by such reading but increase of Faith and Piety Which Faculty let them have in writing But he that without such Faculty shall presume to read or to have the Bible he may not receive Absolution of his Sins except he first deliver up his Bible to the Ordinary If any Man shall say That this Rule hath not the force of a Law Monsieur de Maire Counsellor Almoner and Preacher to the King of France in a Book published by Authority shall give him an Answer This Rule saith he is founded in Ecclesiastical Right and no Man can transgress it without contradicting that Obedience which he owes to the Church and the Holy See from which it hath received its Confirmation Forasmuch as this Rule was not made but in prosecution of the Decree of the Council of Trent c. no Man can deny but that it hath been approved by the Holy Sea and authorized by the Bulls of Pius IV and Clement VIII who after they had view'd and diligently examin'd it publish'd it to the World with Order that it should be obey'd (b) Enfin je maintiens que cette Regle est fondeé en droict Ecclesiastique et qu' on ne la peut violer sans choquer l'obeïssance qu' l'on doit à l'Eglise c. Le Sanctuaire serme aux Profanes part 3. c. 1. p. 335 336. If says he there be any thing that can hinder this Rule from having the Force of a Law it must be either because it hath not been published or being published hath not been received but neither the one nor the other can be said since it is evident that this is the old Quarrel we have with our Hereticks that this is that which our Church hath always been upbraided with by the Enemies of the Faith this is that which is the Subject of their most outragious Calumnies this is that which hath been acknowledged by 〈◊〉 wise Men that which hath been earnestly maintained by all the Defenders of Catholick Truths c Ce que personne n' ignore ce que tout le monde publie n' y aiant point de creance plus commune ny plus generale parmy les fidels c. Ibid. that which no Person is ignorant of that which the whole World publishes there being no Point of Belief more common nor more general among the Faithful than this of the Prohibition to read the Bible without permission And this Belief so common is says he a certain Proof not only of the publication but of the reception of this Rule It cannot be denied but that it hath been received by all those Nations by which the Decrees of Trent were universally received And so they were as Pallavicino tells us d Pallav. l. 24. c. 9 11 12 13. in Italy Spain Sicily Portugal Poland the greater part of Germany and many other Countries But suppose this Rule were not received as imposed by the Council of Trent yet in all Popish Countries they have made it a Law to themselves It is not indeed observed in France upon the Authority of the Council but they have set it up and established it as a Law by their own Authority as is manifest by the Mandates of their Archbishops and Bishops the Decrees of their Provincial Councils and the Edicts and Arrests of their Kings and Parliaments e La Bible Deffendue au Vulgaire Part. 3. c. 1 4. Collectio Auctor Versiones Vulg. damnant It is true there is a little more latitude in France for granting a Licence for not only the Bishop and his Vicar-General but the Penitentiary or a Man 's own Parish Priest may grant it f Mandeuent de Monseigneur L' Archevesque de Paris portant defense de lire la Bible en Langue Vulgaire sans permission Fait le 2 Septembre 1650. But then to make an amends for this in other Countries the Rule is made stricter than it was at first by the Trent Fathers for that does not forbid the Vulgar Bible but only the reading it without a Licence whereas the 5th Rule of the Spanish Index prohibits the Bibles themselves in the Vulgar Tongue and all Parts of them too and that not
only Printed but in Manuscript g Prohibentur Biblia lingua vulgari extantia cum omnibus earum partibus impressis aut Manuscriptis pariter summaria compendia quamvis historica eorundam Bibliorum aut librorum sacrae Scripturae idiomate aut lingua vulgari And Alfonsus de Castro tells us That Ferdinand King of Spain forbad any Man under the heaviest Penalties to translate the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue or to keep any Bible in his Hands already translated h Alfons de Castro advers Haeres l. 1. c. 13. And in the Index of Pope Alexander VII not only those Bibles that are translated and printed by Hereticks but all Bibles in any Vulgar Tongue are prohibited i Biblia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta Yea so careful are the Clergy in most Popish Countries to keep the Laity from the Knowledg of the Scriptures that as Sir Edwin Sandys relates in their very Sermons tho they preach for the most part on the Gospel of the Day yet they do not read or otherwise recite the Text but discourse only on such Points of it as they think fittest that no sound of Scripture may possess the People I say in most Popish Countries because the use of France as he says is otherwise k Sandys's Europae Speculum p. 126 127. It would be therefore ridiculous in Spain to talk of a Licence because the Bible it self is not there permitted in the Vulgar Tongue And all that is permitted in other Countries where the Church of Rome bears sway without controul is that a Man may read the Holy Scripture in case he can get a Licence for it But now to whom may this Licence be granted What to all Men indifferently who ask it No but to those only who they know can receive no hurt but encrease of Faith and Piety thereby (l) Quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione non damnum sed fidei atque Pietatis augmentum capere posse That is as the Representer expresses it Those who are not in danger of preferring their own Sense before that which they receive from their Pastors and the Church (m) Chap. 7. p. 52. And may it not be presumed that these Men will never so much as ask it For to what purpose should they desire to read the Scriptures who are already resolved right or wrong to believe as the Priest bids them Yea so far are they from desiring it that they reckon it a Mortal Sin. And should others presume to ask it it would be denied them because they cannot so much as ask it but they will be suspected to be of the number of those Persons who are in the greatest danger of receiving hurt by it So that upon the whole Matter the great noise they make of Licences is but a meer Sham since those of the Vulgar who might perhaps obtain them are never likely to ask them and those who will be most forward to ask them will never be able to obtain them And that it was indeed a Device of the Clergy to get the Bible again out of the Hands of the People among whom it was then dispersed is plain enough because whosoever had got a Bible and had not a Licence he might not receive Absolution of his Sins unless he first delivered up his Bible to the Ordinary And having thus got the Bible again into their own keeping that they designed as much as possible to keep it for the future out of the Hands of the People is further manifest from the addition made to this Rule by Pope Clement VIII upon the new Impression of it viz. That by this Impression or Edition no new Faculty is given to Bishops or Inquisitors or any Superiors of Regulars to grant a Licence of buying reading or retaining the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue since hitherto by the command and usage of the Holy Roman and Vniversal Inquisition that Faculty of granting such Licences of reading or retaining the Vulgar Bibles or any parts of the Holy Scriptures as well of the New as the Old Testament in any Vulgar Tongue hath been taken from them Which says he is to be inviolably observed (n) Observat Clement VIII circa Reg. quartam Trid. If then this Power formerly given of granting Licences be taken away and no new Power of granting them given it necessarily follows That there is now no such thing in being as a Power of granting Licences Or had there been any such Power before this new Impression of the Rule was made yet it was then taken away by the Pope in decreeing That the Command and Practice of the Roman Inquisition was to be inviolably observed And lest some perhaps might presume to read the Bible notwithstanding the Penalty threatned to them that do so to give check as much as might be to such Presumption the Booksellers who shall sell them to such Persons besides the loss of the price of the Books are liable to be punished at the Bishop's Pleasure It would be now superfluous to produce Cardinal Bellarmin Sixtus Senensis Stapleton Gretser Ledesna Azorius or any other great Names in the Church of Rome as Witnesses of this Practice I shall therefore conclude with a brief Recollection of what hath been delivered First In the Pope's or the King of Spain's Dominions no Vulgar Translation of the Bible is allowed nor any Parcels or Summaries of the Bible or of the Stories thereof 2dly In those Countries where the Vulgar Bible is not absolutely prohibited no Man is allowed to read it without a Licence 3dly This Licence must be granted by the Bishop or Inquisitor only though by the Custom of France it may be granted by the Penitentiary or Curat 4thly It may not be granted by them to all Persons who desire it but to those only of whom they shall understand that they can receive no hurt by reading it That is those of whom they are so secure that they think there is no fear of losing them and few or none of these will ever desire it So that all this talk of granting leave to read the Bible amounts to no more than this That those who desire it shall for the most part be denied it Even the Mareschal of Chastres's Lady notwithstanding her great Quality and Piety could not without much difficulty get a Licence from the Arch-Bishop of Sens. Nor could she by any Means procure it for the whole Bible but for some certain Books only (o) Le Sanctuaire fermè aux Profames p. 339. CHAP. II. THat it is contrary to the Will of God contrary to Reason yea contrary to the Practice of the Christian Church for more than a thousand Years after Christ not to permit the free use of the Holy Scripture to the Vulgar SECT I. That it is the Will of God That the Vulgar should have the free use of the Scripture omitting many other Arguments these three alone may suffice to prove 1. That
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
he says generally and without exception He supposes That if they be allow'd to the Vulgar not generally but with an Exception they to whom they are so allow'd will not make them so many different Bibles From whence it plainly follows That if they should be allow'd to all without exception yet many of that all will understand them in the same sense which overthrows his universal Conclusion viz. That there will be as many different Bibles as Heads But I pass this Nor shall I stay to shew First That the Antecedent is notoriously untrue Secondly That if it were true yet the same Mischief will follow if the Vulgar be taught the Bible by their Pastors as he says they are in the Church of Rome because they may put as many different Interpretations upon their words as upon the words of the Bible But shall content my self to return these three things in answer to the Argument which will sufficiently expose its absurdity First That it is of equal force against the reading of the Bible by the Learned yea of much greater The Reason is plain because the Learned are those especially who expound the Bible to different Senses The most zealous Papist if he please to follow the Representer's Direction shall find this as evident as Demonstration Let him first ask twenty Lay-men what is the meaning of such a Text and write down each Man's sense at length as he delivers it in one Column Then let him consult twenty of the most learned Popish Commentators upon the same Text and write down what each of them says in another then let him compare all the Lay-men senses together and observe all the differences that are between them Let him then compare all the Learned Commentators senses together and observe likewise all the Differences between them then let him compare the Differences between the Vulgar with those between the Learned and if he find not the former fewer and less material than the later I shall own that I am mistaken I add That if the Understanding some places of Scripture in a different sense makes different Bibles then St. Cyprian and St. Stephen St. Austin and St. Jerome St. Cyril and Theodoret yea all the Learned Fathers of the Primitive Church had different Bibles and therefore if this Argument signify any thing ought not to have been suffered to read the Scripture The absurdity of which will yet be more manifest because Secondly Where the Vulgar are not permitted to read the Bible there are as many different Bibles in the Representer's sense as where they are Even in the Church of Rome there are as many I may truly say many more than among the Protestants The Thomists have one Bible the Scotists another the Franciscans one the Dominicans another the Jesuits one the Jansenists another The Scotists Bible teaches that Original Sin is nothing but the Privation of Original Righteousness the Thomists Bible teaches it is more The Franciscans find in their Bible the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the Dominicans find no such Matter in theirs The Jansenists Bible gives to God alone the praise of Converting Grace the Jesuits Bible gives it to God and themselves too In many of their Bibles Transubstantiation is as legible as these words This is my Body in many others no such Doctrine appears Yea the very Popes themselves in spite of their Infallibility have Bibles not only different but plainly contradictory Pope Gregory's I. Bible taught him that the Emperor was his Lord Pope Gregory's VII that the Emperor was his Vassal Yea some of their Bibles have taught them to be downright Hereticks so did Pope Honorius's and John's XXIII And which is yet worse not only their Popes but their Councils too have had different Bibles as might be shew'd at large if it were needful Yea if that be true which a great Cardinal has affirmed That the Precepts of Christ may be changed by the Church and at one time be interpreted to this sense and at another time to that i Card. Cusan Epist 2. de usu Communionis ad Bohem. Then the Church of Rome may every Age or every year have a different Bible And whereas the Representer grants that the Protestants have all the same Bible in their hands tho it be different in their Heads Those of the Church of Rome have in their Hands in one Age one Bible in another Age another In this and the Age next foregoing the Books of the Maccabees have been part of the Bible in their Hands which certainly were not so in the Age of Gregory the Great k Greg. Moral Expos in Job l. 19. c. 17. I further add That their agreement about the sense of the Council of Trent is as little as about the sense of the Scripture Soto's Council of Trent and Catharinus's Council of Trent Bellarmin's Council of Trent and the Bishop of Meaux's Council of Trent are so far from being the same that they are in many things directly opposite And therefore 3. To retort the Argument How shamefully does the Representer delude the poor Vulgar in perswading them that tho they do not read the Bible yet the very same Word of God is delivered to them by their Teachers whereas when it comes to be examined it is not the Word of God but their Teachers Imaginations they are guided by To convince him of this by his own experiment Let him take all the different senses their Teachers put upon the Scripture and carry them to any Licenser of his own Church in order to be printed and published as the Word of God and Rule of Faith and see if he can find any who will set them forward with an Imprimatur What an Vnchristian Imposture is it then to let so many poor Souls go on with a secure confidence of following the Word of God when what they follow is nothing better than the Imaginations and Dreams of their Priests Let now the Representer judg to whose shame the Droll is exposed and if he please let him still go on to upbraid the Protestants with their different Bibles III. But the Representer will go farther with us For Mischief III. 't is not only thus says he in several People but even the same Person many times has the faculty of multiplying the Word of God. For how many are there to be found among the Vulgar who according to their different humours as their Interest changes according to the different Impressions they receive from Confidents especially such as have gained their good Opinion espouse different Doctrines and Perswasions and run thorough as many Sects as there are Divisions in the Nation And yet in all their windings they follow as they imagine the Scripture Don't you see how to these same Persons the Word of God is not always the same It alters according to Seasons and Times and it was one Word of God directed them the last year another this c. Now suppose all this to