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
often divided among themselves and their Definitions plainly contradictory one to another Witness Pope Gregory I and Pope Boniface III. The former condem'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop as abominable and Antichristian z Lib. 4. Epist 32 33 36 38. the later ambitiously affected and obtain'd it from the Tyrant Phocas a Plat. in vit Bonifacii III. Sabellic Ennead 8. l. 6. Pope Innocent I. held the Eucharist was necessary for Infants b Aug. Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Binii Concil Tom. 1. p. 769. Pope Pius IV. denounced an Anathema against those that held it c Conc. Trid. Sess 21. Can. 4. And certainly neither do these Divisions take their Rise from the reading of the Bible by the common People 3. The Learned Romanists are divided among themselves in all those Points of Doctrine in which they are divided from Protestants I shall instance in some viz. The Popes Infallibility and Vniversal Pastorship his Power over Princes and Dominion in Temporals the Canon of Scripture and Traditions of the Church the Sacrifice of the Mass and Communion in one kind the Worship of Images and Invocation of Saints the Doctrines of Purgatory and Indulgences to which I shall add but one more viz. Transubstantiation Tho they seem pretty well agreed to burn or hang those that deny it yet there is not one question about it in which they are at an agreement among themselves To borrow the Words of a learned Bishop of the Church of Ireland No sooner says he was this fatal Sentence given he means the Definition of Transubstantiation in the Lateran Council but as if Pandora's Box had been newly set wide open whole swarms of noisom Questions and Debates did fill the Schools Then it began to be disputed by what means this Change comes whether by the Benediction of the Elements or by the repetition of those Words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY Then was the Question started what the demonstrative Pronoun HOC signifies in these Words THIS IS MY BODY Whether this thing or this Substance or this Bread or this Body or this Meat or these Accidents or that which is contain'd under these Species or this Individuum vagum or lastly which seems stranger than all the rest this nothing c. Then it began to be argued whether the Elements were annihilated Whether the Matter and Form of them being destroyed their Essence did yet remain Or the Essence being converted the Existence remain'd Then the Schoolmen began to wrangle what manner of Change this was Whether a material Change or a formal Change or a Change of the whole Substance both Matter and Form And if it were a Conversion of the whole Substance then whether it was by way of Production or by Adduction c. (d) Bp. Bramh. Answ to the Epist of M. de la Militiere This is only a short taste of what the Reader may find in the Book quoted in the Margin Nor do they only quarrel about the Manner but some of their greatest Men do not believe and others plainly deny the Article it self as any one may see who will but take the pains to consult the learned Preface to a Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points c. and a Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation It is probable that if all the Disputes upon all Points controverted among Protestants were put together they would not amount to a greater number than those of the Papists in this one Article To conclude this Let any Learned Romanist tell me what his Judgment is in any one Point controverted between them and us and I will engage upon short warning to produce another Learned Romanist who shall contradict him And are not Men so entirely united in Judgment among themselves excellently qualified to upbraid Protestants with their Divisions 4. In that he says To such Readers as St. Peter calls Vnwary and Ignorant Arianism may be as obvious in this Book as Christ's Divinity It is a sign that he expected no other than such unwary and ignorant Readers For he must be ignorant indeed in these Matters who does not know That not the Ignorant but the Learned not the Laity but the Clergy were the Persons to whom Arianism was in this Book so obvious Witness the Councils of Sirmium of Milan and Ariminum I need not tell him That one or two of the Bishops of Rome either grosly dissembled or Arianism was for a time more obvious to them in this Book than Christ's Divinity And whereas he says That when such an one viz. one that is Unwary and Ignorant undertakes the interpreting of this Book 't is a hazard whether in the end he comes out Quaker Anabaptist Presbyterian Independent Muggletonian Socinian or Atheist He had spoken nearer the Truth if he had said When such an one takes this Book as interpreted to him by a Popish Priest or Jesuit in the disguise of a Quaker Anabaptist c. We know who have been imploy'd to sow and foment Divisions among us to draw our People into separated Meetings upon the pretence of a more pure and spiritual way of Worship We can tell him of great numbers instructed in Handy-craft Trades trained up to dispute one for Presbytery another for Independency a third for Anabaptism sent over hither by order from Rome so that when the deluded People have thought they had heard a gifted Tradesman they have heard a Romish Priest in that disguise We can acquaint him with those who have been detected exercising their Talents in several sorts of Meetings But that which follows is most surprising That it is a venture whether Cruelty cutting of Throats Oppression Tyranny dethroning of Kings murder of Princes shall not with him viz. the ignorant Reader become a necessary Duty and a true serving of the Lord. This I say is most surprising and doubtless he rubb'd his forehead hard before he wrote it since he knows That all these have for some hundreds of Years been taught and practised by the greatest Men of his own Church and therefore it is not a venture but beyond all peradventure that when Place and Time serve they will be so again He well knows what the great Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius Perron c. What the Learned Jesuits Suarez Lessius Azorius c. What his own Country-men Cardinal Allen Father Parsons Creswel c. have written for the deposing and murdering of Kings He knows what Pope Gregory VII Gregory IX Innocent III Innocent IV Boniface VIII Paul III Pius V Sixtus V Gregory XIII have not only taught but acted in pursuance of these Doctrines He knows there was a Holy League among those who had not the Bible in their Banners as well as a Solemn League and Covenant among those who had And he knows or at least may soon know if he please That the chief Weapons of the Rebellion in Forty two were setch'd from Rome
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
by him he says there are infinite other p Pag. 52. Those infinite other I can say nothing to because I know not what they are If he please to tell us some of them for we cannot expect he should ennumerate all because they are infinite they shall be considered All those he is pleased to mention are of the same kind viz. the Divisions that are among Christians from the different Senses they put upon the Scripture thereby making as many Bibles as there are Men. The unhappy Divisions says he which are among Christians sufficiently inform him that to such Readers as St. Peter calls unwary and ignorant how ever wise they may think themselves Arianism may be as obvious in this Book as Christ's Divinity and that when such an one undertakes the interpretation of it 't is an hazard whether at the end he comes out Quaker Anabaptist Presbyterian Independent Muggletonian Socinian or Atheist 'T is a venture whether the Trinity shall have place in his Creed or no Whether he 'll allow of Baptism or any Sacrament and whether Cruelty cutting of Throats Oppression Tyranny Dethroning of Kings and Murder of Princes shall not with him become a necessary Duty and a true serving of the Lord c. q Pag. 52. And in another place the Reason he gives why the Holy Scriptures are not generally allowed to the Vulgar is this That there may not be as many different Bibles among them as there are Heads r Pag. 54. Which is in effect the same with the former And in a third That it is not only thus in SEVERAL PEOPLE but even the SAME PERSON many times hath the faculty of multiplying the Word of God s Chap. 9. pag. 57. That is by reading the Scriptures Men are not only divided one from another but the same Person is at different times divided from himself by putting one Sense upon them at one time and another at another I shall observe one thing by the way before I come to expose the Folly of this way of Reasoning Had not this Gentleman vainly presumed that the Vulgar of our Communion are as ignorant as those of his own in other Countries he would not have laid so great stress upon these Words of St. Peter the unlearned and unstable and repeated them thrice within the compass of one half Sheet tho perhaps for a disguise in the words now cited he puts unwary and ignorant instead of unlearned and unstable since they are so far from proving what he designs that they are a fair Argument for the contrary For as I before observed could the unlearned have wrested the Scriptures had they not read them And if because they wrested them they were to be forbidden to read them would not the Apostle when the matter requir'd it have told them so and given this in charge to the Pastors of the Church Had he been of the same judgment with his Successors at Rome for the last three or four hundred years was it possible he should have forgotten this I appeal to the Representer's own Conscience Does he think it was St. Peter's intention that this Epistle of his should not be read by those to whom he wrote it If not he intended it should be read by the Vulgar for 't is certain it was written to such I shall now proceed to the particular consideration of these Mischiefs Which tho all as I said before of the same kind yet because to make the greater shew the Representer hath put them into a different dress of words and discoursed of them apart in three several Chapters t Chap. 7. 8 9. lest I should be thought to wave any thing material to his purpose I shall also speak to them severally and they are these I. The many Divisions that are among Christians u Chap. 7. p. 52. II. As many different Bibles as there are different Heads w Chap. 8. p. 54. III. Not only several People but even the same Person many times has the faculty of multiplying the Word of God x Chap. 9. p. 57. Mischief I. I. Having just before spoken of the many unhappy Divisions among Christians he says That these and infinite other Mischiefs arise from the free permitting the Bible among the Multitude y Pag. 52. Now if he speaks to the purpose his meaning must of necessity be That all these many unhappy Divisions arise from this cause only or at least from this cause principally And therefore no more is here needful than to discover the falseness of this Assertion However I shall be more liberal and shew these two things 1. That what is here affirm'd is notoriously false 2. That in case it were true it would not be of force to infer the Conclusion viz. That the reading of the Bible ought to be denied to the Vulgar First It is notoriously false That all the unhappy Divisions among Christians take their rise either ONLY or CHIEFLY from the free permitting of the Bible among the Multitude This will be evident by considering these five things 1. That there were Divisions among the Ancient Guides or Pastors of the Church 2. That there have been and still are Divisions yea as many among the Learned of the Church of Rome as among the Protestants 3. That the Learned Romanists are divided among themselves in all those Points in which they are divided from Protestants 4. That those very pernicious Doctrines and Practices which the Representer himself mentions are derived from the Learned and especially from the Learned of the Church of Rome And therefore 5. That the Divisions among the Vulgar for the most part are not owing to themselves but to the Learned 1. There were Divisions among the ancient Guides and Pastors of the Christian Church and in matters of as great moment as those are in which the Protestants are divided As between St. Irenaeus and Victor St. Cyprian and Stephen St. Chrysostom and Theophilus St. Jerom and Ruffinus St. Cyril and Theodoret the Bishops of the Council of Nice and those also of Sardica c. I wish those Divisions and many other among the ancient Bishops were not too well known to need any Proof Now can the Representer say That these Divisions sprang from permitting the Bible to the Multitude I trow not 2. There have been and still are Divisions yea as many among the Learned of the Church of Rome as among the Protestants Almost every Schoolman is the Head of a Sect and the Controversies between the Lutherans and the Calvinists are not so many as between the Thomists and the Scotists The Dissentions between the Regular and Secular Priests have lasted already for some Ages and are likely still to continue so many several Orders so many Sects in Religion you may find among the Regulars and the Remonstrants and Anti-monstrants will as soon unite as the Dominicans with the Jesuits or the Franciscans Yea the Popes themselves the Centre of their Unity are