Imprimatur Apr. 14. 1692. JO. CANT AN ANSWER To a BOOK Spread abroad by the Romish Priests INTITULED THE Touchstone OF THE Reformed Gospel WHEREIN The True DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND and many Texts of the HOLY SCRIPTURE are faithfully Explained By the Right Reverend Father in God SYMON Lord Bishop of ELY LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE READER I Must let the Reader understand that the Book which I answer first appeared in the latter end of the Reign of King James I. under the Name of A Gagg for the New Gospel When it was immediately so exposed to the Scorn of all Men by Mr. R. Mountague afterward Bishop of Chichester and at last of Norwich that for many Years it sculkt and durst not show its head till they imagined that Baffle was forgot and then out it came again in the Reign of King Charles II. as if it had never been seen before with this New Title The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospel And the better to disguise the Cheat they begin the Book with a New Chapter or Section and have quite left out that which was formerly the Last Chapter transposing also the order of some of the rest making Amendments as they imagine in several places and adding several whole Chapters For there were but XLVII Points one of which as I said they now have wholly omitted which they charged upon us and undertook to confute in the First Edition But now they are improved to Two and Fifty and set out as formerly with a long Preface of the very same Stamp with the Book full that is of broad-fac'd Vntruths Of which it may be expected I should here give some account But my Answer to the Book it self is grown so much bigger than I designed that it must be omitted For the great Reason which was urged by those who had power to persuade me to undertake a New Answer to it was because Bishop Mountagu's was so large that few could purchase it And therefore they thought it needful there should be a more Compendious Confutation of the Book though now it be inlarged especially since they found it in every Parish of this great City and in the very Prisons where the Romish-Priests could meet with any entertainment For which Reason the same Persons have persuaded me that what I composed at their desire in the latter end of the late Reign ought now to be published because the Priests of that Church they assure me are still very busie and make account this little Book which I answer will do their business For they put it into the hands of all those whom they hope to make their Proselites and desire them to read it as an unanswerable Piece Let the Reader judge of that when he hath seriously considered what I have said to discover both the weakness and the dishonesty of its Author Who understood neither the Scriptures nor Fathers he quotes or hath so perverted them that as it cost me more time so I have been forced to use more Words than I intended to employ to represent his unskilful or false dealing But I hope I shall neither tire the Reader nor entertain him unprofitably but increase his Knowledge by a right understanding of a considerable part of the Bible and of the Christian Doctrine Especially if he will be pleased to turn to the Texts of Scripture which I have explained but not quoted at length for fear of swelling this Answer into too great a Bulk Febr. 22. 1690. AN ANSWER TO THE TOUCHSTONE OF The Reformed Gospel I. The Protestants he saith affirm That there is not in the Church One and that an Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scriptures and conserving Vnity in matters of Faith Answer THIS Proposition is drawn up deceitfully For neither we maintain this nor they maintain the contrary universally and without limitation No Papist dare say there is one and that an Infallible Rule for understanding all the Holy Scripture For then why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible Why do their Doctors disagree in the interpretation of a thousand places He ought therefore to have said that we hold There is not in the Church one and that an infallible Rule for understanding as much as is necessary to Salvation c. And then he belies us For we believe the Scripture it self gives us infallible Directions for the understanding of its sense in all things necessary which if all would follow there would be Unity in matters of necessary belief But God will not force men to follow those Directions They may err and they may quarrel when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both The Scriptures therefore whereby he proves what he charges upon us must needs be impertinent But it is something strange that in the very first of them he should be so sensless as to give himself the lye For he pretends to refute our errors as his words are by the express words of our own Bibles and immediately puts in a word of his own instead of that in our Bibles which say quite another thing For instead of according to the proportion of faith which are the words of our Translation XII Rom. 6. He says according to the rule of faith What is this but that chopping and changing which he falsly charges us withall in the end of his Preface And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible which he promised to quote expresly but of the sense of that Scripture as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors particularly St. Chrysostom and his Followers XII Rom. 6. who by proportion understand the same with Measure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius one of their own Interpreters and a Jesuit secundum proportionem mensuram Fidei i. e. according to the measure of Vnderstanding and Wisdom which God hath bestowed Now what can you expect from a man who falsifies in this manner at the very first dash In the next Scripture indeed he finds the word Rule III. Philip. 16. III. Phil. 16. and presently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly c. Whereas it is manifest to all who are not blinded with Prejudice that the Apostle supposes in the words before v. 15. they were not all of a mind in some things for there were those among them that believed in Christ who thought the observation of Moses's Law to be necessary also to Salvation which was a dangerous error to mix Legal and Evangelical things together as Theodoret here expounds it but might possibly be cured if Christian Communion were not broken on either side by reason of this difference but every one both the perfect who understood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law and the imperfect who fancied it still lay upon them walked by the same rule c. that is preserved Christian Communion one with another
Scriptures are hard to be understood but that there are some things therein hard to be understood and those things in St. Paul's Epistles The rest of the Scripture notwithstanding this may be easy and the hard places he doth not say are wrested by every body but only by such as are unlearned and unstable Let us but learn and be stedfastly fixed in the Principles of Religion and practice accordingly then we shall not be in that danger but may read the Revelation it self without hazarding our Salvation Nothing will be in danger of Destruction by reading the Scriptures humbly and piously as they themselves teach us to do but only Men's Vices and the Roman Church which it is easy to see in that hard Book The Revelation is doomed in due time unto Destruction For without understanding every particular Passage one may easily see in general with a little help that Rome is there intended and not Pagan Rome but Christian which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State The following Text is like to this which doth not say VIII Acts 30. That the Eunuch could understand nothing in the Scriptures for then he would not have troubled himself to read them but that he could not understand that place of the Prophet which he was reading when Philip met with him Which was obscure to him only in part not in the whole before he was converted to Christianity but is not so to us who enjoy the glorious Light of the Gospel In which there are some things we cannot understand neither with a Guide nor without But other things as I said are so plain that we cannot mistake them unless we do it wilfully Against which there in no help tho we had the most Infallible Guide that ever was The next place speaks not one word of the difficulty of the Scriptures but rather supposes them to be easy enough even in those matters of which Christ was speaking XXIV Luke 25. XXIV Luke 25. if the Apostles had not been then fools and slow of heart Which Names they had not deserved if the Scriptures had been so hard that it was not their fault they could not understand them before he expounded them The things they read there were not in themselves difficult but the Disciples did not at that time sufficiently attend to what was written For if they could not as this Man affirms have understood them I do not see how they could be justly blamed by our Saviour much less so severely reprehended Besides it is to be observed both of this place and the former that they speak of the Prophetical Writings in which there are greater Obscurities than in other Parts of Scriptures and yet even these if they had not been Fools might have been understood without putting our Saviour to the pains of expounding them One would be tempted to think the Man distracted when he set down the next place V. Rev. 1. V. Revel 1. to prove his Position For the sealed Book which the Angel said no man could read was not the Bible but the ensuing Prophecy which our Saviour presently after opened and hath in some measure let us into its meaning I beseech the Reader to mark what a dolt this Man is who makes the Book of Scripture to be shut with so many Seals that even in St. John 's and the Apostles times none could be found either in Heaven or Earth able to open the same or look therein For what is the consequence of this if it be true but that the Bible must be quite thrown away and neither Priest nor Bishop nor Pope nor Council look therein For they cannot be more able than St. John and the rest of the Apostles O that all People would see by what sottish Guides they are led on in darkness If he had thought that heap of Texts which follow would have done him any Service we should have had their words no doubt and not merely the Chapter and Verse but they are set down only for show and the V. Revelat. is reckoned again to make up the Tale. The Holy Fathers are mentioned for no other end their words being so full and so numerous on our side that it would fill a bigger Book than this if I should muster them up Particularly those very Fathers whom he quotes and in the very Books he mentions are of our minds But it is sufficient for the ordinary Reader to observe that at this Man's rate of proving no Body must read the Scriptures no not such as St. Ambrose if the Scriptures be such a Sea as he speaks of a depth of Prophetical Riddles But the truth is St. Ambrose doth not say what this Man makes him speak Not that it is a depth c. but that it hath in it profound Senses and a depth of Prophetical Riddles It hath so and it hath also plain places in it which are not so deep but they may be fathomed by ordinary even by shallow Capacities St. Austin saith nothing contrary to this but must be supposed to know enough tho much less than what he did not know And so must the rest of the Fathers be understood or else the Scripture is good for nothing if even such Men as Dionysius Gregory the Great c. could understand little or nothing of it If what they say be to his purpose it is concerning themselves and not others and therefore they ought to have refrained from reading the Scripture as well as the Vulgar What then will become of the Common People if their greatest Guides could know so little of the Mind of God His last Author he took upon trust or else is an egregious Falsifier For there is nothing to that purpose in the Chapter he quotes L. VII cap. 20. There are words to that effect in the 25th Chapter where Irenaeus writing against those who denied the Revelation of St. John to be a Divine Book saith Tho I do not understand it yet I suppose there is a deeper sense in the Words and not measuring those things nor judging of them by my reasonings but giving more to Faith I esteem them to be higher than to be comprehended by me but I do not reject that which I cannot understand but admire it the more because I am not able to understand it Now with what face could this Man apply that to the whole Scripture which is spoken only of the Book of the Revelation Let the Reader judg by this what honestly he is to expect in other Quotations IV. He makes us say next That Apostolical Traditions and Ancient Customs of the Church not found in the Written Word are not to be received nor do oblige us Answer THIS is a downright Calumny for we have ever owned that Apostolical Traditions if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible are to be received and followed if delivered by them as of necessary Obligation But we do likewise say That we know no such
Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith therefore instead of express words this man tells us by a likeness of reason it is the same in Faith that it is in Sin he who denies one Article denies all We deny none but only their New Articles which are no part of the Ancient Apostolick Catholick Faith IV. Act. 32. The next IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians And that which follows 1 Cor. I. 10. 1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was but what ought to be in the Church For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions as appears by that very Chapter Therefore he is still beside the Book and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us as an Argument we are not the true Believers the Apostle speaks of when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived nor is the Church of Rome or any other Church at such unity but there are various Sects among them He hath little to do who will trouble himself upon the account of such a Scribler as this to consider that heap of Texts which he hath hudled together without any order or any regard to his Point he was to prove What St. Austin also and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity doth not at all concern us who preserve that Unity which they have broken by preserving that One Faith from which they of the Church of Rome have departed For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did but they have another Faith of their own devising This is that wherein we cannot unite with them And all the Unity they brag of is in truth no better than that of the Jews Hereticks and Pagans who as St. Austin * De Verbis Domini Serm. VI. speaks maintain an Vnity against Vnity In this they combine together to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered as insufficient to Salvation Which is a conspiracy in Error rather than unity in the Truth XI That St. Peter was not ordained by Christ the first Head or Chief among the Apostles and that among the Twelve none was greater or lesser than other Answer WE are now come to the great Point which is the support of the whole Roman Cause But he neither knows our Opinion about it nor their own or else dares not own what it is We believe Peter was the first Apostle and that he was a Chief though not the chief Apostle For there were others who were eminent that is Chiefs upon some account or other as well as himself 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief neither we nor those of his own Religion know unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles one over another This is strange language which none understands Peter was first in Order Place Precedence but not in Power Authority and Jurisdiction in these none was greater or lesser than another Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible but most agreeable thereunto For so the Text saith X. Matth. 2. X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Observation to inform us That all the Evangelists when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose put Peter first Which doth not signifie he was the worthiest of them all that no way appears but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called we expresly read and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness it doth not prove his Authority over the rest as he is pleased to improve this Observation in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place for tho he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others they gave him no Superiority in Power but in that every one of them was his equal What follows upon this Text is so frivolous and childish a reasoning it ought to be despised Next he betakes himself to the Rock XVI Matth. 18. mentioned XVI Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again but they harden their hearts against it is not spoken of Peter as this man most impudently contrary to his own Bible makes the words sound but of the Faith which Peter confessed as the general current of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it But if we should by the Rock understand Peter it insinuates no Supremacy much less clearly insinuates it For none but such a man as this to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks would have thought of that at the reading of the word Rock but rather of Firmness Stability or Solidity which the Word plainly enough imports but nothing of Authority Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone with respect to his being the Soveraign and Absolute Pastor of his Church but because of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God Next to those who by Rock understand as I said the Faith which Peter confessed the greatest number of Ancient Expositors understand thereby Christ himself Unto whom this man hath the face to say these words do not agree because he speaks of the time to come I will build as if Christ were not always what he ever was being the same to day yesterday and for ever It is a burning shame as we speak that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors and to write Books which have nothing in them but trifling observations and false allegations For after all should we grant Peter to be the Rock it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so as much as he for the Church was built upon them all on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets II. Ephes 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him not One alone but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jerusalem i. e. the Church of Christ which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord XXI Rev. 14. The next place XVIII Matth. 18. XVIII Matth. 18. is so plain a promise to all the Apostles that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest especially if it be observed that when this Promise was fulfilled they were all equally partakers of it when our Saviour breathed on them and said unto them mark that he breathed on them all and said not to Peter alone but them i. e. the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whos 's soever sins ye retain XX. John 22 23. they are retained c. XX. John 22 23. Now he falls a Reasoning again for alas express Texts fail him but it amounts to no more than this That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place but gave him another name I am sorry for his ignorance that he did not know or for his dishonesty that he would not consider
of Confirmation is not to be used Answer HE knew very well that tho we deny Confirmation to be a Sacrament yet we use it not as a Sacrament nor as absolutely necessary to Salvation for we have declared that children baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved but so necessary unto compleat Communion that we require the Godfathers and Godmothers to bring children baptized to the Bishop to be confirmed by him when they come to years of discretion and we admit none to the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood till they be confirmed or be ready and desirous so to be Now where doth the Scripture say it is a Sacrament There is not a word of it in VIII Acts 14. VIII Acts 14. much less is it there expressly declared and declared to be necessary or so much as to be used by others but only that the Apostles laid their hands on those who were baptized and they received the Holy Ghost which I am sure no body can now communicate in such Gifts as were then bestowed But above all it is to be noted that there is nothing said here of the Chrysm or anointing with holy Oyl in which they make this Sacrament consist but only of laying on of hands unto which they have no regard For thus Confirmation is performed in the Roman Church the Bishop takes sanctified Chrysm as they call it made of Oyl and Balsom and therewith anoints a person baptized with the thumb of his right hand in the form of a Cross upon the forehead which is bound with a fillet on the anointing till it be dry and it is also accompanied with a box on the ear all which is plainly ordered to be done in their publick Office of Confirmation But nothing of laying on of Hands is there mentioned which they deny to be either the matter or the form of this Sacrament tho we read of nothing else but this laying on of hands either here or in what follows A clear Demonstration that this place is expresly against their pretended Sacrament of Confirmation VI. Hebrew 1. is so far from being contrary to our Doctrine that some of their own Authors * Salmero Justinianus think it doth not speak of Confirmation at all but of the Benediction of Catechumens and others and some of our Authors think it doth even Mr. Calvin himself But then it is expresly said to consist in laying on of hands and ought not to be turned into a Sacrament but look'd upon as a solemn Form of Prayer as St. Austin calls it for Youth who being grown beyond Childhood made a Profession of their Faith and thereupon were thus blessed Which pure Institution as Mr. Calvin's words are is to be retained at this day and the Superstition corrected Behold how vilely the Protestant Doctrine is calumniated by such wretched Writers as this who seem not to understand Common Sense For he saith Confirmation is here called not only one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ but a Foundation of Repentance when all but such as himself clearly see that the Apostle here makes the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works to be one of the Principles of Christ's Doctrine as laying on of hands is another He betrays also notorious ignorance or falshood in the Citations of his Fathers to which he sends us For Tertullian plainly speaks of the Vnction which accompanied Baptism in his Country not of a distinct Sacrament from Baptism And Pacianus also mentions it as a solemn Right in the Sacrament of Baptism wherein Children are regenerated So doth St. Cyprian likewise even in that place which he mentions where is no such sense as he dreams For he disputes for the Re-baptizing of Hereticks because it is not enough if hands be laid upon them unless they receive the Baptism of the Church for then they are fully sanctified and made the Children of God if they be born by both Sacraments for it is written Vnless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. This latter part this Man conceals which shows St. Cyprian speaks altogether of Baptism in which there were then Two Rites Washing with Water and Laying on of Hands Which were not Two Sacraments properly but Two parts of the same Sacrament which he calls both the Sacraments of Baptism Just as Hulbertus Carnotensis calls the Body and Blood of Christ in the Communion Two Sacraments which in truth are but one For speaking of three things necessary to Salvation he saith of the Third that in it Two Sacraments of Life that is the Lords Body and his Blood are contained St. Hierom likewise speaks of Laying on of Hands but not as a distinct Sacrament For he earnestly contends in that Book that the Spirit is conferred in Baptism and that there can be no Baptism of the Church without the Spirit I have not taken any notice of St. Ambrose for those Books of the Sacrament which gounder his Name are none of his XXXIX That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord was but a Figure or Remembrance of the Body of Christ received by Faith and not his true and very Body Answer THIS is Fiction and false Representation For we expresly declare in the XXVIII Article of our Religion That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death in so much that to such as rightly worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. And in our Catechism we also declare That the inward and spiritual Grace in this Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper And Mr. Calvin himself saith as much But if we had not been of this mind his first place of Scripture XXII Luke 15. XXII Luk. 15. would have proved nothing against us for it speaks only of eating the Passeover in which he instituted this Sacrament but that followed after Here he speaks only of the Paschal Feast Insomuch that Menochius thus interprets it He most earnestly desired to eat the Paschal Lamb of this year and this day in which the Eucharist was to be instituted and shortly after it was to be shown by his Death how much he loved Mankind whom he so redeemed It was not therefore the Pasche as this Man speaks of his true Body and Blood which our Saviour thus desired to eat This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine who hath a Divinity by himself which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God But St. Peter was a better Divine than he who applies those words of David to our Blessed Saviour My flesh shall rest in hope because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell c. II. Acts 26 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine whether there can be any Hope without Faith which made him confidently expect
Doctrine There are no Papists but confess that the most excellent parts even of the visible Church in this world are invisible or hidden For none but God who searches the heart can know certainly who are truly good men and not hypocrites And there are no Protestants who maintain that they who profess the Christian Religion who are the Church have ever been hidden and invisible But this they say that this Church hath not been always visible free from corruption and that it hath not been at all times alike visible but sometimes more sometimes less conspicuous Now these men by the Visibility of the Church mean such an illustrious state as by its glory splendor and pomp all men may be led to it This is it and no more which Protestants deny And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely but only this degree of it For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible when they met under ground and in obscure places There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes contrary to this much less expresly contrary V. Mat. 14 15. The first of them V. Mat. 14 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office that they might gather a Church to Christ So the before-named Menochius interprets those words Ye are the light of the world who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example You ought not to be hid no more than a City can be which is seated on a hill Men do not light a candle much less God to put it under a Bushel Our Saviour saith he exhorts his Disciples by this similitude that they should diligently shine both in their words and in their example and not be sparing of their pains or of themselves by withdrawing themselves from the work but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine which they could not always neither Preach in publick but some times only in private houses Christians were forced to meet together in some places and times very secretly not being able always to hold such publick visible Assemblies that all men beheld them and what they did The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err XVIII Matth. 17. and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid and this not expresly but by a consequence and that a very sensless one For whoever said or thought that no body can see a Church when it is not visible to every body It 's members no doubt see it even when it is invisible to others Any man may be seen by his Friends when he lies hid from his Enemies And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted and by them that belong to it though strangers perhaps take no notice of it especially those that are at a distance from it In the third place we have mention of the Gospel but not a word of the Church 2 Cor. IV. 3 4. which he puts in such is his honesty contrary to the express words of ours and of all Bibles Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid but expresly supposes it 2 Cor. IV. 3. that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world who shut their eyes against the clearest light even the light of the knowledg of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ One would think this man besides himself when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid when his words are a plain supposition that it was hid to some people Not indeed because they could not for it was visible enough in it self but because they would not see it And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ II. Isa 2. Which was very visible in its beginning when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and by them the Law that is the Christian Doctrine went out of Sion and the word of the Lord that is the Gospel from Jerusalem But did not always continue so when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these which say there shall be an Apostacy from the Faith and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness 2 Thess II. 3. XII Revel 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ particularly VII Dan. 14. VII Dan. 14. they point at a state of his Church which is not yet come and when it doth come will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church Whose present state will be utterly overturned to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished X. Revel 7. XI 15. and that cannot be till Babylon that is Rome be thrown down XVIII Revel 2. XIX 1 2 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was of Christian Truth Righteousness Charity and Peace among men He bids us as his manner is see more in other places But if they had more in them than these we should have had them at length And his Fathers also some light touches of which he gives us just as he found them in a cluster altogether word for word in a Book called The Rule of Faith and the Marks of the Church which was answered above LXXX years ago by Dr. J. White who observes * VVay to the True Church Sect. 23. that when Origen whom upon other occasions they call an Heretick saith The Church is full of VVitnesses from the East to the VVest he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof but of the truth professed therein Which though clear to the World when he said so yet doth not prove it shall be always so for a Cloud of Apostacy might and did afterward obscure it St. Chrysostome doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkned but not so as to be extinguished no more than the Sun can be put out For he could not be so sensless as not to know that it had been for a time eclipsed When St. Austin saith They are blind who see not so great a mountain He speaks against the Donatists who confined the Church to themselves as the Papists now do And he justly calls them blind who
Epist LX. Edit Oxon. and one Voice all the Roman Church hath confessed that is their Faith which the Apostle praised was be come famous as it follows in the next words and while they were thus Unanimous thus Valiant they gave great Examples of Vnanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est They were all stedfast in their Faith which this poor man construes as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholick Church By translating those words thus The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Which he vehemently denied ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons That every mans Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed and commanded those to return home who had appealed to Rome which he shows was most just and reasonable unless the Authority of the Bishops in Africk seem less than the Authority of other Bishops to a few desperate and profligate persons who had already been judged and condemned by them Epist LIX This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius to which I could add a great deal more if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush if they have any shame left who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church St. Austin of whom I must say something lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him and the whole Church of Africk in a Council of Two hundred Bishops made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church and therefore could mean no such thing as this man would have in his Book of the Vnity of the Church Where he saith in the 3d Chapter That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings but out of the Divine Oracles and if the Holy Scriptures have design'd it in Africa alone c. whatsoever other Writings may say the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause and none be the Church but they But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise designing the Church to be spread throughout the World And then he goes on to say Chap. 4. that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head but yet do so dissent those are his words which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously from his Body which is the Church that their Communion is not with the whole Body wheresoever it is diffused but is found in some part separated it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church than of any other part of the Catholick Church and in truth makes them like the Donatists since their Communion is not with the whole Body which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion but they are found in a part of it seperated by themselves The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin I assure the Reader is as much besides the matter and therefore I will not trouble him with it And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom in his Apology against Ruffinus But this I find L 3. the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle viz. I. Rom. 8. admits not such deceit and delusion into it c. Where it is to be noted That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle is one thing and the Roman Church another And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time was certainly most pure but who shall secure us it is so now If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so we should not believe it because it is not what they then believed nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time but much altered in many Points And suppose St. Hierom had told us It is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholick Faith it must be meant of the then Roman Faith and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith No nor more than is said for thus Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople writes in an Epistle * Council of Ephes p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome We also have obtained the name of New Rome and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith the Prophets and Apostles mark that he doth not say on the Roman Church whâ—re Christ our Saviour and God is the Corner-stone are in the matter of faith nothing behind the elder Romans For in the Church of God there is none to be reckoned or numbred before the rest †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also c. i. e. if he were alive Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City as he had theirs at Old Rome for we as well as they following his Doctrine and Institutions wherein we are rooted are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith wherein we stand and rejoice c. X. The Reformers he saith hold That the Church's Vnity is not necessary in all points of Faith Answer THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes where he saith IV. Ephes 5. there is One Faith Which we believe is necessary to make One Church every part of which blessed be God at this very day is baptized into that one and the same Faith and no other contained in the common Creed of Christians called the Apostles Creed Therefore so far Church Vnity is still preserved But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith Nor should the Differences which may be among Christians about such matters break Unity of Communion And if they do those Churches which are thus broken and divided by not having external communion one with another may notwithstanding still remain both of them Members of the same one Catholick Church because they still retain the same one Catholick Faith Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time and the African and Roman in Stephen's time differed in external Communion and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ This is more than I need have said in answer to him but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies not our Opinions We believe as the Apostle teaches us IV. Ephes 5. IV. Ephes 5. and from thence conclude That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith truly so called that is all things necessary to be believed Nor do we differ in any such things and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church II. Jam. 10. The second
found in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. L. V. cap. 30. Latin for saith he They are Latins who now Reign but we will not Glory in this For it being the Common Opinion of the Church the Latin i. e. Roman Empire was that which hindred the appearance of Antichrist Irenaeus might thence conclude that Antichrist should reign in the Seat of that Latine Empire when it was faln And Antichrist not being as I have proved a particular Man this Number must be common unto all that make up that Antichristian Rule in the Roman Church In which the Popes are all Latins and they are distinguished from the Greeks by the Name of the Latin Church and they have their Service still in the Latin Tongue as if they affected to make good this Observation that in them is found this number of the Beast But I lay no great weight upon this Opinion of Irenaeus tho it will be very hard for them to confute it 1 John II. 22. As to the 1 John II. 22. we do not say the Pope is the Antichrist there meant and yet for all that he may be the Great Antichrist For it is to be observed That St. John saith there v. 18. that there were many Antichrists in his time and this Antichrist who denied Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh or that Jesus was the Christ was one of them yet not a single Person but a Body of Men there being several Sects of them under Simon Magus Cerinthus and the rest who belonged to this Antichrist All which Hereticks their own Church acknowledges were the foreruners of the Great Antichrist whom we are seeking after and can find no where but in the Papacy From hence he runs back again to the 2 Thess II. 4. where those very Characters 2 Thess II. 4 c. which he saith do not agree to the Pope are those whereby we are led to take him for the Man of Sin He being manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That wicked One we translate it who will be subject to no Laws and sits in or upon the Temple of God that is the Christian Church where he exalts himself over all that is called God that is all Power on Earth whom he makes subject to his decrees which he would have received as the Oracles of God and that by a blind Obedience against Mens reason which is more than God himself requires of us The Original of his Greatness was out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire His coming was with lying Wonders and whatsoever this Man fancies our Lord Jesus Christ tho not yet come will come and certainly destroy him When the kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever XI Rev. 15. The last place upon which he adventures to discourse is V. John 43. V. John 43. where we have only his word for it that when our Saviour saith If another shall come in his own Name he means especially the wicked Antichrist Why him especially Or him at all And not rather any one who should pretend to be the Christ As several did according to our Saviours Prediction XXIV Matth. 5. such as Theudas Barchozba mentioned by Josephus and another of the same Name in the time of the Emperor Adrian And indeed there are such clear Demonstrations which I have not room to mention that this word another ought not to be restrained to one Single Person such as they make the Great Antichrist but signifies any body indifferently who pretended to be the Christ that we may well conclude those to be blinded who make Christ have respect to the Great Antichrist and from thence conclude the Pope not to be that Antichrist because the Jews do not follow him Alas they see as little concerning Antichrist as the Jews do of Christ as was truly observed by an Eminent Divine of our own long ago For as the Jews still expect the Messiah who is already come and was Crucified by their Fore-fathers so they of the Roman Church look for an Antichrist who hath been a long time revealed and is reverenced by them as a God upon Earth Thus Dr. Jackson * Book III. On the Creed Ch. 8. who ventures to say further That he who will not acknowledge the Papacy to be the Kingdom of Antichrist hath great reason to suspect his heart that if he had lived with our Saviour he would scarce have taken him for his Messias * Ib. Chap. XXII p. 452. They that have a mind to see more of this Man's folly may look into the other Scriptures he barely mentions where they will soon discover how much they make against him What the Fathers say about this matter I have already acquainted the Reader which is so positive and unanimous that it is sufficient to overthrow what some of them say conjecturally Particularly upon the place last mentioned V. John 43. concerning which they speak with no certainty as they do of the rise of Antichrist after the Roman Empire was removed out of the way which gave the greatest advantage to the Bishop of Rome to advance himself unto that unlimited Power which he hath usurped over the Church of God In short this Man hath stoln all his Authorities about this matter out of Feuardentius's Notes upon Irenaeus * Lib. V. C. 25. where he makes this alius another to be Antichrist because he is alienus à Domino an alien from the Lord which is not the right Character of Antichrist whom St. Paul makes to be no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary who opposeth our blessed Saviour And to shew that this is a meer Accommodation he adds in the next words that he is the unjust Judge whom Christ speaks of that feared not God nor regarded Man It any one can think the Fathers intended to expound the Scripture and to give us the express sense of it in such Speeches as these he hath a very strange understanding XIV That no Man nor any but God can forgive or retain Sins Answer THE strength of these Men lies only in their deceit and fraud They dare not represent either their own Doctrine or ours truly For this Proposition is both true and false in divers regards It is true that none but God can absolutely and sovereignly forgive Sin But it is false that no Man can forgive Sins Ministerially and Conditionally For by Authority from God Men appointed thereunto do forgive Sins as his Ministers by Baptism by the Holy Communion by Preaching and by Absolution The only Qustion is Whether their Absolution be only declarative or also operative And in this if we be not all agreed no more are they of the Roman Church For P. Lombard did not believe that the Priest wrought any Absolution from Sins but only declared the Party to be absolved And the most Ancient Schoolmen follow him such as Occam who says according
performs him those good Offices which the Philippians should have done had they not been absent But he so much neglected himself while he was wholly intent upon serving the Apostle that he fell dangerously sick and lay for a time without hope of Life Finding so little relief in these places of Scripture he betakes himself to arguing from that Article of our Creed The Communion of Saints Which Bellarmine L. 1. de Indulg c. 3. from whom he borrows these goodly proofs manages on this manner We are taught by this Article that all the Faithful are Members of one another being a kind of living Body Now as living Members help one another so the Faithful communicate good things among themselves especially when those which are superfluous to the one are necessary or profitable to the other This is admirable Catholick Doctrine The Saints have more than they need and therefore they communicate it to us for the supply of our wants But this should have been proved and not supposed that the Saints have more than enough something to spare and that their Passions were Satisfactions and Superabundant Satisfactions After which it would still remain a pretty undertaking to prove that because one Member helps another when it suffers any thing therefore the Sufferings of one Member will Cure another Member the Pain for instance of the long Finger will free the little Finger from the pain which it it suffers Thus the Actions and Passions of Saints are not imparted to us as this Man presumes from the Relation we have one to another and yet they serve for very good purposes to the Church as I have already shown And one would imagine he distrusted this Argument after he had set it down because he runs back again to the Scriptures A great Company of which he heaps up to no more purpose than if he had quoted so many Texts of Aristotle I will give the Reader a taste of one or two The first is CXIX Psalm 63. I am a companion of all them that fear thee and of them that keep thy precepts Thus the words run expresly in our Bible Now let me beseech the Reader to consider what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant for the Church Militant or Patient or for both he can find contained in this Text as he saith there is in all the Passages he quotes Let him look into the next and I will be his Bonds man if he meet with a word of any Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant but only mention of many Members which make up but one Body 1 Cor. XII 12. And what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant can one gather out of St. Paul's care for all the Churches 2 Cor. XI 28. As for LIII Isaiah the Church always thought it a Prophecy of the Sufferings of Christ and not of the Saints and so the Apostles interpret it in many places If he mean LIII Psalm 9. as one Edition of his Book hath it there are not so many Verses in it and we should be as far to seek for any sense if we should see more and therefore I will look no further What the Fathers affirm he bids us also see but doth not tell us and I cannot trust him so much as to think it worth my pains to look into the places to which he points us St. Austin I am sure the first he names is abused by him who hath not a word of this matter in his Second Chapter of his Book about the Care of the Dead which is altogether concerning this Question Whether the Dead suffer any thing for want of Burial Upon the LXI Psalm indeed which he quotes at last he mentions that place of St. Paul 1 Coloss 24. and discourses how Christ suffered not only in his own Person but in his Members every one of which suffers what comes to his share and all of them together fill up what is wanting of the Sufferings of Christ So that none hath Superabundant Sufferings but he expresly saith That we every one of us Pro modulo nostro according to our small measure Pay what we owe mark that not more than we are obliged unto which is the Romish Doctrine but what we are bound unto and to the utmost of our Power we cast in as it were the stint or measure of Sufferings which will not be filled up till the end of the World Which is directly against what this Man and his Church would have For they that bring in but their share and nothing more than they owe have no redundant Passions out of which flow superfluous Satisfaction XVIII That no Man can do Works of Supererogation Answer HOW should he When no Man can Supererogate till he have first erogated In plainer terms no Man can have any thing to spare to bestow upon others for this they mean by Supererogating till he hath done all that is bound to do for himself And therefore Bishop Andrews * Resp ad Apolog. Bellarmini p. 196. well calls these works of Supererogation proud pretences of doing more than a man needs when he hath not done all he ought For these two things are necessary to make such Works as they mean by this word First That a Man have done all that God's Law commands Secondly That he have done something which it commandeth not But who is there that hath done all which God's Law requires That is who is without all Sin Therefore who can by doing some voluntary things to which he is not bound do above his Duty when he falls so much below it in things expresly commanded There is another great flaw also in this Doctrine for they suppose precepts to require a lower degree of Goodness and counsels a more high or excellent Which is false for Gods Precepts require the heigth of Virtue and Councils only show the means whereby we may more easily in some circumstances attain it As forsaking all keeping Virginity are not perfections but the Instruments of it as they may be used The places which he brings to prove men may do such works are first XIX Matth. 21. XIX Mat. 21. Where there is not a word of doing any thing which might be bestowed upon others but only of laying up treasure to himself in Heaven by doing a thing extraordinary We do not say all things are commanded but some are counselled yet there are men of great Name in the Church such as St. Chrysostome and St. Hilary who call this a Commandment which Christ gave the young man And so it is if he would come and follow Christ that is be one of his constant attendants as the Apostles were who had left all that they might give up themselves wholly to his Service The next is no more to the purpose 1 Cor. VII 25. 1 Cor. VII 25. for no body thinks there is any command to live single but it was a prudent Counsel of the Apostle at that time when the Church
but rather inclines to the contrary Opinion The XCI Psalm 11 12. XCI Psal 11 12. Proves the very same That God gives his Angels charge of Good men But it neither speaks of one who is the Angel-keeper nor that the Angels whether more or fewer remain always with good men There were a great many about one Prophet Elisha 1 Kings VI. 12. But it is not likely that those Troops were his constant Guard But it is in vain to appeal to S. Cyril of Alexandria his opinion that it is meant of the Angel-keeper for they will not in other cases as I shall show shortly stand to his judgment It is true in the XII Acts 13. XII Acts 13. The Jewish Christians who were assembled in Mary's House were of opinion That it was the Angel of St. Peter who knock'd at the door But whether this opinion was true or no is the question which the Scripture doth not resolve Nor can we gather the Faith of the Primitive Church which this man thinks is apparent from this place from the opinion of a few of the Jewish Christians who had many opinions which I hope this man will not justifie And though this should prove such a man as Peter had an Angel-Guardian it will not prove that every man hath For this seems to have been the old opinion among the Jews That only excellent men Persons of great integrity and usefulness had such attendants to take care of them for instance Jacob as one may gather out of St. Chrysostom's Third Hom. upon the Colossians But it doth not appear that they thought they had them always nor one and the same when God favoured them with their Ministry And thus Mr. Calvin in that place of his Institutions which this man quotes says he does not see what should hinder us from understanding this Angel of St. Peter of any Angel whatsoever to whom God committed the care of him at that time whom we cannot therefore conclude to have been his perpetual keeper Let who pleases see more he will not find one of the Scriptures he quotes speak home to the point No not those out of Tobit which he knows we do not own for any part of the Rule of our belief for it doth not follow that every man hath an Angel-Guardian if Tobit had one who accompanied him in that journey No Tobit himself had not his company alway but the Angel when he had finished his journey departed from him See how foolish this man is who not only quotes Books which we allow not to be Holy Writ but alledges places there that make against him And his Fathers he quotes as madly beginning with St. Gregory and putting even Gregory of Tours before St. Austin And the Reader may judge of what value his Testimonies are by what he alledges out of St. Hierome whose words if he would have given us intirely it would have appeared they carry no Authority with them For it immediately follows Whence we read in the Revelation of St. John to the Angel of Ephesus of Thyatira and the Angel of Philadelphia As if these had been Guardian Angels of these Churches to whom our Saviour wrote when all agree they were the Bishops of those Churches as Ribera confesses who justly wonders that St. Hierome or any one else should think them to be Angelical Spirits If St. Hierome wrote those Commentaries it is manifest he departed from the opinion of other Fathers when he saith That every soul hath its Angel assigned it from its Nativity For they say only That every Believer hath this privilege There needs no more be said in this matter which can at most be no more than a probable opinion and therefore it is not contrary to the Faith to deny that every one of us hath an Angel for his custody and patronage XXVII That the holy Angels pray not for us nor know our thoughts and desires on earth Answer NOne of us say That the holy Angels pray not for us in general no many Protestants grant it but we have no reason to believe they pray for us in our particular concerns and we are sure they do not intercede for us by their Merits for they have none We are sure also that they know not our thoughts or desires unless they be discovered by external effects or signs or they be revealed to them by God For the Scripture expresly saith God only knows the heart 1 Kings VIII 39. 1 Cor. II. 11. And this Suarez * L. 2. de Angel c. XXI n. 3. himself saith is a Catholick Assertion That an Angel cannot naturally know or see the act or free consent of any created will unless by him that hath such a tree affection it be manifested to another And this he saith is de fide and proves it from Scriptures and Fathers Now if any one will say that God doth reveal our internal thoughts and desires to the Angels he is a very bold man unless he have a Divine Revelation for it None of the Scriptures here mention'd say any such thing The first of them I. Zach. 12. I. Zac. 12. only proves That an Angel prayed not for a particular person and his particular necessities but that he would have mercy upon Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that is upon the whole Nation This many Protestants grant and therefore he belies them when he saith They believe the Angels do not pray for us For this very place is alledged by the Apology for the Augustan Confession and by Chemnitius in his Common-places as an argument why they grant Angels pray for the Church in general For this Text proves no more The next Tob. XII 12. tho out of an Apocryphal Book XII Tob. 12. says nothing of the Angels praying for us but of their bringing mens prayers before the Holy One Which the same Protestants also allow meaning thereby only a Ministerial Oblation of mens Prayers before God as they explain themselves not a Pr pitiatory Oblation which is proper only to Jesus Christ VIII Rev. 4. Unto whom the third place belongs VIII Rev. 4. not to an ordinary Angel but to that great Angel of the Covenant whom the Prophet speaks of III. Mal. 1. out of whose hand the smoke of the incense came and ascended up before God So St. Austin and Primasius nay Viega a famous Jesuit affirms that most Interpreters by this Angel understand Christ And he gives these good reasons for it Unto whom but to him alone doth it belong to offer the Incense of the whole Church that is their Prayers in a golden Censer Who but he could send down part of the Fire with which the golden Censer was filled v. 5. upon the earth and inflame it with the Fire of the Divine Love and the Flaming Gifts of the Holy-Ghost c. See the Folly of this man who applies that to Angels which belongs in the opinion of most Interpreters unto Christ alone And see his Falseness also who
they do not give Latria to Images is another egregious untruth for they expresly say in the Ceremoniale that Latria is due to the Cross for which reason it is ordered to take place of the Imperial Sword when they are both carried together Neither he nor any any one else whatsoever he vapours dare break in pieces or tear a Crucifix or Picture solemnly consecrated to be worshipped not with an inferior sort of Worship as he pretends for that the greatest Men in his Church acknowledge is down-right Idolatry And therefore maintain that the Image and the Person represented by it are worshipped as one Obect with the same act of worship What the Council of Trent saith hath been considered by a number of our Writers who have shown that the Prayers wherewith Images are consecrated the Pilgrimages that are made to them the Prayers to the Wood of the Cross do suppose they expect vertue yea very great benefit from them and that notwithstanding all their distinctions the worship of them is Idolatry Thus much I have thought good to add in this place that I may not be less careful than he for the preservation of our People from being deceived by those who mince this matter of Image-worship Concerning which I may truly say as Dr. Jackson hath done that the Primitive Church abandon'd it as the Liturgy of Hell L. That no man hath seen God in any form and that therefore his Picture or Image cannot be made Answer IN the First Edition of this Book they condemned us for saying No man hath seen God at any time so well are they skilled in Scripture where we find those very words I. John 18. but having been soundly lash'd for this foul Ignorance by Bishop Mountague now they have altered the words they think more wisely tho still with a contradiction to St. Paul who saith of God that no man hath seen him nor can see him Which is as much we think as if he had said no man hath seen him in any form because his words import that it is impossible one should see him at all From whence it is a plain consequence that his Picture or Image cannot be made And nothing but stupid superstition that horrid blindness where with those are struck who fall into Idolatry could make any man affirm the contrary Their Ancient Schoolmen it is well known absolutely condemn the making any Picture of God but only as in Christ he took upon him our Nature Nay the Second Council of Nice as blockish as they were had so much sense remaining as to condemn the making of an Image of God when they established the Worship of Images And John Damascen himself saith it is the highest madness and impiety to make any Figure of the Deity But time hath wrought mens minds into this Madness and one would think a real frenzy possess'd this man when he thought of the III. III. Gen. 8. Gen. 8. which only saith They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden to prove God hath been seen in a Corporal form As if hearing were seeing or one could paint the form of a sound or of motion To what Impiety may not such men arrive who can satisfy themselves with such Arguments XXVIII Gen. 12. Nor is there the least mention of anyform wherein the Lord appeared to Jacob XXVIII Gen. 12. But if there had it would be the highest impiety to call that the picture of God who hath no form no shape no figure or lineaments and therefore cannot be Painted God speaking to Moses face to face XXXII Exod. 11. XXXII Exod. 11. doth not imply God to have a face but only that he spake most familiarly to him as one Friend speaketh to another His own Menochius goes farther for his Interpretation is By an Angel appearing in corporeal and humane shape God spake most familiarly to him And indeed it is the opinion of his Order the Jesuits and of all later Divines in the Roman Church very few excepted that God never appeared but by the Ministry of Angels Which answers what he alledgeth out of VII VII Dan. 9. Dan. 9 To which Menochius also gives this farther satisfaction That every thing which is here attributed unto God signifies only the splendor of the Divine Majesty which in one word may be called Glory This is the only thing that can be represented which it is impossible for any one to describe As for VI. Isa 1 5. 1 Kings XXII 19. There is not the least signification of any form wherein the Divine Majesty appeared His reasonings upon these Texts are so weak that they are not worthy any ones notice But lest he should be wise in his own conceit let him take this rational account from Abulensis an Author of his own Church why no Image of the Trinity should be made First For fear of Idolatry lest the Image it self should be worshipped 2dly For fear of Error and Heresy in attributing to God corporiety and essential differences such as we see those Three Figures represent This is sufficient to convince any man who is not drunk with the cup of fornication mentioned by St. John in the Revelation We hear not a word of Fathers to countenance this Doctrine which is a shrow'd sign it is so far from being Ancient that they speak directly against it And it is observable that they bring in the Gentiles excusing their making Images of their Gods just as the Papists now excuse themselves and as this man argues That Images were unto men instead of writings or Scriptures upon which fixing their sight they might have some Conceptions of God They are the words of Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles And so Eusebius tells us Porphyry said That men by Statues as by Bookâ— have learnt to know the Doctrine of the Gods Behold the Fathers whom they follow Thus the Sworn Enemies of Jesus Christ were wont to discourse LI. That Blessing or Signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded in Holy Scripture Answer IT is uncertain what he means by this proposition whether he make Blessing and Signing with the sign of the Cross Two several things or the same If he mean that we say Blessing things or Persons is not founded in Scripture he is a notorious Calumniator for we Bless our Children and our Meat But if he mean That Blessing by Signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded there he saith true for we find no Precept or Example for such a way of Blessing Anciently indeed when the Cross of Christ was counted foolishness Christians used to sign themselves in the Forehead with this sign in token that they gloried in the Death of Christ which was nothing else but to make a confession of their Faith and to testify in what esteem they had Christ Crucified The use of the sign upon such an occasion is not to be condemned nor the use of it in their Benedictions Whereby they
in a known Tongue or had no Interpreter To hold his peace and speak to himself and to God v. 28. His Argument to justify their Practice is so silly that it cannot but make a good man sigh deeply to think that poor ignorant People should be mis led by such Ideots For he takes him who occupied the place of the unlearned in verse 16. to be one who was required or supposed to be there to supply the unlearned man's place That is saith he one who should have further understanding of that Tongue in which the Service of the Church is said Which he imagines is a proof the Service was not in the Vulgar Tongue for then there had been no need of one to supply the Ideots place c. This is such a gross piece of Duncery as his Master Bellarmine would have corrected if he had look'd into him or any of the Ancient and Modern Interpreters Who by one that takes up the place of the Vnlearned do not understand one that acts in the stead of an Vnlearned Person that 's a dull fancy never heard of among the Learned but one that sits in the Place or Bench is in the Form as we speak of the Vnlearned That is an Ignorant Person who is the man that the Apostle saith could not say Amen if he understood not what was said in the Thanksgiving So Menochius upon that Text He that sits among the Simple and Rude who are ignorant of Tongues how shall he say Amen That is approve thy Prayer if he do not understand it His Cavil therefore at the Geneva Ministers is foolish if not malicious for they translate the words honestly not deceitfully according to the certain sense of them there being no difference between an Ideot and he who supplies the place of an Ideot We know of no Reformed Churches where they do not say Amen to their Publick Prayers Here we are sure the People are enjoyned so to do Therefore it is another Slander if he object this to us who have not turned Amen into So be it as he says many of the Reformed Churches have done If it be true that any have expounded the word into others of like signification it was for the Edification of the People and no body hath just reason to find fault with them if the People did not understand its meaning Which they did in Greece as much as in Judea and therefore the Apostle had reason to retain it But he belies St. Austin as he hath done us when he makes him say It is not lawful to turn Amen into any other language without the scandal of the whole Church For he saith * L. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 10. There is such variety of Latin Interpreters of the Scripture as makes the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek necessary that when one doubts of the Latin recourse may be had thither this is worth marking for other purposes Tho some Hebrew words indeed we often find are not interpreted as Amen Allelujah Racha and Osanna c. Which Antiquity hath preserved partly for the more sacred Authority tho they might have been interpreted observe that as Amen and Allelujah partly because it 's said they cannot be translated into another tongue as the two other words Racha and Osanna In which discourse he says nothing of the unlawfulness of Translating the Hebrew words nor of the scandal their Translation would give but only of some of them particularly Amen being more venerable in the Original Language than in any other What he says in his Epistles I cannot stand to examine for in that Epistle which he quotes there is nothing to be found about this matter In conclusion he is driven to this shift to say That our own Service is not understood because it consists partly of the Psalms of David which he most falsly says are the hardest part of all the Bible and of Lessons out of the Old and New Testament which are not understood by the people But is this all that our Service consists of Have we not Prayers and Thanksgivings easie to be understood every word As in the other part of the Service they understand enough for their Edification whereas of their Mass the simple people understand nothing Or suppose they understand a little yet this will not make their case like ours because the people with us have all in their vulgar Language tho they do not every one understand all but they have not a word in their vulgar language tho some perhaps may understand a little of the Latin Tongue And what is the reason they dare not trust the Mass in the vulgar language Because it is hard to be understood No but quite contrary because the people would easily find things there which confute their own Religion and are conformable unto ours For who would believe Purgatory any longer who heard the Priest say in the vulgar tongue Lord remember thy servants and handmaids that are gone before us with the sign of Faith and sleep in the sleep of peace If they be in peace every one would be ready to say Then they are not burning in the Purgatory fire and what need I give my money to Pray them out from thence The like passages there are that would make them believe Transubstantiation to be a Fable and that it is a novel thing to have the Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue which I have not room to mention But desire the Reader to observe how this practice is condemned out of the mouths of many great persons in their own Church I will name Two One is Cardinal Cajetan upon 1 Cor. XIV who saith Out of this Doctrine of Paul we learn That it is better for the Edification of the Church that the Publick Prayers which are said in the audience of the people should be said in the tongue common to Clerks and People than said in Latin A most ingenuous Confession in which he doth but follow one of their Saints viz. Anselm in his Exposition of the same Chapter That is good which thou sayest but another is not edified by thy words which he understands not Therefore since you meet in the Church for Edification those things ought to be said in the Church which may be understood by men and afford Edification to the hearers CONCLVSION NOW I leave all men who have a grain of common sense and common honesty whether this man who both in the Title and Conclusion of his Book pretends to judge us out of our own mouth II. Jam. 4. be not as St. James speaks a judge of evil thoughts That is as his Menochius expounds it one who reasons ill and therefore judgeth ill 1 Tim. I. 7. Who desiring to be a Teacher of others understands neither what he saith nor whereof he affirms As will be confessed by all who follow our Saviour's Rule VII John 24. Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment FINIS ERRATA PAge 38. line 20. r. to be come P. 54. l. 26. r. of Religion P. 90. l. 24. r. all together P. 105. l. 1. r. Arts whereby P. 145. l. 24. r. 1 Cor. IX 27. P. 172. l. 25. r. heard of much less have ever seen P. 184. l. 5. r. Rich Man P. 187. l. 14. r. ad Pop. Antioch P. 193. l. 21. r. things done at P. 207. l. 15. r. solemn Rite P. 213. l. 6. r. most suitable P. 217. l. 16. r. Tert. Sum. Ibid. l. 17. r. mere impudence P. 218. l. 1. r. Bona for Bonell P. 224. l. 21. r. S. Victore P. 231. l. 21. r. speaking of Virgins P. 250. l. antepenult r. visible P. 253. l. 11. r. God's footstool P. 262. l. 14. r. of Fathers to countenance