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
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
which the Apostle delivered in this Epistle To which Theodoret adds the grace of the Holy Ghost which he received at his Ordination That is his Office committed unto him and all the Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on him to qualifie him for this Office He bids us see more in several other places of Scripture whose words he is not pleased to recite and therefore I shall pass them by Because if there had been any thing to be seen in them to his purpose he would have set them forth at large And there is as little to be seen in the Fathers whom he mentions to confirm his pretended Catholick Doctrine And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus and Tertullian without alledging their words But he adventures to set down some words out of Vincentius Lirinensis tho he doth not tell us where to find them We need not go far indeed to seek for them they being in the beginning of his Book where he that is able to read it may find a full confutation of the Romish Pretences For having said that the way to preserve our Faith found is first by the Authority of the Divine Law Secondly by the Tradition of the Catholick Church He raises this Objection which shows how much the first of these is above the other Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect and abundantly sufficient unto it self for all purposes mark this which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cause what need is there to joyn unto this the Authority of the Catholick Sense To which he answers that the Scriptures being a great depth are not understood by all in the same Sense But Novatian understands them one way Photinus another Sabellius Donatus Arrius c. another And therefore because of the windings and turnings of Error the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation should be directed according to the Rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense Thus he ends his Book as he begins it We have not recourse to Ecclesiastical Tradition because the Scripture is not sufficient to it self for all things but because of various Interpretations But then he immediately subjoins in the entrance of his Book what that Catholick Sense is Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where and always and by all Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide our selves and from which the Church of Rome hath departed For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron where he expresly owns this Rule p. 22. Edit Lond. 1612. And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himself which this Writer should have been so honest as to have confessed For in conclusion Cap. XXXIX he saith that the ancient Consent of Fathers is to be studiously sought and followed not in all the little Questions of the Divine Law or Scripture for alas there is no Consent but only or chiefly in the Rule of Faith That is in those Questions as he explains it Cap. XLI on which the Foundations of the whole Catholick Faith rely And further he observes That all Heresies cannot always be confuted this way but only those which are newly invented as soon as they arise before they have falsified the Rules of the Ancient Faith and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients by the spreading of their poison For inveterate Heresies and such as have spread themselves must not be impugned this way but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture or at least-wise by the Universal Councils of Catholick Priests wherein they have been convinced and condemned I have been the longer in this because he is a most worthy Witness as this man calls him by whom we are willing to be tried And so we are by Tertullian some of whose words he also at last adventures to alledge out of two Chapters of his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks But as he jumbles together words far distant one from another so he durst not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX which would have explained the reason why sometimes they disputed not with Hereticks out of the Scripture because that Heresy of which he there treats did not receive some Scripture and if it did receive some Cap. XVII it did not receive them intire but perverted them by additions and detractions as served its purpose c. In short they would not acknowledg these things that is the Scriptures by which they should bave been convinced To what purpose then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures No let them believe saith he Cap. XXIII without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scripture just as the present Romanists now do From whence it is that he calls Hereticks Lucifugae Scripturarum men that fly from the light of the Scriptures L. d. Resur Carn C. XLVII Insomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the same Book Cap. III. Take from Hereticks those things which they have learnt from the Heathen that they may state their questions out of the Scripture alone and they cannot stand Unto which Rule if the Papists will yield their Cause is gone Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture and we desire no more Unto which it is manifest Tertullian appeals in other places so plainly that there is no way to evade it particularly in his Book of the Flesh of Christ Cap. VI. Let them prove the Angels took Flesh from the Stars if they cannot prove it because it is not written then Christ's Flesh was not from thence c. And again in the same Chapter there is no evidence of this because the Scripture doth not say it And plainest of all in the next Chapter I do not receive what thou inferrest of thy own without Scripture Let these men blush if they can who thus shamelesly pervert all things to a wrong sense as they do these two words Rule and Form of Faith Which this man hath the Confidence to say is the knowledge of Tradition But how we should know any Tradition to be true which is not contained in the Scripture is the Question Especially since there have been so many false Traditions as is confess'd by all sides Besides it is so far from being true that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith or put it before the Scripture that Vincentius expresly puts the Divine Scripture in the first place as our Guide and then the Ecclesiastical sense as a means in some cases to find the sense of Scriptures Cap. XIII And Tertullian as expresly in that very Book which he quotes and in the Chapter preceding makes the Apostles Creed the Rule of Faith Which is all contained in the Scripture and needs the help of no Tradition but that to prove it But after all I must ask what 's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this
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
but he returns to his old way of Calumniating For there is no such Position maintained among us but expresly the contrary in our XVIth Article After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from Grace given and Faith is a Grace and Gift of God and fall into sin and by the Grace of God we may rise again c. The only question is Whether they that once have Saving Faith may lose it totally and finally In which there are various opinions not only among us but among themselves some saying it may be lost totally but not finally others that it may be lost in both regards But this is no matter of Faith but only of Opinion for which we do not break Communion All his Proofs therefore out of Scripture are perfectly impertinent for they prove what none of us deny That men may lose their Faith after they have received it As for his Fathers St. Austin in that very Book which he quotes * De correp gratia c. 12. asserts the direct contrary to what is here pretended to be his sense That there are some who cannot finally lose the Grace of God For comparing the Grace which Adam had with that which is now given to the Saints he saith To the first man who had received a power not to sin not to dye not to desert the good estate in which he was created was given the aid of Perseverance not whereby he was made that he should persevere but without which he could not by his Free-will have persevered But now to the Saints who are predestinated by God's Grace to the Kingdom of God there is not only given such an aid of Perseverance but such an one that Perseverance it self is given them not only that without this gift they cannot persevere but also that by this gift they cannot but persevere For our Saviour saith to his Apostles not only without me ye can do nothing XV. Joh. 5. but withal v. 16. Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you that ye should go and bring forth fruit and that your fruit should remain I have quoted this at large that such Writers as I have to deal withal may blush if they can at such shameless Untruths as they father upon St. Austin And let a deeper blush colour this man's cheeks who quotes the Council of Trent which was but a little above a hundred years ago among the Ancient Fathers His next Charge is They maintain XXIV That God by his Will and inevitable Decree hath ordained from all Eternity who shall be damned and who saved Answer AND who is he that dares maintain the contrary When our Lord hath said in express terms XVI Mark 15 16. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the eternal purpose of God in Christ which the Apostles were commanded to publish every where as his inevitable Decree concerning mankind which cannot be avoided That if they do not believe the Gospel which is preached to them they shall perish but if they sincerely believe it and be baptized they shall be saved This Babbler I doubt not would have said something else but he had not the wit viz. That we maintain God hath for his own mere Will and Pleasure without any respect to mens Faith or Unbelief resolved to damn some and to save others But this is not the Doctrine of our Church as he might have seen in our XVIIth Article If any among us teach such Doctrine it is no more than some of their own Doctors have taught And it is a most senseless thing to accuse us of that which if it be a fault they are as chargeable with it themselves His Scriptures prove nothing contrary to us but we expresly teach according to the first of them 1 Tim. II. 3. 1. Tim. II. 3. That we ought to receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture And therefore we must believe That God would have all men to be saved notwithstanding which such Triflers as this man is must be told that God will have some men to be damn'd as I show'd before and these two Propositions do not contradict one the other The next is of the same import 2 Pet. III. 9. 2 Pet. III. 9. God is not willing any should perish but that all should come to repentance And yet he is willing nay resolved that all those shall perish who will not repent For want of other Scriptures he runs to those that are Apochryphal and quotes a passage out of the Book of Wisdom which we believe to be Canonical enough in this point And then he returns to Scripture a great many Texts of which he jumbles together with some Apocrypha but if any one will take the pains to consult them he will find they do not contradict any thing that We or other Protestants affirm Even they who believe the absolute and irrespective Decree consent to what the Prophet Hosea saith XIII 9. which is his first place That every man's destruction is of himself He beats the air therefore in alledging those places and the sayings of the Fathers to which we subscribe and so do all other Protestants whose true opinion this poor Ignoramus did not understand and therefore could not oppose For those that say the cause why some are reprobated is God's Will and Pleasure yet maintain the cause of their Damnation and Destruction is their own sins This if he had questioned and ask'd them Why God reprobates this man rather than another they would have had St. Austin as ready at hand as he hath to answer for them You seek to know the Causes of God's Will when the Will of God is the very cause of all things that are For if the Will of God have a Cause there is something which antecedes his Will which it is impious to believe If any man therefore ask Why God made this The Answer is Because he would If he go on to ask Why would he He searches for something greater than God's Will when nothing greater can be found Let human temerity therefore bridle it self and not seek for that which is not lest he do not find that which is L. de Gen. contra Manich. C. 2. Further they hold saith he XXV That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation and to believe that he is of the number of the Predestinate Answer NO man in his wits much less any Church ever uttered such foolish words as these which are inconsistent with the former Assertion That God hath resolved to damn some men How can they who say this oblige every man to believe he shall be Saved The most that any one hath said is that not every one but every true believer every one that is justified ought to be so assured So Bellarmine
And one of them 1 Tim. V. 22. can never be proved to belong to Ordination being referred by many of no small Name to Absolution For Imposition of Hands was used in giving that as well as in giving Orders which is an unanswerable Argument that this is not a Sacrament because the only sign that can be pretended out of Scripture to belong unto it viz. Imposition of Hands is not proper to giving Orders but common to other things None of his Fathers nor any others for many Ages knew of more proper Sacraments than two only And therefore it is but to waste Paper and abuse the Readers patience to show how impertinently those whom he mentions are alledged XLIV That Priests and other Religious Persons which have vowed their Chastity to God may freely Marry notwithstanding their Vow Answer THERE is no such loose Doctrine among us But we say That it is free for Priests to Marry as well as other Persons for Marriage is honourable in all and the Bed undefiled Which signifies we think that Chastity may be preserved in Marriage as well as in Virginity Therefore we further say no man ought rashly to Vow he will never marry when he is not sure of his power to contain For this is not given to all as Christ himself saith XIX Mat. 11. but every one hath his proper gifts from God one after this manner another after that 1 Cor. VII 7. If any one hath made such a Vow we say he ought to use his endeavours to keep it but if he cannot without Sin he ought to Marry for in this case the matter of his Vow ceases This is our Doctrine which is not contrary to the Scripture XXIII Deut. 22. There is mention of a Vow in XXIII Deut. 22. but not of Chastity which he undertook to show us expresly in our Bible Alas that was impossible and so he falls a talking of Vows about other matters And yet even in such Vows as this whereof Moses speaks if a Person was not in his own power or vowed a thing impossible for him to give or a thing not acceptable to God he was not bound by his Vow 1 Tim V. â— 12. The next place 1 Tim. V. 11 12. is against him For the Apostle would not have Widows taken into the Office of Deaconesses when they were young as the Church of Rome lets Boys and Girls of Sixteen years old vow Virginity but requires Timothy to refuse such if they offered themselves to that Service and take in none under the Age of Sixty when it was likely they would have no mind to change their Condition as the younger would be apt to do Who thereby became guilty of a great fault as Menochius expounds having Damnation in departing from the Covenant they had made to devote themselves to the Service of the Church For they had not chosen Widowhood with the Judgment of Reason or just Consideration as Theophylact glosses in which case the Apostle allows them to Marry v. 14. Upon which the same Theophylact thus again Paraphrases In the first place I wish they would not make void their Contracts or Covenants but because they desire Marriage I desire it also condescending to them For it is better they should be Mistresses of Families that is look after their own House and Labour than running about to other Folks Houses be trifling and idle Which is the sense of more Ancient Fathers than he particularly of St. Cyprian who speaks of Virgins that after they had dedicated themselves to God were found in bed with men saith It was better for them to Marry than to fall into the Fire by their Offences * Epist ad Pompon His Master Tertullian saith the same speaking of this very Text. Nay St. Austin tho he do not approve of Marriage after a Vow yet resolves that such a Marriage is not to be dissolved And their own Doctors determine That when a thing is unprofitable and hinders a greater good what is promised by a Vow ought not to be kept Upon which their Dispensations are founded even in this solemn Vow of Chastity 1 Tim. V. 15. I have said the more of this because it answers what he pretends out of the 15th verse of the same Chapter where the Apostle doth not call their Marrying turning aside after Satan For he had just before given them leave or rather advised them to Marry lest they should give occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully c. that is as Theophylact explains it Give the Devil occasion to make a mock of them by drawing them into Adultery through the unstedfastness of Youth And for this very reason he thinks the Apostle endeavoured to bring them under the yoke of Marriage as his Phrase is lest being left loose they should run into the aforesaid mischiefs By this the Reader may be convinced with what Honesty this man quotes the Fathers and reproaches those that Marry after they have unadvisedly devoted themselves to single life as God's Adulterers when they say the Apostle directs them to Marry that they may not be such Adulterers In all the other Scriptures which he would have us see there is not one that speaks of the Vow of Chastity But of Vow of Offering Sacrifice or of being Nazarites which was in some cases but for a time or such like things as any one may satisfy himself that will read the places We and the Fathers do not differ in this point as I have already said and therefore I will not swell this Book by an unnecessary account of what they say in the places he mentions XLV That Fasting and Abstinence from certain Meats is not grounded on Holy Scripture nor causeth any Spiritual Good Answer FAsting that is Abstinence from all Meat and Drink is grounded on Scripture and doth much good But Fasting or Abstinence from certain Meats only is not Fasting and hath no ground in Scripture nor do we see any Spiritual Good in it but rather much hurt because it cheats men into a belief that they Fast when they Feast XXXV Jer. 5. The Prophet XXXV Jer. 5. doth not speak of fasting from any Meat whatsoever but of a total forbearance of all Wine and from dwelling in Houses or having any Land c. And all this not out of Religion but for a Civil Reason as the very Text tells us v. 7. Which laid no Obligation upon other People so to do no not upon the Israelites much less upon us Christians being an Injunction to one Family only by the Father of it Are not these men rare Interpreters of Scripture who expound it at this rate and apply it to any purpose for this very case just before was brought to prove the Obligation of Vows The next place I. Luke 15. is alledged as sillily For it proves too much an Abstinence which no man thinks himself bound unto from all Wine and Strong Drink as long as he lives Which John Baptist
as he fancies receiving succor after death I cannot conceive For it signifies our dying as Menochius himself expounds it departing this life as Theophylact who knew of no other sense unless it be understood saith he of Pusillanimity being condemn'd Nor doth St. Austin in the next place XXIII Luke 44. say that Souls may be holpen in Purgatory But expresly declares if no sin were to be remitted in the last judgment our Lord would not have said of a certâ—in sin it shall not be remitted in this world nor in the world to come Which the Thief hoped for when he Prayed Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom And if the Theif had any such erroneous Notion in his head which we do not believe of going to Purgatory when he died our Lord presently freed him from that false conceit by that gracious promise This day shalt thou be with me in Paradice It is a lamentable Cause which must be supported by such an Author as Jason of Cyrene whose Book is of no credit But if it were the place he cites 2 Maccab. XII 44 45. proves nothing but Prayer for the dead which doth not infer a Purgatory For the Greeks use Prayer for the dead who believe nothing of Purgatory And indeed the Text it self tells us their Prayers had respect not to the deliverance of those Prayed for out of the flames of Purgatory but to their Resurrectien And if they had believed Purgatory they could not according to the Popish opinion have prayed for these men who died in mortal Sin being defiled by things belonging to Idols which were found under their Garments Now the Romish Church doth not admit such people as die in mortal Sin into Purgatory See how weak all their proofs are of this great Article of their Faith For there is no greater strength to be found in the rest of his Texts which he hath jumbled together after a very strange fashion as if a long row of Chapters and Verses would do his business Nor did the Fathers in the Six first Ages know any thing of this Doctrine Gregory indeed called the Great began to talk of it and laid the foundation of it But his Authority is not great being much addicted to Fables and relying upon pretended Revelations Visions and Apparitions And as for Origen's Purgatory St. Austin saith * De haeres â— 43. What Catholick Christian is there whether learn'd or unlearn'd who doth not vehemently abhor it And yet this man is not ashamed to alledge his Testimony by which the Reader may make a judgment of the rest XLVIII That it is not lawful to make or have Images Answer THIS is another shameless slander as his own Bellarmin confesses â— 2. de Eccles Triumph c. 8. who says the opinion of Calvin himself is this That Images are not simply forbidden but he admits only of an Historical use of them The sum of our Doctrine is this That it is not lawful to make an Image of God and so some of their own Church have confessed nor to make any Image to be worshipped If we should have further added That it is unlawful to make or have Images because of the danger of Idolatry we could have justified our selves by the Authority of as wise men as any in their Church For more than one of the Ancient Fathers were of this opinion who were never condemned by the Ancient Church nor was this reckoned among their Errors His Texts of Scripture are impertinently alledged XXV Exod. 18. For God might command that to be done XXV Exod. 18. which he forbad them to do without such a special Order And there is no proof that the Cherubins were made with Faces of beautiful young men as this Writer asserts but the contrary is apparent as many have demonstrated He belies St. Hierom also when he makes him say the Jews worshipped them which the best of their own Authors deny Particularly Lorinus a famous Jesuit upon XVII Acts 25. Concerning the Cherubims made by God's Command and other Images made by Solomon it must be said that they were only an Appendix and additional ornament of another thing and were not of themselves propounded for adoration which it is manifest the Hebrews did not give them And Vasquez saith the same out of Tertullian that no worship was given to the Cherubims alledging no less than twelve Schoolmen of that opinion Why should I trouble my self therefore any further with such a Writer whose next Scriptures are still about the Cherubims and therefore are already answered For he doth not believe I hope that when the Apostle IX Hebr. 1. speaks of the Ordinances of Divine Service that is Commandments about the Worship of God as Theodoret and from him Menochius expounds it and after many other things mentions the Cherubims of glory he intended they should have divine service performed to them If not then his observation is frivolous for no body denies there were such things as Cherubims in the most holy place where no body saw them much less worshipped them When he hath done with his Scriptures he goes about to prove so fond he is of Images that an Image is of divine and natural right because we always form one in our mind when we conceive and understand any thing As if it were all one to form an Idea invisibly in the mind and to make a vsible standing representation of it in Wood Brass or Stone Such Writers tire one with their folly and falshood which is notorious in what he quotes out of Saint Austin in the conclusion of this Chapter Who taking notice that some Pagans had forged a Story of I know not what Books written by Christ to Peter and Paul concerning the secret Arts of working Miracles says they named those two perhaps rather than other Apostles to whom those pretended Books were directed because they might have seen them painted with Him in many places Which whether it be meant in private Houses as is most probable or in publick places it is manifest St. Austin did not regard such Pictures for he presently adds in the very next sentence which this false Writer conceals these remarkable words Thus they deserved to err utterly who sought for Christ and his Apostles not in the holy Books but in painted Walls And it is no wonder if they that counterfeit in forging Books he means were deceived by them that paint XLIX That it is not lawful to reverence Images nor to give any honour to insensible things Answer NOW we are come indeed to the business but they seem afraid to touch it For first instead of saying it is not lawful to worship Images as it was before when Bishop Montague answered this Book now they dwindle it into reverence of them And then they fallaciously tack to this a Proposition of another nature that no honour is to be given to insensible things Which is a new Calumny for we do upon some occasions give honour
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