Universal Church and by erring be meant departing from the Truth in matters of necessary belief then we say the Church though it may mistake in matters of lesser moment yet cannot thus err because Christ will always have a Church upon Earth which cannot be without the belief of all things necessary to make it a Church But if by Church be meant the Church of Rome or any other particular Church we say it may err even in matters of necessary belief as St. Paul plainly supposes in his caution he gives the Romans XI Rom. 20 21. and thus many Churches have erred and faln from Christianity Now what hath he to say out of our Bibles which is expresly contrary to this First he alledges a place out of the Prophet Isaiah LIX Isa 21. LIX Chap. 21. where there is not one express word either of the Church or of it s not erring but only of what God will do for those who turn from transgression in Jacob as the words before going are upon whom we may suppose he Covenants and engages to bestow his Spirit c. Now before the Church of Rome whom this man here intends can apply this Text to themselves they must prove that they are the people who turn from transgression in Jacob which will be a very difficult task And when that 's done this Text may prove to be a command rather than a promise that it is their duty having God's Spirit who by faith and charity is diffused in the whole Church that is in the hearts of the faithful as Menochius here glosses and his words that is saith he his precepts they should keep them faithfully and not suffer them to depart out of their own mouth and their own heart as he goes on or out of the mouth and heart of their Children It is a most wretched inference for after all his brags of express Texts he is fain to come to that at last which this man draws from hence therefore the Church cannot err He might with respect to the sense have said more colourably therefore the Church cannot sin The folly of which every one sees men being too negligent on their part when God hath done his The next place is less to the purpose for it is a peculiar promise as appears by the whole context unto the Apostles of Christ XIV Joh. 16. In whose hearts he promises the Holy Ghost shall inhabit as Menochius expounds it performing the Office of a Comforter and of an Instructer And this for ever not for so short a time as Christ stayed on Earth with them but all the days of their life But let us extend this promise to their Successors they can never prove the Apostles have no Successor but only at Rome To which this promise can by no inferences be confined but must extend to the whole Church of Christ with whom he is still present by his Spirit to preserve them in the way of truth if they will be led by it In the nex place XVIII Mat. 17. he is at his C llâ—ctions again instead of express words for his Talent is meer bragging XVIII Matth. 17. without any performance But how doth he gather from this Text that the Church cannot err Why that he leaves to his Reader telling him only it may be clearly gathered but he for his part did not know how though it may be others do Let them try who have a mind I can find nothing in this place which concerns matters of faith and he himself seems to be sensible of it when he saith the Church cannot err in her Censure But what Church is this and what Censure It belongs to every Church to censure him that wrongs his Brother after he hath been admonished of the injury he hath done first in private and then before two or three Witnesses This being done where should he be proceeded against but in the Church where he lives Unto which if he will not submit but continue obstinately his injurious actions he is justly to be lookt upon as no Christian No man that is unprejudiced can read this Text with all its circumstances and not take this to be the sense of the words And then if they prove the Church cannot err we shall have as many infallible Tribunals as there are Churches XXXV Is 8. That which follows XXXV Isa 8. speaks of not erring but says nothing of the Church unless he make the Church to be fools who the Prophet saith shall not err How much wiser would this man have been if he had but consulted some such Author as Menochius Who observing that the Prophet saith v. 4. God will come he will and save you i. e. God incarnate as he expounds it by the way here mentioned v. 8. understands that narrow way which he taught leading by holiness of manners and life to the holy place i. e. to Heaven And upon the last words fools shall not err therein gives us this good Protestant Gloss for even the simple and unskilful might easily learn those things which are necessary to salvation The way is plain in these matters and none need err about them unless they will And I wish it was not a wilful error in this man to say that we affirm the whole Church and all holy men that ever have been therein for these 1000 years have erred There cannot be a greater calumny for we believe the whole Church cannot stray from the way that leads to Heaven though some particular Churches may There is nothing contrary to this in V. Ephes 27. V. Ephes 27. Which if it prove any thing of this nature proves the Church is so perfectly pure that it hath no sin in it But I doubt we must stay for this happiness till the other world when the Church will indeed be made a Glorious Church I have noted as he desires the words without spot wrinkle or any blemish and yet I think it possible that some Church or other hath taught horrible Blasphemies and Abominations For St. John in the Revelation tells us it is not only possible but certain XVII Rev. 3 4. And there are we think very evident proofs that the present Roman Church of which he is so fond and always hath in his mind when he speaks of the Church is described by St. John in that place We have seen so little in these Texts that I cannot find in my heart to look into the rest several of which we have had already as XXII Luk. 32. XXIII Mat. 3. XVII Deut. 8. XV. Act. 28. And he seems to have intended nothing but meerly to make a show of more strength than he had which made him thrust in among the rest V. Ephes 27. which I have just now examined His Fathers also are only Names without their sense and so let them pass Next he saith we affirm VII That the Church hath been hidden and invisible HE still goes on in his ambiguous way of stating our
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 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
never a one of which there is any mention much less express mention of Tradition And in the last the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver are expresly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes XV. Acts 28. For it is said v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude and delivered the EPISTLE What an unlucky man is this to confute himself after this fashion As for his Fathers he durst not quote the words of any but two only St. Basil and St. Chrysostome The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil * De Spiritu Sancto c. 27. into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition which as it belongs not at all to his subject so it contradicts his sense in another place Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith where he saith It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance either to reject what is written or to add any thing that is not written But admit those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil's they are manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that sense wherein he takes them For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them For instance the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing the Consecration of him that is baptized standing in Prayer on the first day of the week and all the time between Easter and Whitsontide And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty such as Praying towards the East and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture Nay he proceeds so far as to say in the words following that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel or rather contract it into a bare Name A saying so senseless or rather impious that if these men had but a grain of common honesty they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world by such spurious stuff as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is As for St. Chrysostome it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church And unless they be confirmed by Scripture he contradicts himself in saying Traditions not written are worthy of belief For upon Psal 95. he saith expresly If any thing unwritten be spoken the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. understanding of the auditors halts and wavers sometimes inclining sometimes haesitating sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying and again receiving it as probable but when the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit Sav. written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth it confirms and establishes both the words of the speaker and the minds of the hearers V. Next he makes us affirm That a man by his own understanding or private spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture Answer THere is no such crude saying as this among us But that which we affirm is That a man may in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed rightly understand the Holy Scripture so far as is necessary for his Salvation Who should understand or judge for him but his own understanding we can no more understand than who should see for him but his own eyes if he have any and be not blind And what is there to be found in our Bibles expresly against this The first place is far from express for the gift of Prophecying doth not to every one expresly signifie the interpreting of Scripture 1 Cor. XII 8. it having manifestly another signification in some places viz. Inditing Hymns Besides if this place were pertinent forbidding all to interpret Scripture but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy their Church must not meddle with that work for they have not that Gift no more than those that follow discerning of Spirits divers kinds of Tongues c. His second place is as impertinent 2 Pet. 1.20 21. for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture but of the Prophetical Scripture it self Which was not of private interpretation that is the proper invention of them that Prophecied for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth not at the will and pleasure of man but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things or foretold future were acted by the Spirit of God and spake those things which were suggested by Him These are the words of Menochius which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this mans Glosses who babbles here about a company of men and those very holy who are to do he knows not what which private and prophane men cannot do As if all private men were prophane and all companies of men were holy The Lord help them who follow such Guides as these The third place 1 Joh. IV. 1. if it say any thing to this purpose is expresly against him For it is a direction to every Christian not to be of too hasty belief But to try the Spirits that is Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God Now how should Christians try or examine them but by using their own understandings to discern between pretended inspirations and true If they must let others judge for them they cross the Apostle's Doctrine for they do not try but trust To tell us that their Church is infallible and therefore ought to judg for us is a pretence that must also be tried above all things else and in which every man 's particular judgment must be satisfied or else he cannot with reason believe it And to believe it without reason is to be a fool Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits but lays down these two in the following words 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh he was a deceiver v. 2. And 2ly if any man rejected the Apostles and would not hear â—hem he was not to be received himself v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error This makes it plain the Apostle did not leave them then without means of judging aright as he hath not left us now who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church which cannot be tried by particular men is past my understanding and I believe he did not understand it himself but used it as a big phrase to amuse
who lived in the Eighth Century and yet is set before Theodoret who lived in the Fifth and St. Chrysostome who lived in the Fourth nay and before his Ignatius who lived in the time of the Apostles whose words import no more but that all must obey their Bishop as their Pastor which agrees well enough with the Bishop's obeying the Emperor as his Prince What John Damascen says I cannot find nor is there any thing of that nature in the place he quotes out of Theodoret. But Valens was an Arian who commanded things contrary to the Christian Religion and so was not to be obeyed It is mere tittle-tatle about St. Chrysostom's calling the Bishop a Prince as well as a King for a greater than he Constantine the Great in like manner calls himself a Bishop as to all External Government XIII That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man and that the Pope is Antichrist Answer THIS Proposition hath two Parts neither of which are the setled Doctrine of our Church or of any other Protestants but the Common Opinion of all some few excepted Especially the first Part That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man but a Succession of Men which may be evidently proved from the Confession of the ablest Men in the Roman Church For it is the Opinion of almost all their Interpreters that the last Head mentioned by St. John XVII Rev. 11. and called after a signal manner by the Name of THE BEAST is no other than Antichrist Now all the forgoing Heads do not signify so many single Persons only but all Expositors saith their Ribera * In XVII Revel have understood that in every one of those Heads there are a great many comprehended And never hath any man but Victorinus taken them only for Seven single Persons whose Opinion ALL do deservedly gainsay To the very same purpose also Alcasar another famous Roman Expositor writes upon the same place And let this man or any one else tell me if they can why the last Head i. e. Antichrist as he is commonly called should not comprehend a Succession of single Persons of the same sort as it is is manifest the Beasts in Daniel signify The Ram for instance doth not signify Darius only but the Ruling Power of Persia during that Kingdom And the He-goat not Alexander alone but him and his Successors VIII Daniel 4 5. Now from this ground it may be plainly proved which is the Second thing that the Ruling Power at this time in the Roman Church is The Beast that is Antichrist For the Beast and Babylon are all one in this Vision and by Babylon is certainly meant Rome as their great Cardinal Bellarmine and Baronius the best of their Authors not only confess but contend And not Rome Pagan but Rome Christian because she is called the Great Whore XVII Rev. 1. which always signifies a People apostatized from true Religion to Idolatry and because it is the same Babylon which St. John saith must be burnt with fire Ver. 16. XVIII 18. From whence Malvenda another of their Authors confesses it probable that Rome Christian will be an Idolatrous Harlot in the time of Antichrist because it is to be laid desolate it is manifest for some Crime against the Church of Christ Now that this Antichristian Power ruling in that Church is not to be adjourned to the end of the World as they would fain have it but is at this present appears from hence that the Sixth HEAD being that Power which reigned when St. John saw this Vision XVII Rev. 10. there was but one Ruling Power more and that to continue but a short space to come between the end of the Sixth HEAD and this last HEAD or Power called in an eminent sense THE BEAST v. 11. Now that Imperial Power which reigned at Rome in time of St. John it is evident ended at the fall of the Western Empire with Augustulus when another setled Authority was received by the City of Rome it self instead of that former Imperial Government Which new Authority lasting but a short space as the Vision tells us it is plain THE BEAST that is Antichrist is long ago in the Throne of the Roman Church Let this Man and all his Friends try if they can answer this Argument and see how they will free the Papacy from being that Antichristian Power which St. John foretold should arise and make it self drunk with the Blood of the Saints I am sure this is a stronger and clearer Explication of that Scripture than any he hath attempted And now let us examine whether there be any thing in our Bible contrary to this The first place he produces 2 Thess II. 3 2 Thess II. 3. c. most evidently overthrows both parts of his Proposition as I shall demonstrate For the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition v. 3. is no more to be restrained to a single Person than he who now letteth v. 7. is to be restrained to a single Emperor Now St. Chrysostome in plain terms saith that the Apostle by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. that which withholdeth this Man of Sin from appearing was the Roman Empire And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7 he who now letteth the very same Roman Power that is the Roman Emperors not one particular Emperor but the whole Succession of them who as long as they lasted would keep back the Man of Sin And this is not only his Sense in his Comment upon the place but the general Sense of the Ancient Fathers Tertullian Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem St. Ambrose St. Hierom and St. Austin and a great number of School-men in the Roman Church that upon the fall of the Roman Empire Antichrist shall come Which may satisfy any unprejudiced Man both that Antichrist is come and that he is not a particular Man but a Succession of Men who altogether make up one Person called the Man of Sin who can be none else but the Papacy For what particular Man is there to whom this can be applied after the fall of the Empire His next place of Scripture as he quotes it is neither out of our Bible XIII Rev 18. nor out of theirs so little is his honesty For thus the words run in both Let him that hath understanding count the number not of a Man as he falsly translates it but of the Beast for it is the number of a Man Now I have proved the Beast doth not signify a particular Man and therefore this Number whatsoever it is ought not to be sought only in one Man's name Which is not the meaning of the Number of a Man as this Man would have it but signifies as a better Interpreter than he viz. Arethas out of Andreas Caesariensis A number or counting usual and well known to Men. And if we will believe Irenaeus who in all probability was not the Inventor of it but had it from the foregoing Doctors of the Church it is to be
but the restoring him again to Christian Communion who had been thrown out of the Church But is this the Indulgence they contend for in the Church of Rome Will this serve their turn Then every Church hath as much power as this comes to and the whole body of the Church will have a share in this power of Indulgences For St. Paul speaks to all the Corinthian Christians in general that they should forgive him And so he doth also in the next place here alledged v. 6 7. Ibid. v. 6.7 of the same Chapter which speak of a Punishment inflicted ed by many which he tells them ought not to be continued but contrarywise Ye ought to forgive him and comfort him c. Upon which words hear what your Menochius says This Punishment was publick Separation from the Church out of which he was ejected by MANY i. e. by you all with detestation of his Wickedness c. The forgiveness of which was taking him into the Church again as Theodoret expounds the next words v. 8. Vnite the member to the body joyn the sheep together with the flock and thereby show your ardent affection to him He bids us see more in two other places of Scripture which we have examined before for other purposes but he would have serve for all A sign they have great scarcity of Scripture-proofs and therefore he gives us a larger Catalogue of Fathers which he packs together after such a fashion as no Scholar ever did For after Tertullian and Cyprian who speak only of the forenamed Relaxation of Canonical Censures he mentions the Council of Lateran but doth not tell us which though if he had it would have been to no end For the first Lateran Council was above Eleven hundred years after Christ And Innocent III. who is his next Father lived an hundred year later holding the IVth Lateran Council 1215. After these he brings St. Ambrose Austin Chrysostome who lived 800 years before and knew of no Indulgences but such as I have mentioned Lastly He tells us Urban the second granted a Plenary Indulgence and when lived this holy Father do you think Almost eleven hundred years after Christ Anno 1086. A most excellent proof that the Romish Indulgences were in use in the Apostles times Can one think that such men as this expect to be read by any but fools who perhaps may imagine this Vrban was contemporary with the Apostles It is some wonder he did not quote that holy Father Hildebrand Greg. VII who something before this granted Pardon of Sins to all those who would take up Arms against his Enemies Poor man he did not know this else he would have mentioned him rather than Vrban who was but his Ape The Protestants hold if you will believe him XVII That the Actions and Passions of the Saints do serve for nothing to the Church Answer A Most wicked Slander for we look upon what they did and suffered as glorious Testimonies to the Truth they believed and preached as strong incitements to us to follow their Examples and as eminent Instances of the Power of God's Grace in them for which we bless and praise him and thankfully commemorate them But all this serves for nothing to the Church that is to the Church of Rome unless men believe there is a Treasury which contains all the superfluous Satisfactions of the Saints who suffered more than they were bound to endure Of which vast Revenue that Church having possessed it self it serves to bring abundance of Money into their Coffers which must be paid by those who desire to be relieved out of these superabundant Satisfactions of the Saints by having them applied to them for the supply of their defects This is the meaning of this very man it appears by the Scriptures he quotes for their belief I. Col. 24. The first is I. Col. 24. which speaks of the Persecutions St. Paul endured in Preaching the Gospel to the Colossians which tho grievous to him was so beneficial to them that he rejoiced in his Sufferings and resolved to endure more for the confirmation of their Faith and for the edification of the Church of Christ This he calls filling up what was behind of the afflictions of Christ Because Christ began to testifie to the Truth by shedding of his Blood and thence is called the Faithful Witness But it remained still that the Apostles should give their Testimony by the like Sufferings because the Gospel was to be carried to the Gentile World which could not be effected without their enduring such hardships as Christ had endured in Preaching to the Jews Thus Theodoret expounds That which was behind or which remained of the Affliction of Christ But here is not a word of Satisfaction no not by Christ's Sufferings which were of such value that there was nothing of this nature left to be done by others This better Men than this of their own Church ingenuously confess Particularly Justinianus a Jesuit whose words are these upon this very place He saith he filled up what was wanting of the Passion of Christ not to merit indeed or make Satisfaction for what can be wanting to that which is Infinite but as to the Power and Efficacy of bringing Men to the Faith that his Mystical Body which is the Church may be perfected c. For he signifies in the latter end of the Verse That he suffered for the enlarging or propagating of the Church to confirm and establish its faith that he might provoke others to his imitation I could add many more to shew the Folly of this Man who saith From hence Ground hath always been taken for Indulgences A notorious falshood not always for Indulgences are late things not by all Men in their Church since it used them For Estius in his Notes upon this place absolutely disclaims it and saith Tho some Divines hence argue that the Passions of the Saints are profitable for the remission of sins which is called Indulgence yet he doth not think this to be solidly enough concluded from this place Which I have been the longer about because they are wont to make a great noise with it The next place they curtail'd heretofore in this manner Philip. II. 30. He was nigh unto Death not regarding his Life to supply your lack leaving out what follows of service towards me which made it sound something like as if their lack of Goodness had been supplied by his Merits or rather Satisfaction for Merit will do no service in this case But Bishop Montague bang'd them so terribly for this foul play that now they have printed it right tho alas nothing to the purpose And therefore this Man doth not venture to say so much as one word upon this Text but barely recites the words and leaves the Reader to make what he can of them And all that Menochius a truly Learned Expositor of their own could make of them is this That St. Paul being in Prison Epaphroditus
declared their Belief that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ who was made a curse for us and that through his Death and Passion of which the Cross was a Memorial they expected all manner of Blessings from God But all this was of Humane Institution for which we find no directions in Scripture None of the places he alledgeth say a syllable of it much less expresly mention this sign Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII VII Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads With what mark we are not told In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him and of blessing his Disciples but nothing of signing either with the Cross or any thing else which therefore is not founded in these or indeed in any other Scriptures The Fathers we know speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions but do they say it was founded in Scripture Not a word of that which is the only point And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now as many other Rites have been which were no less in use in Ancient times than that was particularly the Custom of Praying Standing not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day between Easter and Whitsuntide Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice and as it had been in use before and not then introduced but only confirmed so continued in the Church for 800 years and yet is now quite disused I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue as well as Bodily Protection which they in the Roman Church now expect from the Sign of the Cross for which there is not either Scripture or other Ancient Authority LII That the Publick Service of the Church ought not to be said but in a Language that all the People may understand Answer IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly This is our Doctrine which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible that unless the Bible contradict it self nothing can be found there to the contrary I Luke 8. St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spake when he ministred in the Sanctuary Nor do we find in the Bible the least mention of Publick Prayers he made there but only of burning Incense which the People well understood represented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance which they made without while he burnt Incense within Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer the meaning of which was as well understood by the People as what they themselves spake The Angel indeed tells him v. 13. thy Prayer is heard but this doth not prove he spake any words but rather lifted up his mind to God when the Incense ascended towards Heaven For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words But suppose he did how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times the Language of the Country Tho it is not material whether he did or no for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice And therefore this place if it prove any thing proves too much that the Publick Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People where they can neither hear nor see the Priest The XVI Levit. 17. XVI Lev. 17. is most absurdly alledged to serve this purpose because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven by virtue of his most precious Blood wherewith he entred in thither Besides the High-Priest of old said not one word while he staid there and therefore this can be no argument the People need not understand the Publick Prayers of the Church which are made not in such a Secret Place as that was but openly in the hearing of all the People Who by this reasoning may be shut out of the Church as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers and the Priest left there to a silent Service by himself Here Fathers being wanting for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue he pretends he hath no need of them tho he needlesly heapt them up where he could find a word that seemed to look that way he would have it But he supplies this want with a bold untruth That the practice of the whole Christian World for these many hundred years hath been against us who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand Which can be salved by nothing but by another proud falsity that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World For no Church uses Latin Service but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome all others use the Language of their several Countries Nay there are some who have acknowledged his Authority that would still have the Publick Service in their own Language which the People understood For shame let these men leave off Writing and betake themselves to their Prayers that God would forgive them their abominable Falshoods wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause particularly in this point about Publick Service in a Language the People do not understand Which they are sensible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul in 1 Cor. XIV and therefore this man thinks himself concern'd to attempt an Answer unto what we alledge from hence At first he distinguishes between Publick Prayer and Private which here is very idle for it is evident the Apostle speaks of Publick Prayers in the Church verse 19. When the whole Church came together in one place verse 23. Secondly He saith this place is against us because it proves the Common Service of the Church was not then in a Tongue which every man understood but in another Language not so common to all verse 16. Mark how he contradicts himself before he supposed or else he talk'd impertinently that the Apostle discourses of Private Prayers now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church of which he speaks but shews it was not in the Common Language What a brow have these men who can thus out-face the clearest truth That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons and condemns as utterly inconsistent with the very end of Speech as well as with the Edification of the Church this man makes to have been common allowed Practice Was there ever such Prevarication A man had better have no use of Reason than Discourse on this fashion no Tongue at all than talk at this rate expresly against the Apostle's Injunction who requires him who could not deliver what he spake