so slippery so weak various wavering changeable inconstant as you see the private Reason of the Learned is to be rely'd on by them as their Guide in expounding of Scripture How can you imagine it possible for all Christians to concur in the same Belief while the Learned who read and expound the Scripture give differing and contrary interpretations of it For as long as the Scripture is no otherwise in their Heads and Hearts than by the interpretation they make of it their Faith must necessarily be as various as their Interpretation And is not the Story of the Manna which follows as applicable to the Learned For was not the taste of the Manna as different to the Priests as it was to the People Did it not relish according to that kind of Meat that was most grateful to every Priest's Palate Now if the Priests in Canaan had receiv'd a Command of bringing forth that sort of Meat whose taste should be like that of the Manna they ate in the Desert was it possible they should all agree in their Dish Since tho the Manna was the same they all fed on yet the Relish was as different as their Tempers and Palats Don't you therefore see that Men will never be of one Spirit and one Mind until the reading of the Scripture be prohibited to the Learned and not to some but to all his Holiness as Infallible only excepted For if it be allow'd to the Cardinals notwithstanding their Eminences above others together with his Holiness they will never agree in the sense of it For I can tell you of many Cardinals who have differ'd from his Holiness and among themselves too about the sense of it Is it not then as plain as Demonstration that there will be no end of Controversies as long as the Scriptures are read by any Man in the World besides the Pope And perhaps not then neither for since he is not infallible but when he speaks from his Chair which seldom happens at other times he may chance to contradict himself and give one sense of Scripture this Year another the next It were therefore most advisable could it possibly be effected that the Book it self were utterly abolished Let not any Man interpret this to the disparagement of Learning since nothing can be more evident than that the Learned have vast Advantages above the rest of Mankind for attaining to the true meaning of the more obscure Texts of Scripture provided they sincerely search after Truth and are so humble so sensible of their own liableness to mistake that they daily implore the Divine Assistance But if they be destitute of these Qualifications they are not only as subject to err but to err more dangerously than others In the beginning of the 10th Chapter the Representer talks again at the same impertinent rate so agreeable to him is this way of reasoning that he naturally falls into it in every Chapter But the Vanity of it lies so open that it need not be further exposed If any Man please to consult the place I shall leave it to himself to judg whether it be not every whit as applicable against permitting the Scripture to the Learned as the Vulgar But the Representer may say The Church of Rome does not allow the Learned to interpret Scripture according to their own private Reason For the Council of Trent has decreed That no Man presume to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense of the Church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers And has not the Church of England her Confession of Faith contrary to which she allows none of her Members to interpret Scripture Does she not admit all such Traditional Interpretations as can be derived from the Fountain And for all such Texts as are obscure and doubtful does she not direct the Vulgar to consult their Guides Tho it is true she does not command them to believe that White is Black or that Vice is Vertue if the Priest says that it is But however the Church of Rome denies them the liberty of interpreting the Scripture in their own sense it is certain that they commonly take it else how comes it that they give such different senses of the same Scripture How comes it that many of the Learned expound the sixth Chapter of St. John of the sacramental eating of Christ's Flesh and many as learned as they say that no such matter is there intended How comes it when so many tell us that these words This is my Body are so plain for Transubstantiation that he must be quite blind who does not see it that others whose sight is as good as theirs tell us they are not able to see this in them Do these Learned Men in their Exposition of the Scripture give us the sense of the Roman Church or do they not If not they follow their own private Reason if they do their Church gives contrary senses of Scripture and is as far from being one in this respect as it is from being Catholic He confesses p. 63. That some of the Protestants to keep up the Face of the Church do speculatively contend for Authority and Guides But then he says In Fact they defeat all these their Pretensions How do they in Fact defeat them Because they own no Authority so great or safe but it is to be subjected to the controul of every private Examiner They own an Authority so great as to Matters of External Government as to be subject to the controul of no Man who lives in Communion with the Church But he means an Authority so great that whatsoever the Church commands and prescribes to be receiv'd as the Truth and Faith of Christ it ought to be received But can the Church have no Authority unless Men are bound to believe without examination whatsoever she prescribes to be believed If so then had she no Authority in our Saviour's and his Apostles days no nor for several Ages after them For if any such Authority had been own'd in the fourth Century how came it to pass that after the Nicene Council the Arian Heresy spread more than it had done before If this be to open a Gate to all the Fanaticisms and Quakerisms in the World 't is certain the Protestants did not first open it but it was long before open'd by our Blessed Saviour when he gave this Command to his Disciples Call no Man Father upon the Earth for one is Your Father which is in Heaven neither be ye called Masters for one is Your Master even Christ (h) Mat. 23. 9 10. As much as to say There is none upon Earth by whose sense a Christian is to be absolutely determin'd his Faith is not to be resolv'd into any Man's Authority But by the Creed all Christians are bound to believe the Holy Catholic Church Yes That there is such a Church and that this Church teaches all Truths necessary to be known But it is one thing to believe this another thing to believe as
THE Peoples Right To Read the Holy Scripture ASSERTED In ANSWER to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Second Part of the POPISH REPRESENTER LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII IMPRIMATUR Hen. Maurice Rmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscop Cant. a Sacris Maii 27. 1687. The Contents Four Things proposed to be treated of I. WHAT the Practice of the Church of Rome in this this Matter is II. That this Practice is plainly contrary to the Will of God to the Reason of the Thing and to the Practice of the Christian Church for more than a thousand Years after Christ III. The Insufficiency of those Reasons by which the Representer endeavours to justify it IV. The Truth of those Inferences the Protestants draw from it Page 1 2. CHAP. I. THE Practice of the Church of Rome in this Matter represented Pag. 2 c. CHAP. II. THE Contrariety of this Practice to the Will of God to Reason and to the Practice of the Christian Church for more than a thousand Years Pag. 8 c. SECT I. It 's contrariety to the Will of God appears in that God 1. Caused the Scriptures to be written in a Language understood by the Vulgar Pag. 9. 2. Adress'd them to the Vulgar Pag. 11. 3. Commanded the Vulgar to converse familiarly with them Pag. 12. SECT II. It 's contrariety to Reason shew'd both from the Scope and End of the Scriptures and from the Testimonies of many Learned Men of the Church of Rome Pag. 14 SECT III. It 's contrariety to the Practice of the Christian Church proved by unquestionable Testimonies for twelve hundred Years downward p. 17 c. When and upon what occasion a Restraint was first laid upon the reading of the Scriptures p. 26 CHAP. III. THE Reasons the Representer offers to justify this Practice of the Church of Rome Pag. 27 SECT I. The general Reason viz. the Mischiefs that arise from the promiscuous reading of the Scripture consider'd and the absurdity of it exposed p. 28 c. SECT II. The Mischiefs objected are all of the same kind p. 33In particular these three 1. The Divisions that are among Christians 2. As many different Bibles as there are different Heads 3. Not only several Persons but the same Person many times hath different Bibles I. That the Divisions among Christians arise solely or principally from the reading of the Bible by the Vulgar 1. It is notoriously false 2. In case it were true it would not be of force to infer his Conclusion p. 36 It is notoriously false In that 1. There were Divisions among the ancient Guides of the Church ibid. 2. There have been and still are Divisions yea as many among the Learned of the Church of Rome as among the Protestants p. 37 The Learned Romanists are divided among themselves in all those Points in which they are divided from Protestants ibid. 4. Those very pernicious Doctrines and Practices which the Representer himself mentions are deriv'd from the Learned especially from the Learned of the Church of Rome p. 39 5. The Divisions among the Vulgar for the most part are not owing to themselves but to the Learned 41 If it were true that the Divisions among Christians arise from the reading of the Bible by the Vulgar yet it would not be sufficient Reason for denying the Bible to them p. 42 II. The second Mischief viz. If the Bible be allowed the Vulgar there will be as many different Bibles among them as there are Heads p. 43 That every difference in Sense makes not a different Bible p. 44 The vanity of this Reason appears in that 1. It is of equal force against the reading of the Scripture by the Learned yea of much greater p. 45 2. Where the Vulgar are not permitted to read the Bible there are as many different Bibles in the Representer's Sense as where they are p. 46 3. The Argument retorted p. 47 III. The third Mischief may also be objected with as much Reason against the reading of the Scripture by the Learned particularly by the Roman Bishops Cardinals and Popes p. 48 SECT III. The Reasons the Representer gives why the Vulgar so differ in the sense of Scripture are two viz. The Obscurity of the Scripture and the setting up every Man's private Reason to be judg of it p. 50 1. The Obscurity of the Scriptures ibid. What the Protestants affirm of the plainness of the Scripture is no more than what the Ancient Fathers what the Bishop of Rome formerly and what many Learned Romanists of this present Age have affirm'd p. 51 That the Disagreement about the sense of Scripture proceeds not from the obscurity of it p. 52 From whence this Disagreement proceeds p. 53 2. The setting up every Man 's private Reason to be judg of Scripture p. 54 The Protestants make not Reason judg of Scripture as the Socinians do ibid. They make Reason no otherwise Judg than as our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles have allowed commanded p. 55 The Clergy of the Church of Rome notwithstanding their loud Cry against private Reason make it Judg as much as Protestants p. 56 His Argument from the Oneness of the Christian Faith answered and retorted p. 57 58 c. His other Arguments from the Authority of the Church the Creed Heb. 13. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Mat. 18. 17. answered p. 61 62 c. CHAP. IV. THE false Constructions or wrong Inferences as the Representer calls them which the Protestants make from this Practice are three 1. That the Vulgar Papists are deprived of the Word of God. 2. That they take up all their Belief upon trust 3. That the Reason why they are not permitted to read the Bible is for fear least they should discover the Errors of their Religion p. 65 SECT I. The first Protestant Inference justified and the Representer's Reasons to the contrary shew'd to be idle and insignificant p. 65 66 67 c SECT II. That the Vulgar Papist takes all his Belief upon trust p. 7â— This shew'd in each of those Heads mentioned by the Representer And the absurdity of his Reasons to the contrary maâ— manifest p. 71 72 7â— SECT III. The third Inference vindicated and his two Reasons â— it shew'd to be of no force p. â—â— No thanks to them that the Bible is not denied the Learned p. â—â— That it is the Bible it self they look upon as mischievous p. â—â— Some Learned Men not so well qualified to discover their â—â—rors as some of the Vulgar p. â—â— Many of their Learned Men have discovered their Errors p. â—â— Why more liberty is given to their Vulgar here in Englaâ—â— than in other Countries p. â—â— That the Vulgar here in England have discovered their Errâ—â— p â—â— The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture asserted THough it is as evident as that the Scripture is in Print that the free Use of it is by the Roman Clergy
denied to the Vulgar yet when they are charged with it by Protestants they either take the confidence plainly to deny it or if they own the Charge as the Representer doth they endeavour to put such glosses upon it as to make their denial of the Scripture to be in effect but a better way of granting it For since it is not the words of the Bible but the sense and meaning of the words that is properly the Word of God while they withhold from them the Letter they provide means to acquaint them with the Spirit or the true sense of Scripture and so deliver it to them with much more advantage than People of any other Perswasion have it What others have formerly written for their Vindication in this Matter it is needless now to examine since it is not to be supposed but that the Representer hath said as much to the purpose as any of those who have gone before him I shall therefore confine the ensuing Discourse to what he hath said in his 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters And that it may be the more clear and satisfactory I shall shew these four Things I. What is the Practice of the Church of Rome in this Matter II. That this Practice is plainly contrary to the Will of God to the Reason of the Thing and to the Practice of the Christian Church for more than a thousand Years after Christ III. The insufficiency of those Reasons by which the Representer endeavours to justify it IV. Vindicate those Inferences the Protestants draw from it All that is said by the Representer may I think be reduced to one or other of these Heads CHAP. I. THough some may think it needless to insist upon the first of these since what the Protestants charge the Church of Rome with in this Matter is freely enough owned by the Representer himself * Chap. 6. p. 45 46. Chap. 7. p. 52. Chap. 9. p. 57. yet because some of that Communion here in England who for prudential Reasons are not so straitly tied up do confidently deny it it may not be amiss for their information to give some short account of it from better Authority than that of the Representer For which we need go no further than the fourth Rule of the Trent Expurgatory Index which is this Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible be promiscuously permitted in the vulgar Tongue by reason of the rashness of Men more Loss than Profit will thence arise In this Matter let the Judgment of the Bishop or Inquisitor be stood to that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor they may grant the reading of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue translated by Catholick Authors to such as they shall understand can receive no hurt by such reading but increase of Faith and Piety Which Faculty let them have in writing But he that without such Faculty shall presume to read or to have the Bible he may not receive Absolution of his Sins except he first deliver up his Bible to the Ordinary If any Man shall say That this Rule hath not the force of a Law Monsieur de Maire Counsellor Almoner and Preacher to the King of France in a Book published by Authority shall give him an Answer This Rule saith he is founded in Ecclesiastical Right and no Man can transgress it without contradicting that Obedience which he owes to the Church and the Holy See from which it hath received its Confirmation Forasmuch as this Rule was not made but in prosecution of the Decree of the Council of Trent c. no Man can deny but that it hath been approved by the Holy Sea and authorized by the Bulls of Pius IV and Clement VIII who after they had view'd and diligently examin'd it publish'd it to the World with Order that it should be obey'd (b) Enfin je maintiens que cette Regle est fondeé en droict Ecclesiastique et qu' on ne la peut violer sans choquer l'obeïssance qu' l'on doit à l'Eglise c. Le Sanctuaire serme aux Profanes part 3. c. 1. p. 335 336. If says he there be any thing that can hinder this Rule from having the Force of a Law it must be either because it hath not been published or being published hath not been received but neither the one nor the other can be said since it is evident that this is the old Quarrel we have with our Hereticks that this is that which our Church hath always been upbraided with by the Enemies of the Faith this is that which is the Subject of their most outragious Calumnies this is that which hath been acknowledged by 〈◊〉 wise Men that which hath been earnestly maintained by all the Defenders of Catholick Truths c Ce que personne n' ignore ce que tout le monde publie n' y aiant point de creance plus commune ny plus generale parmy les fidels c. Ibid. that which no Person is ignorant of that which the whole World publishes there being no Point of Belief more common nor more general among the Faithful than this of the Prohibition to read the Bible without permission And this Belief so common is says he a certain Proof not only of the publication but of the reception of this Rule It cannot be denied but that it hath been received by all those Nations by which the Decrees of Trent were universally received And so they were as Pallavicino tells us d Pallav. l. 24. c. 9 11 12 13. in Italy Spain Sicily Portugal Poland the greater part of Germany and many other Countries But suppose this Rule were not received as imposed by the Council of Trent yet in all Popish Countries they have made it a Law to themselves It is not indeed observed in France upon the Authority of the Council but they have set it up and established it as a Law by their own Authority as is manifest by the Mandates of their Archbishops and Bishops the Decrees of their Provincial Councils and the Edicts and Arrests of their Kings and Parliaments e La Bible Deffendue au Vulgaire Part. 3. c. 1 4. Collectio Auctor Versiones Vulg. damnant It is true there is a little more latitude in France for granting a Licence for not only the Bishop and his Vicar-General but the Penitentiary or a Man 's own Parish Priest may grant it f Mandeuent de Monseigneur L' Archevesque de Paris portant defense de lire la Bible en Langue Vulgaire sans permission Fait le 2 Septembre 1650. But then to make an amends for this in other Countries the Rule is made stricter than it was at first by the Trent Fathers for that does not forbid the Vulgar Bible but only the reading it without a Licence whereas the 5th Rule of the Spanish Index prohibits the Bibles themselves in the Vulgar Tongue and all Parts of them too and that not
God caused it at first to be written in a Language understood by the Vulgar 2. He caused it to be directed and addressed to them 3. He commanded them to acquaint themselves with it 1. God caused the holy Scriptures to be at first written in a Language understood by the Vulgar That the Books of Moses and the Prophets were written in the common Language of the Jews is generally granted by the Romanists themselves Monsieur Mallet indeed has been so hardy as to say That it is most probable that the Books of the Law were not composed by Moses in the Vulgar Language of the Jews But the Arguments by which he attempts to prove it are not only ridiculous and in themselves false but in case they were true would be so far from establishing what he asserts that they would quite destroy it He that hath a Mind to see them exposed let him consult Monsieur Arnaud's another learned Romanist Confutation of his Book (b) De la Lecture de l' Ecriture Sainte contre les Parodoxes extravagans impies de Mons Mallet Out of which I shall at present transcribe but one Passage I shall say a Word only says he of Moses 's last Song because it is a demonstrative Proof that there is nothing in the World more manifestly false than that which Monsieur Mallet says is probable for there is nothing in all the Books of Moses that is more nobly written and in a more lofty Stile than this Song which he commanded the Jews to write and to learn by Heart and to sing often that it might serve as a Testimony against themselves if they should forsake the Worship of God. He therefore certainly supposed that they would understand it since his Intention was that in singing it they should be touched and affected with it (c) Je diray Seulement un mot de son dernier Cantique parce que c'est une preuve demonstrative pour faire voir que Mr. Mall appelle probable la chose du monde la plus visiblement fausse c. l. 1. c. 4. p. 55. As for the Books of the New Testament there is no question save of two only the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews but that they were all written in Greek which was then the most Vulgar Language in the World there being no other Tongue at that time understood by so many People And whereas it is objected that the Latin was the Vulgar Tongue of the Romans to whom notwithstanding St. Paul wrote in Greek The answer is easy That the Greek Tongue was at that time more generally underderstood and used at Rome it self It was more known to the Strangers there and particularly to the Jews whom the Apostle had in his Epistle a special regard to who were well acquainted with the Greek but for the most part ignorant of the Latin Tongue d Grot. Annot in Evang. S. Marci Epist ad Heb. And for the Romans themselves scarce any could be found no not among their Women who did not understand it In such common use was it that as Mr. Arnaud observes they taught it even their Parrots e De la Lect. c. l. 2. c. 13. If St. Matthew's Gospel was written at first in Hebrew as many of the Ancients affirm by Hebrew they meant that which was then the Vulgar Language of the Jews who dwelt at Jerusalem for whose sake his Gospel was primarily written This is asserted by such great Authorities in the Church of Rome as one would think no Romanist should reject particularly by Estius and Bellarmin I shall recite Bellarmin's Words and for brevity sake refer the Reader to Estius f Est Proleg in Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos super hac quaestione Qua lingua scripta sit Epist ad Hebraeos It is very probable says the Cardinal that the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syriac Tongue for Albertus Widmestadius and Guido Fabritius have proved it by the most convincing Arguments Neither do the ancient Writers Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Jerom who say these Books especially the Gospel of St. Matthew were written in Hebrew contradict these for they speak of that Hebrew which was the Vulgar Tongue in the time of the Apostles even as in the Gospel it self we frequently read that a thing was so call'd in the Hebrew when it is manifest that was so call'd in the Syriac For instance He went forth into a place call'd the place of a Scull which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha whereas Golgotha is not a proper Hebrew but a Syriac word g Bell. de Verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. Add to this That Eusebius says expresly that St. Matthew writ his Gospel in his Country Language and the reason he gives for it necessarily required that he should do so h Euseb Hist Ecclesiast l. 3. For the Epistle to the Hebrews it matters not whether it was originally written in Greek or Syriac because both these Languages were then generally understood by the Hebrews Tho Estius has produc'd such Arguments as will not easily be answered to prove that it was at first written in Greek To conclude this Argument Since God caused the Scriptures to be at first written in a Language the Vulgar were acquainted with who can be so sensless as to imagine that is was not his pleasure that the vulgar should read them 2. God at first addressed the Holy Scriptures to the Vulgar as well as to others I have written to him saith God the great Things of my Law i Hos 8. 12. Who was he to whom he had written them The Verse foregoing told us it was Ephraim who is there put for the whole Body of the Israelites The first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is directed to all that in every Place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus The second to the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Acaia For the rest of the Epistles I refer the Reader to the Discourse quoted in the Margin (k) The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Now can any Man who has not quite lost his Understanding suppose that God would not have these Epistles read by those Persons to whom they were written There are those Persons I know who pretend to think so who tell us That though St. Paul directed his Epistles to all Christians in general yet his intention was that the Pastors of the Church only should read them But can any thing be said more absurdly Are not those Epistles he designed for the Pastors directed to them alone as his Epistles to Timothy and Titus Why then should he direct his other Epistles to all the Saints but that it was his intention that they all should be made acquainted with them When his Epistle to the Philippians is directed to ALL the Saints at
it As it was foretold that false Teachers should arise so every Age since hath seen that Prediction verified and for this Reason St. John exhorts Vulgar Christians as well as others to bring their Teachers Doctrines to the Trial (l) 1 Joh. 4. 1. Is it necessary that every one that is commission'd to teach should be so sincere as to deliver nothing but what he believes to be the Faith of Christ The Bishop of Minori in the Council of Trent thought otherwise he was afraid there might be many Priests who were real Infidels (m) Hist of the Counc of Trent l. 2. p. 241. And if the Representer be not satisfied with this we can produce those in this very Age who have taught that as a necessary Article of Faith which they were so far from believing necessary that they could not perswade themselves it was true But if the Priest be honest is he also infallible This the Representer must suppose or else he reasons at an absurd rate For thus he argues Was Mary Magdalen deprived of the Word of God who placed at her Saviour's Feet heard it from his own most sacred Mouth Were those People deprived of the Word of God to whom the Apostles were sent to preach for those several Years before any of the Gospel was in writing It is not writing we know that makes it the Word of God for all that Word of God that is now written was once unwritten But pray Sir tell me Is every thing taught by a Priest of the Church of Rome as certainly the Word of God as that which was taught by our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles Is every Parish Priest at length become Infallible If so what a shame is it that any Controversies are left among your selves when every Parish affords an infallible Interpreter of Scripture If not then they may teach that for the Word of God which is nothing less However all that we contend for is That the Vulgar may be suffer'd to read that Word which Mary heard for that she heard was the same that is now written and had it been then written from Christ's Mouth can any Man be so sensless as to imagine that after he had done speaking he would have forbidden her under severe Penalties to read it But let us now suppose That every Roman Teacher is both able and sincere will it hence follow that the People may not read the Scriptures Had St. Luke thought so he would never have commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures whether those things that were spoken by St. Paul were so (n) Act. 17. 11. Had St. Paul himself thought so would he have proved what he said by Scripture for in doing so he put his Hearers upon the searching it and thereby taught all succeeding Pastors what they ought to do To which purpose the words of Origen are observable (o) In cap. 3. Epist ad Rom. If such and so great an Apostle did not suppose his Authority sufficient Warrant to his Sayings unless he made it appear that what he says is written in the Law and the Prophets how much more ought we little Ones observe this that we do not bring forth ours but the Sentences of the Holy Spirit Now I presume it will not be denied but St. Paul was as faithful and able a Teacher as any in the Church of Rome If it should yet doubtless it will be granted that our Saviour may compare with the best of them and he as we have heard before frequently sent his Hearers to the Scriptures And if we consult the Ancient Fathers especially St. Chrysostom who was as diligent a Pastor as any the Church can now boast of we shall find that notwithstanding his abundant pains in teaching he vehemently exhorted the People to read the Scriptures themselves and enforc'd his Exhortation by many powerful Arguments Omitting many others I shall reciet one Passage in his 10th Homily on the first Chapter of the Gospel of St. John Before I proued saith he to his Hearers to explain the words I will ask one favour of you which I beseech you not to deny me for it is nothing burdensom nothing hard to be done which I ask and much more profitable to you than to me What is it then which I desire That one Day in the Week at least on Saturday you take care to read that part of the Gospel which I am to explain to you that every one take it into his Hands repeat it often at Home consider the Scope of it mark what is clear and what obscure and what seems repugnant in it and weighing all things beforehand do you thus present your selves to hear This will bring no small profit both to you and to me For it will be no great labour to me to make you understand the force of the Gospel when you have before render'd it as to the words at least familiar to your selves at Home And you will be not only more quick and ready to hear and learn but also to teach others There are many here present who hear and endeavour to retain the words and what I say upon them who would receive no great benefit tho I should spend a whole Year in preaching upon them Why Because by the bye and only for a little time here they apply their minds to them c. I grant It was Preaching Teaching and Instructing by word of Mouth was the means appointed by Christ for planting his Gospel But what then doth it follow that when the Gospel was written it might not be read by the Vulgar No more doubtless than that it might not be read by the Learned for that was the Means used for planting it among both Nor can we well imagine how it could at first be otherwise planted because it was then to be confirm'd by Miracles And suppose it were true that the Apostles who were thus commanded to preach had never any Command to write Is not this as good a Reason why the Priests may not read the Gospel as why the People may not In the words following the Representer sums up his Argument viz. Since then the Papists are taught and instructed in the Word of God the very same way that Christ himself taught all those that followed him since they are instructed in it the same way the Apostles themselves observed and commanded by submitting to and obeying those that are over them Why do you say they are deprived of the Word of God I answer For these Reasons 1. Because that which they have of the Word of God is but very little in comparison of what they are deprived of 2. Because much of that little if taken with those glosses and understood in that sense which they put upon it is not the Word of God. 3. Because much of that little which in popular Discourse is delivered to them as the Word of God is nothing less This the Representer must be forc'd to grant unless he