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
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
Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith therefore instead of express words this man tells us by a likeness of reason it is the same in Faith that it is in Sin he who denies one Article denies all We deny none but only their New Articles which are no part of the Ancient Apostolick Catholick Faith IV. Act. 32. The next IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians And that which follows 1 Cor. I. 10. 1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was but what ought to be in the Church For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions as appears by that very Chapter Therefore he is still beside the Book and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us as an Argument we are not the true Believers the Apostle speaks of when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived nor is the Church of Rome or any other Church at such unity but there are various Sects among them He hath little to do who will trouble himself upon the account of such a Scribler as this to consider that heap of Texts which he hath hudled together without any order or any regard to his Point he was to prove What St. Austin also and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity doth not at all concern us who preserve that Unity which they have broken by preserving that One Faith from which they of the Church of Rome have departed For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did but they have another Faith of their own devising This is that wherein we cannot unite with them And all the Unity they brag of is in truth no better than that of the Jews Hereticks and Pagans who as St. Austin * De Verbis Domini Serm. VI. speaks maintain an Vnity against Vnity In this they combine together to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered as insufficient to Salvation Which is a conspiracy in Error rather than unity in the Truth XI That St. Peter was not ordained by Christ the first Head or Chief among the Apostles and that among the Twelve none was greater or lesser than other Answer WE are now come to the great Point which is the support of the whole Roman Cause But he neither knows our Opinion about it nor their own or else dares not own what it is We believe Peter was the first Apostle and that he was a Chief though not the chief Apostle For there were others who were eminent that is Chiefs upon some account or other as well as himself 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief neither we nor those of his own Religion know unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles one over another This is strange language which none understands Peter was first in Order Place Precedence but not in Power Authority and Jurisdiction in these none was greater or lesser than another Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible but most agreeable thereunto For so the Text saith X. Matth. 2. X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Observation to inform us That all the Evangelists when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose put Peter first Which doth not signifie he was the worthiest of them all that no way appears but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called we expresly read and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness it doth not prove his Authority over the rest as he is pleased to improve this Observation in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place for tho he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others they gave him no Superiority in Power but in that every one of them was his equal What follows upon this Text is so frivolous and childish a reasoning it ought to be despised Next he betakes himself to the Rock XVI Matth. 18. mentioned XVI Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again but they harden their hearts against it is not spoken of Peter as this man most impudently contrary to his own Bible makes the words sound but of the Faith which Peter confessed as the general current of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it But if we should by the Rock understand Peter it insinuates no Supremacy much less clearly insinuates it For none but such a man as this to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks would have thought of that at the reading of the word Rock but rather of Firmness Stability or Solidity which the Word plainly enough imports but nothing of Authority Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone with respect to his being the Soveraign and Absolute Pastor of his Church but because of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God Next to those who by Rock understand as I said the Faith which Peter confessed the greatest number of Ancient Expositors understand thereby Christ himself Unto whom this man hath the face to say these words do not agree because he speaks of the time to come I will build as if Christ were not always what he ever was being the same to day yesterday and for ever It is a burning shame as we speak that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors and to write Books which have nothing in them but trifling observations and false allegations For after all should we grant Peter to be the Rock it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so as much as he for the Church was built upon them all on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets II. Ephes 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him not One alone but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jerusalem i. e. the Church of Christ which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord XXI Rev. 14. The next place XVIII Matth. 18. XVIII Matth. 18. is so plain a promise to all the Apostles that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest especially if it be observed that when this Promise was fulfilled they were all equally partakers of it when our Saviour breathed on them and said unto them mark that he breathed on them all and said not to Peter alone but them i. e. the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whos 's soever sins ye retain XX. John 22 23. they are retained c. XX. John 22 23. Now he falls a Reasoning again for alas express Texts fail him but it amounts to no more than this That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place but gave him another name I am sorry for his ignorance that he did not know or for his dishonesty that he would not consider
Vniversal Mâ—narch over all the Earth Which is as reasonable from these Principles as one visible Head of the Church But to answer his question plainly There is no one visible Head here because Christ the Head of the Church both Triumphant and Militant hath ordered it otherwise Having placed saith St. Paul 1 Cor. XII 28. in the Church first Apostles not Peter or any one alone over the rest but the Apopostles were left by Christ the Supreme Power in the Church Here I cannot but conclude as that great and good Man Dr. Jackson * L. III Chap â— doth upon such an occasion Reader Consult with thy own heart and give sentence as in the sight of God and judge of the whole Frame of their Religion by the Foundation and of the Foundation which is this Supremacy of Peter by the wretched Arguments whereby they support it For from the other Scriptures which follow in this Writer their Arguments stand thus David was made Head of the Heathen XVIII Psal 43. therefore Peter was made Head of the Church Instead of the Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands XLV Psal 16. therefore Peter ruled over all the rest as a Prince Simon he sirnamed Peter III. Mark 16. therefore he had authority over all because named first The same is gathered from I. Act 13 merely from the order of precedence which must be granted to one or other in a Body where all are equal Finally Christ's kingdom shall have no end I. Luke 33. therefore St. Peter must reign for ever in his Successors St. Paul was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Corinth XI 5. therefore what common Reason would have concluded therefore there were more chief Apostles besides Peter and St. Paul was not inferior to the greatest of them not to Peter himself These are his Scripture-Arguments for their Supremacy And his Fathers affirm nothing at all of Peter which is not said of other Apostles Particularly St. Chrysostom who says no such thing of Peter as he makes him in his 55th Hom. upon Matthew expresly says St. Paul governed the whole World as one Ship Hom. 25. upon 2 Corinth and frequently calls him as well as Peter Prince of the Apostles and calls them all the Pastors and Rectors of the whole World in his 2d Hom. upon Titus And to be short the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew commonly ascribed to St. Chrysost calls all Bishops the Vicars of Christ Hom 17. Finally there is no Title so great which is not given to others as well as Peter by ancient Writers even the Title of Bishop of Bishops the name of Pope Holiness Blessed and such like XII We hold he saith That a Woman may be Head or Supream Governess of the Church in all Causes as the late Queen Elizabeth was Answer NOne of us ever called Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church unless as it signifies Supream Governour And that indeed we assert she was and all our Kings are of all persons whatsoever in all Causes But because some leud People perverted the meaning of this our Church took care to explain it in one of the Articles of Religion that no man might mistake in the matter unless he would wilfully as this Writer doth who could not but understand that it is expresly declared Article XXXVII that when we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government we do not give to our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments c. but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself That is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers This is our avowed Doctrine Now what do our Bibles say against this Nothing but a woman may not teach 1 Tim. II. 12. c. 1 Tim. II. 12. And do not we say the same that our Princes may not minister the Word or Sacraments What a shameless sort of People have we to deal withal who face us down that we affirm what we flatly deny And when he pretends faithfully to recite the words of our Bible after the New Translation as he doth in his Preface here he gives us another Translation in the second Text he alledges 1 Cor. XIV 34. But take it as it is it proves nothing but his folly and impudence unless he could shew that Queen Elizabeth preached publickly in any of our Churches But see the Childishness of this Writer in alledging these Texts against the Queen which make nothing against our Kings who are not Women sure And we ascribe the same power to them which we did to her and no more to her than belongs to them From Scripture he betakes himself to Reasoning which proceeds upon the same wilful Mistake we cannot call it but Calumny against our express Declaration to the contrary That we give our Kings such an Headship or Supream Power as makes them capable to minister the Word and Sacraments From whence he draws this new Slander That many hundreds of them have been hang'd drawn and quarter'd for denying this Power VVhereas every one knows the Oath of Supremacy is nothing else but a solemn declaration of our belief that our Kings are the Supream Governors of these Realms in all Spiritual things or Causes as well as Temporal and that no Foreign Prince or Prelate hath any Jurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in these Realms c. Now what can he find in his Fathers to oppose this There were none of them for above 800 years who did not believe this that Emperors and Kings are next to God and the Pope himself ought to be subject to them L. II. 1. The words of Optatus speak the sense of them all There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor And none can deny the Ancient Custom to have been that the Clergy and People of Rome having chosen the Pope the Emperor confirmed or invalidated the Election as he pleased Adrian indeed would fain have changed this Custom Anno 811. but still it continued a long time that the Election was not accounted valid till the Emperor's Confirmation And he cannot but know if he have read his own Authors that after Adrian's attempt above forty Popes from John IX to Leo IX were all created by the Emperors who frequently also deposed Popes And Popes were so far from having any such Authority over the Emperors that when Pope Gregory VII adventured upon it it was esteemed a Novity not to say an Heresy as Sigebert's words are ad Anno 1088. which had not sprung up in the World before But the Reader may here observe how well skill'd this Man is in the Fathers who places John Damascen in the very front of them
found in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. L. V. cap. 30. Latin for saith he They are Latins who now Reign but we will not Glory in this For it being the Common Opinion of the Church the Latin i. e. Roman Empire was that which hindred the appearance of Antichrist Irenaeus might thence conclude that Antichrist should reign in the Seat of that Latine Empire when it was faln And Antichrist not being as I have proved a particular Man this Number must be common unto all that make up that Antichristian Rule in the Roman Church In which the Popes are all Latins and they are distinguished from the Greeks by the Name of the Latin Church and they have their Service still in the Latin Tongue as if they affected to make good this Observation that in them is found this number of the Beast But I lay no great weight upon this Opinion of Irenaeus tho it will be very hard for them to confute it 1 John II. 22. As to the 1 John II. 22. we do not say the Pope is the Antichrist there meant and yet for all that he may be the Great Antichrist For it is to be observed That St. John saith there v. 18. that there were many Antichrists in his time and this Antichrist who denied Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh or that Jesus was the Christ was one of them yet not a single Person but a Body of Men there being several Sects of them under Simon Magus Cerinthus and the rest who belonged to this Antichrist All which Hereticks their own Church acknowledges were the foreruners of the Great Antichrist whom we are seeking after and can find no where but in the Papacy From hence he runs back again to the 2 Thess II. 4. where those very Characters 2 Thess II. 4 c. which he saith do not agree to the Pope are those whereby we are led to take him for the Man of Sin He being manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That wicked One we translate it who will be subject to no Laws and sits in or upon the Temple of God that is the Christian Church where he exalts himself over all that is called God that is all Power on Earth whom he makes subject to his decrees which he would have received as the Oracles of God and that by a blind Obedience against Mens reason which is more than God himself requires of us The Original of his Greatness was out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire His coming was with lying Wonders and whatsoever this Man fancies our Lord Jesus Christ tho not yet come will come and certainly destroy him When the kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever XI Rev. 15. The last place upon which he adventures to discourse is V. John 43. V. John 43. where we have only his word for it that when our Saviour saith If another shall come in his own Name he means especially the wicked Antichrist Why him especially Or him at all And not rather any one who should pretend to be the Christ As several did according to our Saviours Prediction XXIV Matth. 5. such as Theudas Barchozba mentioned by Josephus and another of the same Name in the time of the Emperor Adrian And indeed there are such clear Demonstrations which I have not room to mention that this word another ought not to be restrained to one Single Person such as they make the Great Antichrist but signifies any body indifferently who pretended to be the Christ that we may well conclude those to be blinded who make Christ have respect to the Great Antichrist and from thence conclude the Pope not to be that Antichrist because the Jews do not follow him Alas they see as little concerning Antichrist as the Jews do of Christ as was truly observed by an Eminent Divine of our own long ago For as the Jews still expect the Messiah who is already come and was Crucified by their Fore-fathers so they of the Roman Church look for an Antichrist who hath been a long time revealed and is reverenced by them as a God upon Earth Thus Dr. Jackson * Book III. On the Creed Ch. 8. who ventures to say further That he who will not acknowledge the Papacy to be the Kingdom of Antichrist hath great reason to suspect his heart that if he had lived with our Saviour he would scarce have taken him for his Messias * Ib. Chap. XXII p. 452. They that have a mind to see more of this Man's folly may look into the other Scriptures he barely mentions where they will soon discover how much they make against him What the Fathers say about this matter I have already acquainted the Reader which is so positive and unanimous that it is sufficient to overthrow what some of them say conjecturally Particularly upon the place last mentioned V. John 43. concerning which they speak with no certainty as they do of the rise of Antichrist after the Roman Empire was removed out of the way which gave the greatest advantage to the Bishop of Rome to advance himself unto that unlimited Power which he hath usurped over the Church of God In short this Man hath stoln all his Authorities about this matter out of Feuardentius's Notes upon Irenaeus * Lib. V. C. 25. where he makes this alius another to be Antichrist because he is alienus à Domino an alien from the Lord which is not the right Character of Antichrist whom St. Paul makes to be no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary who opposeth our blessed Saviour And to shew that this is a meer Accommodation he adds in the next words that he is the unjust Judge whom Christ speaks of that feared not God nor regarded Man It any one can think the Fathers intended to expound the Scripture and to give us the express sense of it in such Speeches as these he hath a very strange understanding XIV That no Man nor any but God can forgive or retain Sins Answer THE strength of these Men lies only in their deceit and fraud They dare not represent either their own Doctrine or ours truly For this Proposition is both true and false in divers regards It is true that none but God can absolutely and sovereignly forgive Sin But it is false that no Man can forgive Sins Ministerially and Conditionally For by Authority from God Men appointed thereunto do forgive Sins as his Ministers by Baptism by the Holy Communion by Preaching and by Absolution The only Qustion is Whether their Absolution be only declarative or also operative And in this if we be not all agreed no more are they of the Roman Church For P. Lombard did not believe that the Priest wrought any Absolution from Sins but only declared the Party to be absolved And the most Ancient Schoolmen follow him such as Occam who says according
our sins to any man but to God only Answer THis is a most impudent falshood for we press this as a Duty in some cases for the quieting of mens Consciences when they are burdned with Guilt particularly before they receive the Communion and when they are sick But that which we affirm in this matter is That God doth not require all Christians to make a particular Confession privately to a Priest of every sin he hath committed tho only in thought under pain of being damn'd if he do not Much less do we believe such Confession to be Meritorious and Satisfactory for sin Nor do the Scriptures which he quotes prove a syllable of this doctrine The first he alledges III. Matth. 5 6. Matth. III. 5 6. speaks of those who confessed their sins before they received Baptism of John the Baptist But what is this to Confession of sins after Baptism And besides there is not a word of their confessing them to John nor of particular Confession of every sin And therefore Maldonate tells such raw Divines as this We ought not to rely upon this Testimony for it is manifest it doth not treat of Sacramental Confession which was not yet instituted And Bellarmine their great Master durst venture no further than to call this which was done at John's Baptism a figure of their Sacramental Confession And this poor man himself concludes no more from hence than this That we may confess our sins who doubts of it not only to God but also to man But this is very short of what he undertook to prove by express Texts That we ought to confess c. Act. XIX 18 19. Nor dare he venture to conclude any more from the next place but that we may confess our sins to men XIX Acts 18 19. Where he bids us Behold Confession but doth not tell us to whom So we are never the wiser because it might be to God and that before all the Company as the words seem to import But he bids us also Behold Satisfaction because several people not the same he spake of before brought forth their curious Books which were worth a great deal of money and burnt them before all men A plain and publick demonstration indeed that they detested those Magical Arts whereby they gave also satisfaction to all men of their sincere renunciation of such wicked practices But what proof is this of a Compensation made to God hereby for their Sins which deserved of him an acquittance His Third Text is still more remote from the business V. Numb 6 7. Numb V. 6 7. and therefore alledged by wiser heads than his such as Bellarmine only as a figure of Sacramental Confession the least shadow of which doth not appear For there is neither Confession of all sins here mentioned but only of that particular for which the Sacrifice was offered nor Confession of the sin to the Priest but rather to the Lord as the words more plainly signifie If a man or wâ—â—an commit any sin that men commit and do trespass against the LORD and that person be guilty then they shall confess their sin which they have done An unbiassed Reader would hence conclude they were bound to confess their sin to the LORD against whom they had trespassed His other Scriptures perhaps he was sensible were nothing to the purpose and therefore he only sets down the Chapter and Verse as his manner is when he bids See more where nothing is to be seen For the first is only the same we had out of St. Matthew The next V. James 16. speaks of one man's confessing his sins to his neighbour The next we had before under the former Head And the last I am willing to think is mis-printed or his mind was much amiss when he noted it XVII Matth. 14. His Fathers also have only the word Confession not saying whether to God or to man and he thinks that enough But it is a shameless thing to quote St. Chrysostom for this Doctrine who in so many places exhorts his people only to confess their sins in private to God that Sixtus Senensis is forced to expound him as if he spake only against the necessity of such Publick Confession as was abolished at Constantinople But Petavius who proves there was no such Publick Confession is fain to desire the Reader to be so kind as not to take St. Chrysostom's words strictly but spoken popularly in a heat of declamation And we are content to do so if they would be so just as to do the same in other cases But still we cannot think St. Chrysostom so very hot-headed but that sometimes he would have been so cool as to have spoken more cautiously and not have so frequently over-lasht as they make him That which he quotes out of Ambrose he is told by Bellarmine is Greg. Nyssen so little doth this poor man know of their own Authors As for his sitting to hear Confessions if his Author be worth any thing which is much suspected by Learned men of his own Communion it is meant of Publick Confession such as was in use in his time XVI That Pardons and Indulgences were not in the Apostles times Answer NOthing truer by the Confession of their own Authors particularly Antoninus * Part I. Tit. X c. 3. in his Sums Of these we have nothing expresly neither in the Scriptures nor out of the sayings of the Ancient Doctors The same is said by Durandus and many others who have been so honest as to confess That such Indulgences and Pardons as are now in use are but of late invention There being no such thing heard of in the Ancient Church as a Treasure of the Church made up of the Satisfaction of Christ and of the Saints out of which these Indulgences are now granted for the profit of the dead as well as of the living Whereas of old they were nothing but Relaxations of Canonical Penances when long and severe Humiliations had been imposed upon great Offenders which sometimes were thought fit to be remitted upon good considerations either as to their severity or as to their length Now this which was done by any Bishop as well as he of Rome we are not against But such Indulgences are in these ages of no use because the Penitential Canons themselves are relaxed or rather laid aside and no such tedious and rigorous Penances are inflicted which the Church of Rome hath exchanged for Auricular Confession and a slight Penance soon finished The first place he produces out of our Bible to countenance their Indulgences 2 Cor. II. 10. we had before to prove men may forgive sins Sect. XIV and others have alledged it to prove men may satisfie for their sins now it is pressed for the service of Indulgences What will not these men make the Scripture say if they may have the handling of it But after all this will not serve their purpose for the Pardon the Apostle here speaks of was nothing
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
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
dying but of anointing for the health of the Body and the restoring a man to life Therefore he might have spared his Discourse about the matter and form c. of a Sacrament for their Sacrament is not here described but an holy Rite for a purpose as much different from theirs as the Soul is from the Body and Life from Death VI. Mark 13. Mark VI. 13. His own best Writers confess belongs not to this matter containing only an adumbration and a figure of the Sacrament but was not the Sacrament it self as Menochius expounds the place according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent which saith this Sacrament as they call it was insinuated in VI. Mark Now that is said to be insinuated which is not expresly propounded mark that but adumbrated and obscurely indicated See how ignorant this man is in his own Religion XVI Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing but only of laying on of hands and yet this man hath the face to ask as if the Cause were to be carried by impudence if they are not sick in their wits who oppose so plain Scriptures When nothing is plainer than that these places speak of Miraculous Cures as they themselves would confess If they would speak the truth to use his words and shame the Devil For Cardinal Cajetan a man of no small learning expresly declares neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned speak of Sacramental Vnction Particularly upon those words of St. James which is the only place the best of them dare rely upon he thus writes It doth not appear that he speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction either from the words or from the effect but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed in the Gospel for the cure of the Sick For the Text doth not say Is any man sick unto death but absolutely is any man sick And the effect was the relief of the sick man on whom forgiveness of sins was bestowed only conditionally Whereas Extream Vnction is not given but when a man is at the point of death and directly tends as its form sheweth to remission of sins Besides St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the sick man to pray and anoint him which is disagreeing to the Rite of Extream Vnction Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him for he was no Friend to Protestants but would not lie for the Service of his Cause And before him such Great men as Hugo de S. Victori Bonaventure Alex. Halensis Altisiodor all taught that Extream Vnction was not instituted by Christ His Fathers say not a word of this Extream Unction Both Origen and Bede as Estius acknowledges accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous sort of sins to the remission of which there is need of the Ministry of the Keys and so they refer it to another Sacrament as they now call it viz. that of Absolution See the Faith of this man who thus endeavours to impose upon his Readers as he doth also in the citing of St. Chrysostome who saith the same with the other two and of St. Austin who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo without adding any words of his own to signify the sense As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his Next to this he makes us say XLIII That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders And that Ordinary Vocation and Mission of Pastors is not necessary in the Church Answer HERE are Two Parts of this Proposition in both of which he notoriously slanders us and in the first of them dissembles their own Opinion For we do not say That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders but that this is not a Sacrament properly so called conferring sanctifying Grace and that the outward Sign among them is not Imposition of Hands but delivering of the Patin and Chalice concerning which the Scripture speaks not a syllable Nor is any man admitted to be a Pastor among us but by a Solemn Ordination wherein the Person to be ordained Priest professes he thinks himself truly called according to the Will of our Lord c. unto that Order and Ministry and the Bishop when he lays hands on him saith in so many words Receive the Holy Ghost c. which is the conferring that Grace which they themselves call gratis data and which the Apostle intends in the Scriptures he mentions 1 Tim. IV. 14. In the first of which 1 Tim. IV. 14. there is no express mention of Grace which he promis'd to show us in our Bible but of a Gift By which Menochius himself understands The Office and Order of a Bishop the Authority and Charge of Teaching And so several of the Ancient Interpreters such as Theodoret St. Chrysostom understands it As others take it to signify extraordinary Gifts such as those of Tongues Healing c. none think it speaks of sanctifying Grace So that I may say alluding to his own words See how plain it is that this Man doth not understand the Scripture And hath made a mere Rope of Sand in his following reasoning for there is this Mission among us of which the Apostle speaks viz. A Designation unto a special Office with Authority and Power to perform it The Apostle speaks of the same thing in 2 Tim. I. 6. 2 Tim. I. 6. where there is no mention of Grace at all but only of the Gift of God which was in him Which if we will call a Grace a word we dislike not it was not a Grace to sanctify but to inable him to perform all the Offices belonging to that Order ex gr strenuously to Preach the Gospel and to propagate the Faith c. They are the words of the same Menochius from whence I may take occasion again to say See how plain the Scripture is against him And how fouly he belies us in saying that we affirm Laying on of Hands not to be needful to them who have already in them the Spirit of God For after the Bishop hath askt the question to one to be ordained Deacon whether he trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that Office and Ministration c. And he hath answer'd I trust so then the Bishop after other Questions and Answers layeth hands on him Which is not to sanctify him for that is supposed but to impower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God The Apostles words V. Hebr. 4. are alledged after his manner to prove what none of us deny That no man may take this Office upon him unless he be called to it They who have a mind to see more may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures some of which are the same again prove nothing but a Mission by laying on of Hands which we practice