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
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
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
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
Traditions for those which have been called so have been rejected even by the Roman Church it self or having received them they have laid them aside again In short they sometimes pretend to Traditions where there are none and where there are they have forsaken them and in several Cases they pervert them and turn them into another thing As they have done for instance with Purgatory-fire which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgment and not till then but they have kindled already and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein As for ancient Customs sometimes called also Traditions they have not been always alike nor in all places one and the same But the Church of England declares That whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions i. e Customs and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly c. They are the very words of our XXXIVth Article of Religion Which teaches withal That every particular or National Church hath Authority to change and abolish such Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority c. And now what hath this Babbler to alledge out of our Bible against this Truly Nothing at all but only the word Tradition which he is very ignorant if he do not know that we own For we affirm That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions And of such the Apostle speaks in 2 Thess II. 15. 2 Thess II. 15. which is thus expounded by Theodoret Keep the Rule of Doctrine the words delivered to you by us which we both Preached when we were present with you and wrote when we were absent So that the things which were spoken were not different from those which were written but the very same He spoke when he was with them what he wrote when he was gone from them Whence it is clear indeed That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth were of equal Authority with what was written as this man gravely saith for they were the same And it is also certain as he adds That before the New Testament was written all was delivered by word of mouth But what then Therefore Apostolical Traditions are to be received Yes because what was delivered by word of mouth was the very same which afterwards was written But here is no shadow of proof that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written Nor is there more in the next place 2 Thess III. 6. 2 Thess III. 6. but much less for there is not a syllable of word of mouth and Theodoret expresly says That by Tradition here the Apostle means not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Words but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Works that is he bids them follow his Example as St. Chrysostom also understands it which he proves to be the meaning by what follows where he saith the Apostle teaches what he had delivered by his Example For your selves know how ye ought to follow us for we behaved not our selves disorderly among you c. v. 7 8. Wherefore as I may better say than this man doth in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let all good men withdraw ftom them who thus falsly pretend to Tradition when they dare not stand to the Interpretations of the best of the Ancient Fathers and walk disorderly by breaking their own Rule which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous consent Counc of Trent Sess IV. From hence he runs back like a distracted man who catches at any thing at random to the First Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 2. which one would have expected in the Front But perhaps he was sensible it had nothing in it but the bare word Tradition to his purpose and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader 's mind would be possessed with a false Notion which would make any thing go down with him And the truth is there is nothing here for his turn For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apostle be about matters of Order and Decency as one would think by what follows concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered they themselves acknowledge such Traditions do not oblige in all places and times If the Apostle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine how doth it appear that now they are not written As that about the Holy Communion is which the Apostle speaks of in the latter part of that Chapter v. 23 c. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition I mean shamefully forsaken it by leaving off the ministration of the Cup to the people which according to what the Apostle saith he received from the Lord and delivered unto them ought to be given as much as the Bread Consider then I beseech you with what Conscience or Sense this man could say That we reject all Traditions when we receive this for instance more fully than themselves And how he abuses St. Paul in making him as schismatically uncharitable as himself by representing him as disowning us for his Brethren which St. Austin durst not do by the Donatists who are so far from forgetting him in all things that we remember him and his words better than they do and keep to his Traditions as I said just as he hath delivered them unto us Poor man he thinks he hath made a fine speech for St. Paul and made him say to us quite contrary to that he says to the Corinthians Whereas according to Theodoret another kind of Interpreter than he the Apostle dispraises the Corinthians as much as he makes him dispraise us For these words saith he do not contain true Praise but he speaks ironically and in truth reprehends them as not having kept the Orders which he had set them As if he had said You have full well observed the Traditions which I left with you when there is such unbecoming behaviour among you in the time of Divine Service Which no body need be told unless he be such an Ideot as this is not a form of Commendation but of Reproof Lastly He comes from express Scripture to none at all for he betakes himself to Reasoning and asks a very doughty question If nothing be to be believed but only what is left us written wherein should the Church have exercised her self from Adam to Moses the space of Two thousand six hundred years Let me ask him another How doth he prove nothing was written all this time Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him if not out of Ancient Records It is more likely there were Writings before his than that there were not However our saying There were can no more be confuted than his saying There were not can be proved If the Reader be not satisfied with this he bids him see more Scriptures and names near a dozen places in
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
poor people withal Who may easily understand that St. John speaks of particular persons or of the Doctrines vented by certain persons who pretended to be inspired whom every particular Christian was bound to examine and try by this mark whether they contradicted what the Apostles taught which was sufficient if they did to discover them to be Impostors His Fathers he only names and therefor they signifie nothing to common Readers for whose sake I write this confutation of his folly Which makes him bring in Luther as saying the same that he doth that is giving him the lye who accuses Protestants of affirming that which the very chief of them according to him denies But whether Luther say as he makes him or in what sense I am not able to affirm for I cannot find the words VI. They affirm That St. Peter's Faith hath failed Answer THere needs no more to make him confess the truth of this than only to ask him whether St. Peter did not deny his Master which our Saviour supposes in the words immediately following those he quotes Luk. XXII 32. Luk. 22.32 When thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren He was therefore out of the way for a time which is all we mean when any of us say Peter's Faith hath failed Not finally but for that present He fell though he recovered himself So that this is an Equivocal Proposition Peter's Faith hath failed which is true and so is the contrary his faith hath not failed Both are true in different respects It did fail and that notoriously when he denied his Master over and over But it was more stedfast afterward even by his fall which our Saviour foreseeing prayed particularly for him that he might not utterly miscarry Which is no Prerogative as this man fancies it that Christ prayed principally for him but rather tended to his disparagement as denoting him to be weaker than the rest and indeed so much the weaker because in his own opinion he was the strongest The second Text Mat. 16.18 XVI Mat. 18. as he manages it is expresly to another purpose For he lays the weight of his Discourse it appears by the consequence he draws upon those words the gates of hell shall not prevail against What the Text saith expresly against it that is the Church not against thee that is Peter They that are wiser argue from the foregoing words Thou art Peter and upon this rock c. If this be to his purpose the faith of St. Peter must be the Rock upon which the Church is built which they do not love to hear of and if it be the Rock was thrown down and the gates of hell prevailed against it at the time before mention'd when he denied his Master Which made a great man * Dr. Jacks L. 3. c. 7. say Doubtless that Religion which hath no better ground of Infallibility than Peter 's faith which was not secured from a threefold denial of Christ was first planted by the spirit of error and Antichrist The third Text we had before in the second Chapter where I have answered his question XXIII Matth. 2 3 how Christ might command the people and his Disciples also to do whatsoever they that sat in Moses his chair bad them and yet those Doctors might err But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail he asserts the Scribes and Pharisees when they sat in Moses his Chair could not err which is to justifie their putting our Lord Christ to death Whither will not the folly of such men as this carry them who mind not when they overthrow the Christian Religion to establish their own conceits Nay this man doth not mind when he ruins even his own conceits For if the truth of Christian Religion hath been no better preserved by the Romanists in the Chair of St. Peter than the truth of the Jewish Religion was preserved by the Scribes and Pharisees in the Chair of Moses the Roman Church is certainly become Antichristian He hath pickt up a fourth Text which hath nothing in it of Peter XI Joh. 49 51. no more than the former but only tells us that the Jewish High Priest Prophecied XI Joh. 49 51. Yet this is an express Text forsooth to prove that Peter's faith could not fail It is not easie to have patience enough so much as to read such wretched nay wicked stuff as this Which still proves if it be to the purpose that the High Priest speaking forth of his Chair could not but determine truly and consequently gave a right judgment when he condemned Christ to be put to death For he sat in the same Chair when he passed sentence on Christ and when he thus Prophecied both were in a Council which was assembled on purpose to resolve what to do with him XI Joh. 47. XXVI Mat. 57. Here the good man is in great want of Fathers and contents himself because he cannot help it with Leo whose words he doth not rightly translate For Leo doth not say If the Head were invincible but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered Worsted it was for the present though not quite overcome For he lost the confession of Faith with his mouth saith Theophylact though he kept the Faith or the seeds of faith as he speaks in his heart But unless a man do confess with his mouth as well as believe in his heart he cannot be saved Both are necessary unless St. Paul cross St. Peter X. Rom. 9 10. But what is all this to the purpose suppose St. Peter's faith did not fail what then Must we conclude from thence the Pope's faith cannot fail Stay there One of his own Communion a great man * Launoy Part V. Epist ad Jac. Bevillaq indeed hath shown that there being four Interpretations of this place XXII Luk. 32. the greatest number of Ecclesiastical Writers he reckons up XLIV and among the rest this Pope Leo expound it of the Faith of Peter alone which Christ prayed might not be lost in that time of Temptation which was a coming But next to this they are most numerous who think Christ prayed for the Vniversal Church that it may never fail in the faith In which number is Thomas Aquinas one of their Saints who expresly proves from this place that the Universal Church cannot err because he who was always heard by God said to Peter upon whose confession the Church is founded I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Where it is evident he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter separately from the rest of the Church but for the whole Church whose person Peter sustained as St. Austin is wont to speak Or as Gregory the Great 's words are of which Church he was the first Member But this belongs to the next Head where he saith we affirm VII That the Church can err and hath erred WHich is true in one sense though not true in another For if by Church be meant the
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
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
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
performs him those good Offices which the Philippians should have done had they not been absent But he so much neglected himself while he was wholly intent upon serving the Apostle that he fell dangerously sick and lay for a time without hope of Life Finding so little relief in these places of Scripture he betakes himself to arguing from that Article of our Creed The Communion of Saints Which Bellarmine L. 1. de Indulg c. 3. from whom he borrows these goodly proofs manages on this manner We are taught by this Article that all the Faithful are Members of one another being a kind of living Body Now as living Members help one another so the Faithful communicate good things among themselves especially when those which are superfluous to the one are necessary or profitable to the other This is admirable Catholick Doctrine The Saints have more than they need and therefore they communicate it to us for the supply of our wants But this should have been proved and not supposed that the Saints have more than enough something to spare and that their Passions were Satisfactions and Superabundant Satisfactions After which it would still remain a pretty undertaking to prove that because one Member helps another when it suffers any thing therefore the Sufferings of one Member will Cure another Member the Pain for instance of the long Finger will free the little Finger from the pain which it it suffers Thus the Actions and Passions of Saints are not imparted to us as this Man presumes from the Relation we have one to another and yet they serve for very good purposes to the Church as I have already shown And one would imagine he distrusted this Argument after he had set it down because he runs back again to the Scriptures A great Company of which he heaps up to no more purpose than if he had quoted so many Texts of Aristotle I will give the Reader a taste of one or two The first is CXIX Psalm 63. I am a companion of all them that fear thee and of them that keep thy precepts Thus the words run expresly in our Bible Now let me beseech the Reader to consider what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant for the Church Militant or Patient or for both he can find contained in this Text as he saith there is in all the Passages he quotes Let him look into the next and I will be his Bonds man if he meet with a word of any Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant but only mention of many Members which make up but one Body 1 Cor. XII 12. And what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant can one gather out of St. Paul's care for all the Churches 2 Cor. XI 28. As for LIII Isaiah the Church always thought it a Prophecy of the Sufferings of Christ and not of the Saints and so the Apostles interpret it in many places If he mean LIII Psalm 9. as one Edition of his Book hath it there are not so many Verses in it and we should be as far to seek for any sense if we should see more and therefore I will look no further What the Fathers affirm he bids us also see but doth not tell us and I cannot trust him so much as to think it worth my pains to look into the places to which he points us St. Austin I am sure the first he names is abused by him who hath not a word of this matter in his Second Chapter of his Book about the Care of the Dead which is altogether concerning this Question Whether the Dead suffer any thing for want of Burial Upon the LXI Psalm indeed which he quotes at last he mentions that place of St. Paul 1 Coloss 24. and discourses how Christ suffered not only in his own Person but in his Members every one of which suffers what comes to his share and all of them together fill up what is wanting of the Sufferings of Christ So that none hath Superabundant Sufferings but he expresly saith That we every one of us Pro modulo nostro according to our small measure Pay what we owe mark that not more than we are obliged unto which is the Romish Doctrine but what we are bound unto and to the utmost of our Power we cast in as it were the stint or measure of Sufferings which will not be filled up till the end of the World Which is directly against what this Man and his Church would have For they that bring in but their share and nothing more than they owe have no redundant Passions out of which flow superfluous Satisfaction XVIII That no Man can do Works of Supererogation Answer HOW should he When no Man can Supererogate till he have first erogated In plainer terms no Man can have any thing to spare to bestow upon others for this they mean by Supererogating till he hath done all that is bound to do for himself And therefore Bishop Andrews * Resp ad Apolog. Bellarmini p. 196. well calls these works of Supererogation proud pretences of doing more than a man needs when he hath not done all he ought For these two things are necessary to make such Works as they mean by this word First That a Man have done all that God's Law commands Secondly That he have done something which it commandeth not But who is there that hath done all which God's Law requires That is who is without all Sin Therefore who can by doing some voluntary things to which he is not bound do above his Duty when he falls so much below it in things expresly commanded There is another great flaw also in this Doctrine for they suppose precepts to require a lower degree of Goodness and counsels a more high or excellent Which is false for Gods Precepts require the heigth of Virtue and Councils only show the means whereby we may more easily in some circumstances attain it As forsaking all keeping Virginity are not perfections but the Instruments of it as they may be used The places which he brings to prove men may do such works are first XIX Matth. 21. XIX Mat. 21. Where there is not a word of doing any thing which might be bestowed upon others but only of laying up treasure to himself in Heaven by doing a thing extraordinary We do not say all things are commanded but some are counselled yet there are men of great Name in the Church such as St. Chrysostome and St. Hilary who call this a Commandment which Christ gave the young man And so it is if he would come and follow Christ that is be one of his constant attendants as the Apostles were who had left all that they might give up themselves wholly to his Service The next is no more to the purpose 1 Cor. VII 25. 1 Cor. VII 25. for no body thinks there is any command to live single but it was a prudent Counsel of the Apostle at that time when the Church
himself represents their Doctrine which hath as many friends and favourers in the Roman Church as it hath in ours Where no more than this is commonly taught That being assured of the truth of the Divine promises which cannot deceive us we are so far assured of attaining them as we are certain that we faithfully perform our duty which is the condition upon which the attaining of them depends But this is a very strange Man for because every Man ought not to be assured of his Salvation he will allow no Man to be assured no not St. Paul Expresly against the Doctrine of his own Church which looks upon him as a man particularly elected by God not only to the Apostleship but to Salvation Nor doth he contradict this in 1 Cor. XIX 27. 1 Cor. XIX 27. but rather tells us how he secured his Salvation by keeping under his Body By which means we also may be secured for if we continue in his Goodness as the next Scripture speaks XI Rom. 20 XI Rom. 20 21. 21. we ought not to doubt he will continue it unto us to the end And we teach no other assurance of Salvation but by constant Fidelity unto Christ which as long as we maintain we ought to be certain of the other The only fear is lest we should not be stedfast and therefore we are well admonished in the next Scripture 2 Philip. 12. II. Philip. 12. to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling But so doing we shall undoubtedly be saved No Church in the World more beats down vain security than this of ours nor doth any more incourage it than the Church of Rome where men are secured of their Salvation if they can be so vain as to believe it by confessing to a Priest and receiving his Absolution at the last Gasp The other Scriptures which he hath shovelled together are of no different import from these and therefore need not be examined Nor his Fathers neither which they have now made a shift to scrape together tho they had none in the first Edition of this Book For they that read Bellarmine could not but know what a great number of Testimonies are brought out of the Fathers to confirm their Opinion who hold men may be so certain they are in a state of Grace that they may be assured of their Salvation Particularly out of St. Austin in a great number of places more especially in XXII Tract upon St. John where he argues thus Our Saviour hath told me He that hears my words and believes on him that sent me hath eternal life and shall not come into condemnation Now I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed when I was an Infidel I was made a faithful man and therefore as he tells me I have passed from Death unto Life and shall not come into Condemnation not by my presumption but by his own promise Which words are so convincing that Bellarmine * L. III. de Justif C. X. himself acknowledges every one may conclude from this promise of Christ he is passed from Death unto Life c. The only question is with what certainty this can be gathered which St. Austin saith he doth not explain But it is plain to every understanding that there is the same certainty of the Conclusion that there is of the Premises A man may be as certain of his Salvation as he is that he sincerely believes Christ's words and is obedient to them Nor doth the place which this man quotes out of St. Austin contradict this but rather confirm it if the following words be added which this man fraudulently conceals They are these * In Psalm XLI There is no stability nor hope in my self My soul is troubled within me Wilt thou not be troubled do not remain in thy self but say To thee O Lord have I lift up my Soul Hear this more plainly Do not hope from thy self but from God For if thy hope be from thy self thy Soul will be troubled because it hath not yet found whence it may be secure of thy self Which shows St. Austin thought men might attain to security but not in or from themselves but in God alone before whom every one ought to humble himself that he may exalt him It is to no purpose to examine the rest XXVI That every Man hath not an Angel-Guardian or Keeper Answer MEN may believe either that every one hath or hath not and yet not contradict our Church which hath determined nothing about it nor hath it been resolved in any Church but every one left to think as he pleases For all that Suarez and Vasquez other kind of men than this durst say in this case is this that tho this Assertion be not exprest in Scripture nor defined by the Church mind that yet it hath been received with such an universal consent and hath such great foundation in Scripture as understood by the Fathers that it cannot be denied without great rashness and almost Error See here how cautiously these Learned men speak and and how ingenuously they confess the Church hath determined nothing in this Point but it is a kind of popular opinion As for Scripture in direct contradiction to this man they tell us it is not expresly delivered therein And whatsoever foundations they think are there laid for this Opinion it seems to me upon serious consideration that the Scriptures rather suppose that every man no not the good hath not a particular guardian Angel that constantly attends him But God sends either one or more Angels as there is occasion and as he thinks fit to do what he appoints Who after they have dispatch'd that business depart from them till he thinks fit again to employ those or some other Heavenly Messengers for their good This seems very manifest to me in that which is reported concerning Abraham Daniel St. Peter St. John and the Blessed Virgin her self in the I. of St. Luke Let him or any one else show such proofs if he can out of Scripture That the Angels do constantly remain with those whom they sometimes attend and are fixed in their Office of Guardianship to them XVIII Matth. 10. XVIII Matth. 10. Speaks not of One Angel but of more and doth not say they Guard Christs little ones but that they alway behold the face of his Father in heaven that is wait to receive his Commands as Servants who stand before their Master which they are ready to execute This confirms the other Opinion I now mentioned that Angels are only sent as God Orders and are not fixed in their Attendance Neither doth this Text speak of every man as this Scribler idly talks but of Christians and particularly the weaker sort called little ones who most needed their Ministry Mr. Calvin also in that very place which this man mentions restrains his question to the faithful who he dare not say have every one of them a particular Angel to minister to them
Nay his own Sixtus Senensis saith upon the like place though Noah Daniel and Job stood before me that the Prophet speaks upon a supposition that if such men as they were in this sinful World they should deliver none c. God would not hear them for such a wicked People It is of no consequence what Baruch saith being never reputed a Canonical Book and according to his own Rule in his Preface ought to pass for nothing unless he had prov'd the same that Baruch saith by places of Canonical Writ Besides III. Baruc 4. dead Israelites may mean no more but those now dead who when they were alive prayed as their Posterity now did And so Nich. Lyra understands by dead Israelies the holy Patriarchs and Prophets who when they were alive prayed for the good Estate of their Posterity Or dead may signify those whose condition was so low that they could do nothing for themselves as he describes all Israel v. 10. that they were accounted with them that go down into the grave that is dead men This I will stand to it is an Interpretation they cannot confute Theodoret doth say that these words clearly prove the immortality of the Soul and that 's all I see no reason why II. Rev. 26 27. may not be interpreted of the preferment Christ promised in this world to those who should keep his words i. e. fulfil his Commands to the end of that present persecution But if it relate to the other World Menochius a better Interpreter than he expresly saith that Christ speaks of the power which the Saints shall exercise in the day of judgment over all Nations which did not obey Christ judging them with Christ and delivering them to the punishment of eternal death Agreeable to what we read III. Wisd 8. They shall judge the Nations and have dominion over the people St. Austin hath not a word of this matter upon the second Psalm but only says these words ruling with a Rod of iron is as much as with inflexible Justice We see what thâ—se men would bring things to it they be let alone The Saints may be looked upon now as Rulers of this World by a power imparted unto them from Christ who hath thus established them this man saith over the Nations He should have shewn us where he reads this for we cannot find it here But this leads him into reasoning again finding so little help in his express Scriptures and that is as weak as all the rest For it is out of a Parabolical Scripture before-named from which all acknowledge Arguments ought not to be drawn And besides it is not a Prayer to Abraham but such a request as we make one to another here when we want relief What St. Austin saith on this place is not worth the searching after for it will prove no more than what he quotes out of his XVth Sermon de verb. Apostol he should have said the XVIIth where he distinguisheth between the Commemoration that was made of the Martyrs at the Altar and of other Faithful persons For the lâ—tter they prayed but this would have been an injury he thinks to the Martyrs by whose Prayers we rather should be recommended to God But this signifies no more than a general recommendation of the Church to God's Mercy His next Father St. Hâ—lary speaks only of what Angels do not of Saints And I gave an account of that before but for want of company he brings him in again He concludes with Damascen a Father that lived almost Eight hundred years after Christ and was so credulous as to vouch it for a Truth That Trajan's Soul was delivered out of H ll by Gregory 's Prayers and saith The whole world witnesseth it Which all the world now even their own Church believes to be a fable And yet this Damascen sâ—ith no more but that they are to be honoured as those that make Intercession to God for us that is for the Church XXXIII That we ought not to beseech God to grant our Prayers in favour of the Saints or their merits nor do we reeeive any benefit thereby Answer IT is no small favour that we can get so much truth out of him as to confess That this is one way of their Praying by the Mediation of Saints to beseech God to grant their desires in favour of them and their merits For some of his brethren mince the matter and say they only desire the Saints to pray for them But their Missals and Breviaries confute such men as notorious dissemblers for there are abundance of Prayers like this That * Decemb. VI. by the Merits and Prayers of St. Nicholas God would deliver them from the fire of Hell Which if it be an allowable way of Praying I do not see but the Saints are Mediators of Redemption as well as of Intercession as they are wont to distinguish for by their merits is a great deal more than by their Intercession And if they intercede by their merits wherein do they fall short of Christ who by his Merits redeemed us and in virture of the same Merits intercedes for us But let us hear his Scriptures which the Reader may take notice are every one of them out of the Old Testament during which according to the common Doctrine of their Church the Souls of pious men were held in a Limbus remote from God in the borders of Hell and therefore could not be Intercessors with God much less plead their merits This is enough to overthrow his whole Discourse in this Chapter yet to shew his folly a little more fully I am content to consider them particularly The first is XXXII Exod. 13. which he hath the confidence to say XXXII Exod. 13. is against us in express words when there is no mention of merit and the sense is evidently declared in the Text it self which speaks of the Oath of God to those great men Abraham Isaac and Jacob shewing that Moses his Prayer was grounded not upon their merit but upon God's gracious Covenant with them confirmed by his Oath XXVI Gen. 3. Which is the sense of Theodoret also whom this man most shamefully belies in the place by him quoted Moses mentions the name of the Patriarchs instead of supplication and remembers the Oaths made to them and begs that the Covenants wherein he was engaged to them might stand firm Who would trust such a man as this who makes Theodoret say that Moses added the intercession of the holy Patriarchs thinking himself insufficient when he only saith he mentioned their name as men i. e. in covenant with God instead of supplication And thus he deals with St. Austin or rather worse who in the place he mentions saith not a word of Abraham Isaac and Jacob but only of Moses whose merits were so great with God as his most faithful Servant that God saith Let me alone c. upon which Passage he makes this reflection We are admonished hereby that when our
as he fancies receiving succor after death I cannot conceive For it signifies our dying as Menochius himself expounds it departing this life as Theophylact who knew of no other sense unless it be understood saith he of Pusillanimity being condemn'd Nor doth St. Austin in the next place XXIII Luke 44. say that Souls may be holpen in Purgatory But expresly declares if no sin were to be remitted in the last judgment our Lord would not have said of a certâ—in sin it shall not be remitted in this world nor in the world to come Which the Thief hoped for when he Prayed Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom And if the Theif had any such erroneous Notion in his head which we do not believe of going to Purgatory when he died our Lord presently freed him from that false conceit by that gracious promise This day shalt thou be with me in Paradice It is a lamentable Cause which must be supported by such an Author as Jason of Cyrene whose Book is of no credit But if it were the place he cites 2 Maccab. XII 44 45. proves nothing but Prayer for the dead which doth not infer a Purgatory For the Greeks use Prayer for the dead who believe nothing of Purgatory And indeed the Text it self tells us their Prayers had respect not to the deliverance of those Prayed for out of the flames of Purgatory but to their Resurrectien And if they had believed Purgatory they could not according to the Popish opinion have prayed for these men who died in mortal Sin being defiled by things belonging to Idols which were found under their Garments Now the Romish Church doth not admit such people as die in mortal Sin into Purgatory See how weak all their proofs are of this great Article of their Faith For there is no greater strength to be found in the rest of his Texts which he hath jumbled together after a very strange fashion as if a long row of Chapters and Verses would do his business Nor did the Fathers in the Six first Ages know any thing of this Doctrine Gregory indeed called the Great began to talk of it and laid the foundation of it But his Authority is not great being much addicted to Fables and relying upon pretended Revelations Visions and Apparitions And as for Origen's Purgatory St. Austin saith * De haeres â— 43. What Catholick Christian is there whether learn'd or unlearn'd who doth not vehemently abhor it And yet this man is not ashamed to alledge his Testimony by which the Reader may make a judgment of the rest XLVIII That it is not lawful to make or have Images Answer THIS is another shameless slander as his own Bellarmin confesses â— 2. de Eccles Triumph c. 8. who says the opinion of Calvin himself is this That Images are not simply forbidden but he admits only of an Historical use of them The sum of our Doctrine is this That it is not lawful to make an Image of God and so some of their own Church have confessed nor to make any Image to be worshipped If we should have further added That it is unlawful to make or have Images because of the danger of Idolatry we could have justified our selves by the Authority of as wise men as any in their Church For more than one of the Ancient Fathers were of this opinion who were never condemned by the Ancient Church nor was this reckoned among their Errors His Texts of Scripture are impertinently alledged XXV Exod. 18. For God might command that to be done XXV Exod. 18. which he forbad them to do without such a special Order And there is no proof that the Cherubins were made with Faces of beautiful young men as this Writer asserts but the contrary is apparent as many have demonstrated He belies St. Hierom also when he makes him say the Jews worshipped them which the best of their own Authors deny Particularly Lorinus a famous Jesuit upon XVII Acts 25. Concerning the Cherubims made by God's Command and other Images made by Solomon it must be said that they were only an Appendix and additional ornament of another thing and were not of themselves propounded for adoration which it is manifest the Hebrews did not give them And Vasquez saith the same out of Tertullian that no worship was given to the Cherubims alledging no less than twelve Schoolmen of that opinion Why should I trouble my self therefore any further with such a Writer whose next Scriptures are still about the Cherubims and therefore are already answered For he doth not believe I hope that when the Apostle IX Hebr. 1. speaks of the Ordinances of Divine Service that is Commandments about the Worship of God as Theodoret and from him Menochius expounds it and after many other things mentions the Cherubims of glory he intended they should have divine service performed to them If not then his observation is frivolous for no body denies there were such things as Cherubims in the most holy place where no body saw them much less worshipped them When he hath done with his Scriptures he goes about to prove so fond he is of Images that an Image is of divine and natural right because we always form one in our mind when we conceive and understand any thing As if it were all one to form an Idea invisibly in the mind and to make a vsible standing representation of it in Wood Brass or Stone Such Writers tire one with their folly and falshood which is notorious in what he quotes out of Saint Austin in the conclusion of this Chapter Who taking notice that some Pagans had forged a Story of I know not what Books written by Christ to Peter and Paul concerning the secret Arts of working Miracles says they named those two perhaps rather than other Apostles to whom those pretended Books were directed because they might have seen them painted with Him in many places Which whether it be meant in private Houses as is most probable or in publick places it is manifest St. Austin did not regard such Pictures for he presently adds in the very next sentence which this false Writer conceals these remarkable words Thus they deserved to err utterly who sought for Christ and his Apostles not in the holy Books but in painted Walls And it is no wonder if they that counterfeit in forging Books he means were deceived by them that paint XLIX That it is not lawful to reverence Images nor to give any honour to insensible things Answer NOW we are come indeed to the business but they seem afraid to touch it For first instead of saying it is not lawful to worship Images as it was before when Bishop Montague answered this Book now they dwindle it into reverence of them And then they fallaciously tack to this a Proposition of another nature that no honour is to be given to insensible things Which is a new Calumny for we do upon some occasions give honour
or respect tho no Worship nor Adoration to things that have no sense in them Therefore he might have kept to himself his first Scripture Exod. III. 5. which is brought to prove this not the worshipping of any Creature For putting off the shooes was a respect paid to earthly Princes in those Countries when they came into their presence Ps XCIX 5. In the next place XCIX Psal 5. instead of our Translation Worship at his footstool which he promised to stick unto he gives us their own Adore the footstool of his feet expresly contrary to the Original and to the most ancient Translations particularly the Chaldee Paraphrase which runs thus adore or worship in the House of his Sanctuary for he is holy Which is so plain and literal an Interpretation that Jansenius and Lorinus himself follow it And they among the Ancients who follow the Vulgar Translation thought it so horrible a thing to worship his Footstool thereby underdanding the Earth which is called God's footstep that they expound these words of Christ Hear St. Austin upon the place I am afraid to worship the Earth lest he that made Heaven and Earth condemn me observe that and yet I am afraid not to worship the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalmist saith Worship the Footstool of his Feet What therefore shall I do In this doubt I turn my self to Christ whom here I seek and find how without impiety the Earth may be worshipped without Impiety may be worshipped the Footstool of his Feet For he took Earth from the Earth Flesh being of the Earth and he took Flesh of the Flesh of Mary He must have a brow of brass if he can read this and not be put out of countenance But if they had any shame left they would not draw in St. Hierom to conuntenance this Impiety Whom this man quotes again though he tells us not in what Epistle to Marcella we may find it to prove that the Ark was worshipped in regard of the Images that were set upon it that is the Cherubims A foul Forgery For he only saith the Tabernacle was venerated that is had in honourable regard because the Cherubims were there Veneration is one thing and Religious Worship is another And his meaning is no more than this that they reverenced the Sanctuary as God commanded Moses because of a Divine presence there It was the more impudent to alledg him because he is the Father who saith * L. W. in Ezek. c. 16. We have one Huband and we worship one Image which is the Image of the Invisible Omnipotent God i. e. Christ What he intends by alledging II. Philip. 10. for a proof that Images are to be worshipped I cannot imagine unless he be so sensless as to take the Name of a thing for an Image of it And he could not but know also that when we bow at the Name of Jesus we worship our Lord Christ His long Discourse of the brazen Serpent mentioned XXI Numb XXI 8. Numb 8. is as impertinent For there is no proof that it was an Image nor the least signification that it was set up to be worshipped If it were why did Hezekiah break it in pieces for that very reason because in process of time People burnt incense to it He ought to have known also That Vasquez as I shew'd before together with Azorius both learned Jesuits with a great many other of the best Writers of his own Church acknowledge that no Image among the Jews was set up for worship And Azorius expresly confutes his most learned Dr. Saunders for abusing the Testimony of some Fathers to prove the contrary As this man doth those whom he hath named particularly their Pope Gregory the Great who is known to all the World to have been against the Worship of Images though he earnestly contended to have them in Churches But I refer the Reader to Bishop Montague for satisfaction about his Fathers some of which are forged others say nothing to the purpose and John Damascen was no Father but a superstitious Monk because contrary to his custome he takes notice of some of our Objections against Image-worship and endeavours to answer them which may seem to require consideration though I think the most ordinary Reader might be left to grapple with him His Answer to the first Objection of Hezekiah's breaking the brazen Serpent seeing it the cause of Idolatry if it have any sense in it is an audacious reflection upon that good King nay upon the Holy Ghost who commends him for what he did Whereas this man going about to prove that the abuse of a good thing ought not to take away the use of it doth as good as say Hezekiah should not have broken it but left it as a Monument of God's Mercy to them without destroying it What is this but censuring him instead of answering us His Answer to the next is an impudent denial of their Principles and of their Practice For their greatest Writers say it is the constant Opinion of Divines that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship wherewith that is worshipped of which it is the Image So Azorius The third is no Answer to what we charge upon them but a false Charge upon us Who do not fall down before the Sacrament and worship it as an Image of Christ but worship Christ himself when we receive it upon our Knees The Fourth is a fresh piece of Impudence in denying Images to be set up in Churches with a special intent that People should worship or adore them and in affirming That the worship is given them as it were by a consequence and rather because it may be lawfully given than because it is principally sought to be given For their great Cardinal Bellarmin * L. 2. de Imag. c. 21 22. to name no other expresly saith That the Images of Christ and of the Saints are honoured not only by accident and improperly but per se and properly so that they terminate the Veneration as they are considered in themselves and not only as they represent their Exemplar And their Opinion savours of Heresie in that Church who say that they are not set up to be worshipped Of which this man I believe was sensible when he tells us They are partly set up in Churches to stir up our minds to follow the Example of those holy men whose Images we behold Which supposes this not the whole end for which they are set up but that they are partly intended for another purpose What that is he durst not confess for fear he should confute himself For he knew that the stirring up of Peoples minds to follow the Saints is but a small part of the reason for which Images are set up in Churches the great end is that they may be worshipped His distinction between an Idol and an Image is as vain as all the rest as our Authors have demonstrated a thousand times and that
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
was in great distress which made it adviseable for People if they could to keep themselves single whereby they would shift the better and be freed from a great many Cares and Troubles of this Life But he doth not say that hereby they would lay up a Treasure of Satisfactions which would serve more than themselves and might be bestowed upon others This is the meaning of the Roman Church The third XIX Matth. 12. XIX Mat. 12. hath no more in it than the two former It is a Counsel He that is able to receive it let him receive it But they who received it did not thereby make Satisfaction for defects in obedience to God's precepts muchless did they do so much as to have to distribute unto others Let who will look into the other Scriptures which he barely notes he will find them as empty as these especially the first of them X. Luke 25. X. Luke 25. which contains only a question propounded to our Saviour by a tempting Lawyer Unless he means the Answer to it which is a Command for loving God with all the Heart and all the Soul c. And it is not left at our liberty I hope whether we will thus love him or no. Not one of his Fathers say what he would have them The first of them St. Ambrose only says He that obeys a Counsel for instance sells all his Goods to follow Christ may say more than he that obeys only a Precept For he may expect a reward as the Apostles did when they said Behold we have left all and followed thee what therefore shall we have Whereas they that do what they are commanded must say We are unprofitable servants and have but done our Duty Now what doth this Discourse prove But that they shall have a greater reward themselves but there is not a syllable of their supererogating for others Nor in Origen nor Eusebius much less St. Chrysostomâ— whose business it is to prove that God's Commands are not impossible What is this to Counsels Of which Gregory the Great indeed not Greg. Nyssen who hath no such Work speaks in his Morals but is so far from maintaining works of Supererogation that none can be more express than he for the Protestant Doctrine Of the imperfection of all mens righteousness and renouncing all confidence in our own Merits XIX That by the fall of ADAM we have all lost our Free-will and that it is not in our Power to chuse Good but only Evil. Answer THIS is another insufferable Slander in the first part of it for if we had all lost our freedom of will we should be no longer Men. We only say we have not such a freedom of Will as we formerly had and so all say And he that says which is the second Part of this Proposition It is in our power to chuse that which is Good without the assistance of Grace is a Pelagian that is an Heretick as this Man is by contradicting what we affirm That it is not in our power that is our natural strength to chuse Good that is Spiritual Good of which if he do not speak he only babbles For the will of Man saith Bellarmine * L. VI. de lib. arbitr gratia c 4. himself in things appertaining to Piety and Salvation can do nothing without the assistance of God's Grace yea without his special assistance This is the Doctrine of the Gospel and is our Doctrine in the Tenth Article of our Religion unto which he hath nothing to oppose For not one of his places of Scripture prove Man hath a Power of himself to will what is good without God's Grace His first Scripture 1 Cor. VII 37. 1 Corinth VII 37. speaks of a thing that is neither Good or Evil in it self but indifferent for no man is bound to Marry or not to Marry but it may be as he pleases either way Yet it is manifest by the very Text that the Apostle supposes some Men have not a power to contain and so in their case Marriage becomes necessary As to what he intermixes with this which is very foreign to it My Son give me thy heart let me demand of him whether any man can consent to this unless God draw his heart to him when he asks a man to give it And he that is drawn saith St. Hierom * L. III. adv Pelag doth not run spontaneously of himself but he is brought to it when he either draws back or is slow or unwilling But I will not abuse the Reader 's time in so much as mentioning the rest since we say nothing in this matter but what the Gospel what the Ancient Fathers particularly St. Austin say nay what Bellarmine himself confesses to be true whose words in the conclusion of this Controversy fully express our sense and give an answer to all that this man foolishly as well as falsly charges us withal The Conversion of Man to God L. VI. De Grat. Lib. Arbit c. 15. Decima sent as also every other good work as it is a WORK that is an human act is only from his free Will yet not excluding God's general help as it is PIOVS it is from Grace alone as it is a PIOVS WORK it is both from our free Will and from Grace To this we subscribe XX. That it is impossible to keep the Commandments of God tho assisted with his Grace and the Holy Ghost Answer THIS is such a down-right Calumny that I cannot but say with the Psalmist What shall be done unto thee O thou false Tongue We most thankfully acknowledg the Power of the Divine Grace to be so great that it is possible for us to keep God's Commandments to such a degree as he requires and accepts tho not with such an exact and strict obedience as to stand in no need of his gracious Pardon of our defects Phil. IV. St. Paul means no more when he saith he could do all things that is all before mentioned and harder things yet if occasion were by the help of Christ who administred strength to him to do all those things as Menochius interprets it IV. Philip. 13. I. Luke 5 6. Nor doth St. Luke's Character of Zachary and Elizabeth amount to more than this that they were sincerely good People who were therefore Blameless or Irreprehensible as Menochius translates it because saith Theophylact they acted out of pure respect to God and not to please Men. For many walk in the Law of God who are not irreprehensible because they do all to be seen of men But Zachary both did what God commanded and did it irreprehensibly not performing such things that he might please men Thus he and St. Austin gives another reason of this glossing upon the Virgins mention'd Revel XIV In whose mouth was found no guile because they were irreprehensible as he renders the word we translate without fault before the Throne of God They were saith he therefore without reprehension