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
Doctrine There are no Papists but confess that the most excellent parts even of the visible Church in this world are invisible or hidden For none but God who searches the heart can know certainly who are truly good men and not hypocrites And there are no Protestants who maintain that they who profess the Christian Religion who are the Church have ever been hidden and invisible But this they say that this Church hath not been always visible free from corruption and that it hath not been at all times alike visible but sometimes more sometimes less conspicuous Now these men by the Visibility of the Church mean such an illustrious state as by its glory splendor and pomp all men may be led to it This is it and no more which Protestants deny And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely but only this degree of it For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible when they met under ground and in obscure places There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes contrary to this much less expresly contrary V. Mat. 14 15. The first of them V. Mat. 14 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office that they might gather a Church to Christ So the before-named Menochius interprets those words Ye are the light of the world who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example You ought not to be hid no more than a City can be which is seated on a hill Men do not light a candle much less God to put it under a Bushel Our Saviour saith he exhorts his Disciples by this similitude that they should diligently shine both in their words and in their example and not be sparing of their pains or of themselves by withdrawing themselves from the work but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine which they could not always neither Preach in publick but some times only in private houses Christians were forced to meet together in some places and times very secretly not being able always to hold such publick visible Assemblies that all men beheld them and what they did The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err XVIII Matth. 17. and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid and this not expresly but by a consequence and that a very sensless one For whoever said or thought that no body can see a Church when it is not visible to every body It 's members no doubt see it even when it is invisible to others Any man may be seen by his Friends when he lies hid from his Enemies And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted and by them that belong to it though strangers perhaps take no notice of it especially those that are at a distance from it In the third place we have mention of the Gospel but not a word of the Church 2 Cor. IV. 3 4. which he puts in such is his honesty contrary to the express words of ours and of all Bibles Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid but expresly supposes it 2 Cor. IV. 3. that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world who shut their eyes against the clearest light even the light of the knowledg of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ One would think this man besides himself when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid when his words are a plain supposition that it was hid to some people Not indeed because they could not for it was visible enough in it self but because they would not see it And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ II. Isa 2. Which was very visible in its beginning when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and by them the Law that is the Christian Doctrine went out of Sion and the word of the Lord that is the Gospel from Jerusalem But did not always continue so when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these which say there shall be an Apostacy from the Faith and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness 2 Thess II. 3. XII Revel 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ particularly VII Dan. 14. VII Dan. 14. they point at a state of his Church which is not yet come and when it doth come will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church Whose present state will be utterly overturned to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished X. Revel 7. XI 15. and that cannot be till Babylon that is Rome be thrown down XVIII Revel 2. XIX 1 2 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was of Christian Truth Righteousness Charity and Peace among men He bids us as his manner is see more in other places But if they had more in them than these we should have had them at length And his Fathers also some light touches of which he gives us just as he found them in a cluster altogether word for word in a Book called The Rule of Faith and the Marks of the Church which was answered above LXXX years ago by Dr. J. White who observes * VVay to the True Church Sect. 23. that when Origen whom upon other occasions they call an Heretick saith The Church is full of VVitnesses from the East to the VVest he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof but of the truth professed therein Which though clear to the World when he said so yet doth not prove it shall be always so for a Cloud of Apostacy might and did afterward obscure it St. Chrysostome doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkned but not so as to be extinguished no more than the Sun can be put out For he could not be so sensless as not to know that it had been for a time eclipsed When St. Austin saith They are blind who see not so great a mountain He speaks against the Donatists who confined the Church to themselves as the Papists now do And he justly calls them blind who
Imprimatur Apr. 14. 1692. JO. CANT AN ANSWER To a BOOK Spread abroad by the Romish Priests INTITULED THE Touchstone OF THE Reformed Gospel WHEREIN The True DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND and many Texts of the HOLY SCRIPTURE are faithfully Explained By the Right Reverend Father in God SYMON Lord Bishop of ELY LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE READER I Must let the Reader understand that the Book which I answer first appeared in the latter end of the Reign of King James I. under the Name of A Gagg for the New Gospel When it was immediately so exposed to the Scorn of all Men by Mr. R. Mountague afterward Bishop of Chichester and at last of Norwich that for many Years it sculkt and durst not show its head till they imagined that Baffle was forgot and then out it came again in the Reign of King Charles II. as if it had never been seen before with this New Title The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospel And the better to disguise the Cheat they begin the Book with a New Chapter or Section and have quite left out that which was formerly the Last Chapter transposing also the order of some of the rest making Amendments as they imagine in several places and adding several whole Chapters For there were but XLVII Points one of which as I said they now have wholly omitted which they charged upon us and undertook to confute in the First Edition But now they are improved to Two and Fifty and set out as formerly with a long Preface of the very same Stamp with the Book full that is of broad-fac'd Vntruths Of which it may be expected I should here give some account But my Answer to the Book it self is grown so much bigger than I designed that it must be omitted For the great Reason which was urged by those who had power to persuade me to undertake a New Answer to it was because Bishop Mountagu's was so large that few could purchase it And therefore they thought it needful there should be a more Compendious Confutation of the Book though now it be inlarged especially since they found it in every Parish of this great City and in the very Prisons where the Romish-Priests could meet with any entertainment For which Reason the same Persons have persuaded me that what I composed at their desire in the latter end of the late Reign ought now to be published because the Priests of that Church they assure me are still very busie and make account this little Book which I answer will do their business For they put it into the hands of all those whom they hope to make their Proselites and desire them to read it as an unanswerable Piece Let the Reader judge of that when he hath seriously considered what I have said to discover both the weakness and the dishonesty of its Author Who understood neither the Scriptures nor Fathers he quotes or hath so perverted them that as it cost me more time so I have been forced to use more Words than I intended to employ to represent his unskilful or false dealing But I hope I shall neither tire the Reader nor entertain him unprofitably but increase his Knowledge by a right understanding of a considerable part of the Bible and of the Christian Doctrine Especially if he will be pleased to turn to the Texts of Scripture which I have explained but not quoted at length for fear of swelling this Answer into too great a Bulk Febr. 22. 1690. AN ANSWER TO THE TOUCHSTONE OF The Reformed Gospel I. The Protestants he saith affirm That there is not in the Church One and that an Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scriptures and conserving Vnity in matters of Faith Answer THIS Proposition is drawn up deceitfully For neither we maintain this nor they maintain the contrary universally and without limitation No Papist dare say there is one and that an Infallible Rule for understanding all the Holy Scripture For then why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible Why do their Doctors disagree in the interpretation of a thousand places He ought therefore to have said that we hold There is not in the Church one and that an infallible Rule for understanding as much as is necessary to Salvation c. And then he belies us For we believe the Scripture it self gives us infallible Directions for the understanding of its sense in all things necessary which if all would follow there would be Unity in matters of necessary belief But God will not force men to follow those Directions They may err and they may quarrel when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both The Scriptures therefore whereby he proves what he charges upon us must needs be impertinent But it is something strange that in the very first of them he should be so sensless as to give himself the lye For he pretends to refute our errors as his words are by the express words of our own Bibles and immediately puts in a word of his own instead of that in our Bibles which say quite another thing For instead of according to the proportion of faith which are the words of our Translation XII Rom. 6. He says according to the rule of faith What is this but that chopping and changing which he falsly charges us withall in the end of his Preface And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible which he promised to quote expresly but of the sense of that Scripture as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors particularly St. Chrysostom and his Followers XII Rom. 6. who by proportion understand the same with Measure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius one of their own Interpreters and a Jesuit secundum proportionem mensuram Fidei i. e. according to the measure of Vnderstanding and Wisdom which God hath bestowed Now what can you expect from a man who falsifies in this manner at the very first dash In the next Scripture indeed he finds the word Rule III. Philip. 16. III. Phil. 16. and presently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly c. Whereas it is manifest to all who are not blinded with Prejudice that the Apostle supposes in the words before v. 15. they were not all of a mind in some things for there were those among them that believed in Christ who thought the observation of Moses's Law to be necessary also to Salvation which was a dangerous error to mix Legal and Evangelical things together as Theodoret here expounds it but might possibly be cured if Christian Communion were not broken on either side by reason of this difference but every one both the perfect who understood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law and the imperfect who fancied it still lay upon them walked by the same rule c. that is preserved Christian Communion one with another
in the bond of Peace For he speaks here saith Theodoret of concord and the Rule is the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine by which if we walk't it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this that they have broken all Communion by their Tyrannical impositions and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine VI. Gal. 16. The next place evidently speaks of the self-same thing that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith we are sure of the Divine Favour In short the Rule here spoken of is that of the New Creature mentioned in the foregoing words v. 15. But the 4th Text 2 Cor. X. 15. more fully shews this man to be a meer Trifler with words without their sense For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule or line of Faith as he dreams but only of the bounds and limits of those Countrys in which the Apostle had preach'd the Gospel as Menochius himself interprets it This he might have learnt if he had pleased by the very next words where the Apostle saith he did not boast in another man's line or rule of things made ready to his hand i. e. those Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles glorying as Menochius well glosses in other mens Labours as if they had been his own Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures by the Regions in which the Apostles preached An excellent proof that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture because St. Paul had his own Rule and others had their Rule that is not one and the same for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line i. e. in those places where others had done it already Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits when they write on this fashion Either they have no understanding of what they write or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers who understand nothing else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff 1 Cor. XI 16. From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians Chap. XI 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second could he have found the Word Rule there which was all he sought for not regarding the Sense But alas he could find only the Word Custome in that place which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule And what is this Rule as he will needs have it of which the Apostle is there speaking Is it about any matter of Faith No only about Womens praying bare-faced without a covering over them which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church So the same Menochius whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church because he saith in his Preface he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers And what Church doth St. Paul here mean only one Church or all that he had planted He himself answers We have no such custom nor other Churches of God neither therefore you not only cross us but the whole Church as Theophylact expounds the words And to the same effect Theodoret he shows that these things did not seem so to him only but to all the Churches of God Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this of all the Churches for any thing wherein we differ and see whether we will be contentious Tho' I must tell them that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times tho' never so many hundreds and the Authority of those few Pastors as this man calls them which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves infallible men and other Apostolical persons who were guided by their directions And now he comes to tell us by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture instead of telling us by what names the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called For the good man when he had gone thus far had forgotten what he was about The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no service For it is Rom. VI. 17. saith Theophylact to live aright and with an excellent Conversation Or that Form of Doctrine saith Menochius which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching Unto which is there opposed not disunion and disorder c. as this Scribler pretends but their serving sin But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alledges else he would not have had the impudence if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it to mention the next place of Scripture 2 Corinth X. 16. A thing made ready to hand 2 Cor. X. 16. He should have said things made ready if he would have stood to his promise of quoting express words of our Bible For so it is both in our Translation and in the Original and even in the Latin Translation it self By which is meant as the same Menochius judiciously observes Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit And so Theodoret he reproves those saith he who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers c. Let the Reader here again look about and see if he can spy a word about disunion discord disobedience c. in this place of which this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges 1 Tim. VI. 20. In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling and opposition of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust not the Churches trust as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text. And what is this depositum or trust but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel unto which he opposes the new Phrases and the new Doctrines which the School of Simon Magus had brought in as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret whose words are these They that had their Original from Simon were called Gnosticks as much as to say men endued with Knowledge For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent they said God had revealed to them This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge From whence I think it clearly follows that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures Which is the Doctrine he saith let the Romanists mind this which all that have the dignity of Priesthood ought carefully to keep and propose to themselves as a certain Rule and by this square all that they say all that they do In short Tertullian de Prescript C. 25. understands by the thing committed unto him that Doctrine
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
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
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
to the Master that Priests bind and loose because they declare Men to be hound and loosed In short the Doctrine of the Church is that God absolves by his Ministers who cannot see into mens hearts and therefore can only pronounce that he absolves them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost upon supposal of their unfeigned Repentance But it is apparent the Church always believed it is God who properly absolves and forgives Sins not the Priest For all the Ancient Rituals show that the Absolution was given by Prayer to God for the Penitent there being no other Form of Absolution in them but Prayers which being made in behalf of the Penitent they believed did obtain from God the pardon of those Sins which he had with all humility publickly confessed And therefore the present form I absolve thee which was never used but in the Latin Church and not there neither till the middle of the XIIIth Century must be understood to be only a very solemn declaration That God forgives the person upon his sincere Contrition and Repentance This is the meaning of our Saviour XX. John 21. XX. John 21. when he made the Apostles his Delegates saying As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Which supposes a sâ—perior Power to theirs in whose Name they acted only as Ministers And therefore when he adds in the next words Ibid. v. 22 23. v. 22 23. Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Menochius expounds it thus That though the Holy Ghost was not given till the day of Pentceost yet on the first day of the Resurrection they received the Grace of it by which they might remit sins and baptize and make children of God and give the Spirit of Adoption to them that believed c. Now let any man tell me whether it were they that for instance gave the Spirit of Adoption or God himself they that healed and wrought Miracles as they did after the day of Pentecost or God by their Ministry In like manner it was not they who conferred Forgiveness of Sins but God properly bestowed it as he did the other Blessings they only serving as Ministers by whom he conveyed it to the Penitent In the next place of Scripture he makes bold to add words which are neither in our Bible nor theirs IX Matth. 8. When the multitude saw it i. e. the man take up his bed and walk they marvelled and glorified God which had given such power unto men he adds as to forgive sins Whereas the Evangelist speaks of the power of healing a sick man which they saw plainly and which our Saviour alledges as an Argument that he could forgive sins which the multitude could see no other way but in this miraculous demonstration of it But suppose the multitude had admired at his Power to forgive sins will it follow that any body else hath that Power which Christ had No Christ could as man forgive sins yet not as any sort of man saith Menochius * Non ut qualiscunque homo sed ut homo Deus himself but as God-man which no Priest whatsoever is He bids us after his usual form see more in several Texts which he sets down without the words and we are very willing to obey him if there were any thing to be seen to this purpose But the two first of them are only a promise of what our Saviour afterward bestowed and we have heard what that was from XX. John 23. The two next speak not of forgiving sins nor merely of retaining them but of delivering men up to Satan which no body now can do 2 Cor. II. 10. The next 2 Cor. II. 10. proves too much if it prove any thing to this purpose for it speaks of the whole Church giving Pardon to an Offender viz. by receiving him again by the Apostles order into their Communion V. 19. The next 2 Cor. V. 19. relates to the Apostles reconciling men by preaching the Word of God as Menochius expounds it or if by Word of Reconciliation we understand saith he the thing that is Reconciliation it self then the Apostle speaks of the whole Power and Ministry of reconciling men to God The last place out of V. Numb 6. is as impertinent as the quotations that follow out of the Fathers which they have a little mended since Bishop Mountague lash'd this Author severely for his childish and careless Transcriptions of them out of Father Bellarmine You may judge of them all by the last save one which was the first heretofore out of Irenaeus L. V. c. 13. who proving that we have a Specimen of the Resurrection in those whom Christ raised from the dead instances in Lazarus unto whom he said come forth and the dead man came forth bound hand and foot c. A Symbol saith he or Type of that man who is tyed and bound in sins and with respect to this the Lord said Loose him and let him go But what good would their loosing him have done if Christ had not first raised him from the dead unto whose power not theirs all that followed is to be ascribed And to whom did Christ speak when he bad them loose Lazarus but to the Jews who were present As Maldonate one of their own good Writers expounds it and saith It is the opinion of all good Authors except Austin Gregory and Bede and adds That to found the Doctrine of Confession or Absolution upon this place is no better than to build upon sand But if it be supposed that he here speaks to his Apostles and bids them loose him still it can figure no more but a declaration of Pardon of Sins granted already by the Mercy of the Almighty What St. Austin therefore saith in the place which this man mentions first is to no purpose for it is the very same with this of Irenaeus For having said in the beginning of that Tractate * Tract XLIX in John that the works of our Lord were not only facta but signa and showed how the three persons raised by him from the dead signifie the raising up three degrees of sinners out of their sins When he comes to this passage in the story of Lazarus's Resurrection Loose him and let him go he saith What is loose him c. but what ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And let it be so that our Lord's words fitly represent this yet still it was God that properly loosed men from their sins the Apostles were but Ministers in this business who declared what God had granted As God raised up Lazarus from the dead they only untied him after he had really made him alive and raised him out of his Grave All the rest out of the Fathers is no better than this and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it but pass to the next Where he makes us say XV. That we ought not to confess
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
but he returns to his old way of Calumniating For there is no such Position maintained among us but expresly the contrary in our XVIth Article After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from Grace given and Faith is a Grace and Gift of God and fall into sin and by the Grace of God we may rise again c. The only question is Whether they that once have Saving Faith may lose it totally and finally In which there are various opinions not only among us but among themselves some saying it may be lost totally but not finally others that it may be lost in both regards But this is no matter of Faith but only of Opinion for which we do not break Communion All his Proofs therefore out of Scripture are perfectly impertinent for they prove what none of us deny That men may lose their Faith after they have received it As for his Fathers St. Austin in that very Book which he quotes * De correp gratia c. 12. asserts the direct contrary to what is here pretended to be his sense That there are some who cannot finally lose the Grace of God For comparing the Grace which Adam had with that which is now given to the Saints he saith To the first man who had received a power not to sin not to dye not to desert the good estate in which he was created was given the aid of Perseverance not whereby he was made that he should persevere but without which he could not by his Free-will have persevered But now to the Saints who are predestinated by God's Grace to the Kingdom of God there is not only given such an aid of Perseverance but such an one that Perseverance it self is given them not only that without this gift they cannot persevere but also that by this gift they cannot but persevere For our Saviour saith to his Apostles not only without me ye can do nothing XV. Joh. 5. but withal v. 16. Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you that ye should go and bring forth fruit and that your fruit should remain I have quoted this at large that such Writers as I have to deal withal may blush if they can at such shameless Untruths as they father upon St. Austin And let a deeper blush colour this man's cheeks who quotes the Council of Trent which was but a little above a hundred years ago among the Ancient Fathers His next Charge is They maintain XXIV That God by his Will and inevitable Decree hath ordained from all Eternity who shall be damned and who saved Answer AND who is he that dares maintain the contrary When our Lord hath said in express terms XVI Mark 15 16. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the eternal purpose of God in Christ which the Apostles were commanded to publish every where as his inevitable Decree concerning mankind which cannot be avoided That if they do not believe the Gospel which is preached to them they shall perish but if they sincerely believe it and be baptized they shall be saved This Babbler I doubt not would have said something else but he had not the wit viz. That we maintain God hath for his own mere Will and Pleasure without any respect to mens Faith or Unbelief resolved to damn some and to save others But this is not the Doctrine of our Church as he might have seen in our XVIIth Article If any among us teach such Doctrine it is no more than some of their own Doctors have taught And it is a most senseless thing to accuse us of that which if it be a fault they are as chargeable with it themselves His Scriptures prove nothing contrary to us but we expresly teach according to the first of them 1 Tim. II. 3. 1. Tim. II. 3. That we ought to receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture And therefore we must believe That God would have all men to be saved notwithstanding which such Triflers as this man is must be told that God will have some men to be damn'd as I show'd before and these two Propositions do not contradict one the other The next is of the same import 2 Pet. III. 9. 2 Pet. III. 9. God is not willing any should perish but that all should come to repentance And yet he is willing nay resolved that all those shall perish who will not repent For want of other Scriptures he runs to those that are Apochryphal and quotes a passage out of the Book of Wisdom which we believe to be Canonical enough in this point And then he returns to Scripture a great many Texts of which he jumbles together with some Apocrypha but if any one will take the pains to consult them he will find they do not contradict any thing that We or other Protestants affirm Even they who believe the absolute and irrespective Decree consent to what the Prophet Hosea saith XIII 9. which is his first place That every man's destruction is of himself He beats the air therefore in alledging those places and the sayings of the Fathers to which we subscribe and so do all other Protestants whose true opinion this poor Ignoramus did not understand and therefore could not oppose For those that say the cause why some are reprobated is God's Will and Pleasure yet maintain the cause of their Damnation and Destruction is their own sins This if he had questioned and ask'd them Why God reprobates this man rather than another they would have had St. Austin as ready at hand as he hath to answer for them You seek to know the Causes of God's Will when the Will of God is the very cause of all things that are For if the Will of God have a Cause there is something which antecedes his Will which it is impious to believe If any man therefore ask Why God made this The Answer is Because he would If he go on to ask Why would he He searches for something greater than God's Will when nothing greater can be found Let human temerity therefore bridle it self and not seek for that which is not lest he do not find that which is L. de Gen. contra Manich. C. 2. Further they hold saith he XXV That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation and to believe that he is of the number of the Predestinate Answer NO man in his wits much less any Church ever uttered such foolish words as these which are inconsistent with the former Assertion That God hath resolved to damn some men How can they who say this oblige every man to believe he shall be Saved The most that any one hath said is that not every one but every true believer every one that is justified ought to be so assured So Bellarmine
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
of the Fish to drive away the Devil and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul I cannot devise for I never read nor he neither that they were sanctified any way None of his Fathers tho half of them are young ones in comparison ascribe any supernatural vertue to such things and therefore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness XXXVII That children may be saved by their Parents Faith without the Sacrament of Baptism Answer NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine For we teach That there is no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without Baptism Insomuch that by an express Canon LXIX every Minister is to be suspended for three months who suffers any Infant in his Parish to dye without Baptism being informed of its weakness and danger of death and desired to come and baptize the same And is not to be restored till he acknowledg his fault and promise before his Ordinary that he will not wittingly incur the like again But we do not tye God to those means to the use of which he hath tyed us and therefore do believe that by his infinite Grace and Mercy those Infants may be saved who without their own fault dye unbaptized And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church as appears from Socrates * L. V. Hist c. 22. who says In Thessaly they baptized only at Easter by which means many dyed unbaptized and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places to baptize only twice a year which custom he saith hath been changed because a great many departed without Baptism But still this is an evidence they did not think it absolutely necessary nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church such as Gabriel Biel Card. Cajetan and many others I could name condemn children to Hell who dye unbaptized but being the children of Faithful Parents look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace and capable of eternal life For which they give these reasons Frst The infinite Mercy of God who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained And secondly The like case under the Old Testament when Circumcision answered to our Baptism as this man acknowledges and the children dying unbaptized were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents So S. Bernard Epist 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather That even this notion of childrens being saved by their parents Faith without Baptism is no more our opinion than it is theirs Some say so among us and so do some among them Matters therefore being thus stated all his Texts are already answered We say the very same our Saviour doth III. Joh. 5. III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray That God will grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have c. But tho this be the ordinary way we dare not say it is the only God's Grace many of themselves acknowledge supplies the want of Baptism in extraordinary cases Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Austin for it who was very rigid in this point that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is sufficient without the visible Sacrament when not by contempt of Religion but by mere necessity they are deprived of Baptism And thus Peter Lombard * L. IV. Distin 4. c. 2. understands this Text it is to be understood of those who can be baptized and contemn it III. Tit. 5. proves no more but that Baptism is the ordinary way and ought not to be neglected where it can be had From XVI Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily That children must be Baptized or not Saved XVI Mark 16. because they cannot believe which is to make Baptism more necessary than Belief Whereas they cannot be baptized but upon a supposition of belief as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent * Sess VII Can. 14. Children wanting Faith in the first act are baptized in the Faith of the Church And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is that as our Lord saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved so he would have said had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned But he only saith He that believeth not shall be damned which makes Faith only absolutely necessary And I showed before there are those in his own Church who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose And thus the most learned of the Fathers expound those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. 1 Cor. VII 14. particularly Theodoret The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife by the husband that is saith he hath hope of Salvation but if either he or she continue in this disease their seed shall partake of Salvation Which is but reason for if the unbelieving husband suppose should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized who can think this child so dying perished His last Text XVII Gen. 14. XVII Gen. 14. proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism where they could be had as was shewn before For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness V. Josh 5. But who will say that all they who were born and died within that time which was forty years went without remedy to Hell His Fathers which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine are not worth examining because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism as St. Austin Epist 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easie to be understood for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption and our souls by the spirit And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism as the Papists themselves will not abide by but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion which must admit of some exception And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers as they call them particularly St. Bernard who disputes against it at large in the Epistle before-mentioned As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received That children of two or three days old were not to be baptized but they were to stay till the eighth day as in Circumcision But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism but that none should be denied it tho newly born who the rather should be received because not their own sins but anothers was there remitted to them XXXVIII That the Sacrament
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
in a known Tongue or had no Interpreter To hold his peace and speak to himself and to God v. 28. His Argument to justify their Practice is so silly that it cannot but make a good man sigh deeply to think that poor ignorant People should be mis led by such Ideots For he takes him who occupied the place of the unlearned in verse 16. to be one who was required or supposed to be there to supply the unlearned man's place That is saith he one who should have further understanding of that Tongue in which the Service of the Church is said Which he imagines is a proof the Service was not in the Vulgar Tongue for then there had been no need of one to supply the Ideots place c. This is such a gross piece of Duncery as his Master Bellarmine would have corrected if he had look'd into him or any of the Ancient and Modern Interpreters Who by one that takes up the place of the Vnlearned do not understand one that acts in the stead of an Vnlearned Person that 's a dull fancy never heard of among the Learned but one that sits in the Place or Bench is in the Form as we speak of the Vnlearned That is an Ignorant Person who is the man that the Apostle saith could not say Amen if he understood not what was said in the Thanksgiving So Menochius upon that Text He that sits among the Simple and Rude who are ignorant of Tongues how shall he say Amen That is approve thy Prayer if he do not understand it His Cavil therefore at the Geneva Ministers is foolish if not malicious for they translate the words honestly not deceitfully according to the certain sense of them there being no difference between an Ideot and he who supplies the place of an Ideot We know of no Reformed Churches where they do not say Amen to their Publick Prayers Here we are sure the People are enjoyned so to do Therefore it is another Slander if he object this to us who have not turned Amen into So be it as he says many of the Reformed Churches have done If it be true that any have expounded the word into others of like signification it was for the Edification of the People and no body hath just reason to find fault with them if the People did not understand its meaning Which they did in Greece as much as in Judea and therefore the Apostle had reason to retain it But he belies St. Austin as he hath done us when he makes him say It is not lawful to turn Amen into any other language without the scandal of the whole Church For he saith * L. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 10. There is such variety of Latin Interpreters of the Scripture as makes the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek necessary that when one doubts of the Latin recourse may be had thither this is worth marking for other purposes Tho some Hebrew words indeed we often find are not interpreted as Amen Allelujah Racha and Osanna c. Which Antiquity hath preserved partly for the more sacred Authority tho they might have been interpreted observe that as Amen and Allelujah partly because it 's said they cannot be translated into another tongue as the two other words Racha and Osanna In which discourse he says nothing of the unlawfulness of Translating the Hebrew words nor of the scandal their Translation would give but only of some of them particularly Amen being more venerable in the Original Language than in any other What he says in his Epistles I cannot stand to examine for in that Epistle which he quotes there is nothing to be found about this matter In conclusion he is driven to this shift to say That our own Service is not understood because it consists partly of the Psalms of David which he most falsly says are the hardest part of all the Bible and of Lessons out of the Old and New Testament which are not understood by the people But is this all that our Service consists of Have we not Prayers and Thanksgivings easie to be understood every word As in the other part of the Service they understand enough for their Edification whereas of their Mass the simple people understand nothing Or suppose they understand a little yet this will not make their case like ours because the people with us have all in their vulgar Language tho they do not every one understand all but they have not a word in their vulgar language tho some perhaps may understand a little of the Latin Tongue And what is the reason they dare not trust the Mass in the vulgar language Because it is hard to be understood No but quite contrary because the people would easily find things there which confute their own Religion and are conformable unto ours For who would believe Purgatory any longer who heard the Priest say in the vulgar tongue Lord remember thy servants and handmaids that are gone before us with the sign of Faith and sleep in the sleep of peace If they be in peace every one would be ready to say Then they are not burning in the Purgatory fire and what need I give my money to Pray them out from thence The like passages there are that would make them believe Transubstantiation to be a Fable and that it is a novel thing to have the Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue which I have not room to mention But desire the Reader to observe how this practice is condemned out of the mouths of many great persons in their own Church I will name Two One is Cardinal Cajetan upon 1 Cor. XIV who saith Out of this Doctrine of Paul we learn That it is better for the Edification of the Church that the Publick Prayers which are said in the audience of the people should be said in the tongue common to Clerks and People than said in Latin A most ingenuous Confession in which he doth but follow one of their Saints viz. Anselm in his Exposition of the same Chapter That is good which thou sayest but another is not edified by thy words which he understands not Therefore since you meet in the Church for Edification those things ought to be said in the Church which may be understood by men and afford Edification to the hearers CONCLVSION NOW I leave all men who have a grain of common sense and common honesty whether this man who both in the Title and Conclusion of his Book pretends to judge us out of our own mouth II. Jam. 4. be not as St. James speaks a judge of evil thoughts That is as his Menochius expounds it one who reasons ill and therefore judgeth ill 1 Tim. I. 7. Who desiring to be a Teacher of others understands neither what he saith nor whereof he affirms As will be confessed by all who follow our Saviour's Rule VII John 24. Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment FINIS ERRATA PAge 38. line 20. r. to be come P. 54. l. 26. r. of Religion P. 90. l. 24. r. all together P. 105. l. 1. r. Arts whereby P. 145. l. 24. r. 1 Cor. IX 27. P. 172. l. 25. r. heard of much less have ever seen P. 184. l. 5. r. Rich Man P. 187. l. 14. r. ad Pop. Antioch P. 193. l. 21. r. things done at P. 207. l. 15. r. solemn Rite P. 213. l. 6. r. most suitable P. 217. l. 16. r. Tert. Sum. Ibid. l. 17. r. mere impudence P. 218. l. 1. r. Bona for Bonell P. 224. l. 21. r. S. Victore P. 231. l. 21. r. speaking of Virgins P. 250. l. antepenult r. visible P. 253. l. 11. r. God's footstool P. 262. l. 14. r. of Fathers to countenance