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
Scriptures are hard to be understood but that there are some things therein hard to be understood and those things in St. Paul's Epistles The rest of the Scripture notwithstanding this may be easy and the hard places he doth not say are wrested by every body but only by such as are unlearned and unstable Let us but learn and be stedfastly fixed in the Principles of Religion and practice accordingly then we shall not be in that danger but may read the Revelation it self without hazarding our Salvation Nothing will be in danger of Destruction by reading the Scriptures humbly and piously as they themselves teach us to do but only Men's Vices and the Roman Church which it is easy to see in that hard Book The Revelation is doomed in due time unto Destruction For without understanding every particular Passage one may easily see in general with a little help that Rome is there intended and not Pagan Rome but Christian which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State The following Text is like to this which doth not say VIII Acts 30. That the Eunuch could understand nothing in the Scriptures for then he would not have troubled himself to read them but that he could not understand that place of the Prophet which he was reading when Philip met with him Which was obscure to him only in part not in the whole before he was converted to Christianity but is not so to us who enjoy the glorious Light of the Gospel In which there are some things we cannot understand neither with a Guide nor without But other things as I said are so plain that we cannot mistake them unless we do it wilfully Against which there in no help tho we had the most Infallible Guide that ever was The next place speaks not one word of the difficulty of the Scriptures but rather supposes them to be easy enough even in those matters of which Christ was speaking XXIV Luke 25. XXIV Luke 25. if the Apostles had not been then fools and slow of heart Which Names they had not deserved if the Scriptures had been so hard that it was not their fault they could not understand them before he expounded them The things they read there were not in themselves difficult but the Disciples did not at that time sufficiently attend to what was written For if they could not as this Man affirms have understood them I do not see how they could be justly blamed by our Saviour much less so severely reprehended Besides it is to be observed both of this place and the former that they speak of the Prophetical Writings in which there are greater Obscurities than in other Parts of Scriptures and yet even these if they had not been Fools might have been understood without putting our Saviour to the pains of expounding them One would be tempted to think the Man distracted when he set down the next place V. Rev. 1. V. Revel 1. to prove his Position For the sealed Book which the Angel said no man could read was not the Bible but the ensuing Prophecy which our Saviour presently after opened and hath in some measure let us into its meaning I beseech the Reader to mark what a dolt this Man is who makes the Book of Scripture to be shut with so many Seals that even in St. John 's and the Apostles times none could be found either in Heaven or Earth able to open the same or look therein For what is the consequence of this if it be true but that the Bible must be quite thrown away and neither Priest nor Bishop nor Pope nor Council look therein For they cannot be more able than St. John and the rest of the Apostles O that all People would see by what sottish Guides they are led on in darkness If he had thought that heap of Texts which follow would have done him any Service we should have had their words no doubt and not merely the Chapter and Verse but they are set down only for show and the V. Revelat. is reckoned again to make up the Tale. The Holy Fathers are mentioned for no other end their words being so full and so numerous on our side that it would fill a bigger Book than this if I should muster them up Particularly those very Fathers whom he quotes and in the very Books he mentions are of our minds But it is sufficient for the ordinary Reader to observe that at this Man's rate of proving no Body must read the Scriptures no not such as St. Ambrose if the Scriptures be such a Sea as he speaks of a depth of Prophetical Riddles But the truth is St. Ambrose doth not say what this Man makes him speak Not that it is a depth c. but that it hath in it profound Senses and a depth of Prophetical Riddles It hath so and it hath also plain places in it which are not so deep but they may be fathomed by ordinary even by shallow Capacities St. Austin saith nothing contrary to this but must be supposed to know enough tho much less than what he did not know And so must the rest of the Fathers be understood or else the Scripture is good for nothing if even such Men as Dionysius Gregory the Great c. could understand little or nothing of it If what they say be to his purpose it is concerning themselves and not others and therefore they ought to have refrained from reading the Scripture as well as the Vulgar What then will become of the Common People if their greatest Guides could know so little of the Mind of God His last Author he took upon trust or else is an egregious Falsifier For there is nothing to that purpose in the Chapter he quotes L. VII cap. 20. There are words to that effect in the 25th Chapter where Irenaeus writing against those who denied the Revelation of St. John to be a Divine Book saith Tho I do not understand it yet I suppose there is a deeper sense in the Words and not measuring those things nor judging of them by my reasonings but giving more to Faith I esteem them to be higher than to be comprehended by me but I do not reject that which I cannot understand but admire it the more because I am not able to understand it Now with what face could this Man apply that to the whole Scripture which is spoken only of the Book of the Revelation Let the Reader judg by this what honestly he is to expect in other Quotations IV. He makes us say next That Apostolical Traditions and Ancient Customs of the Church not found in the Written Word are not to be received nor do oblige us Answer THIS is a downright Calumny for we have ever owned that Apostolical Traditions if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible are to be received and followed if delivered by them as of necessary Obligation But we do likewise say That we know no such
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
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
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
could not see the Church all Africk over it being at that time as plain as a Mountain or a lighted Candle as our Church now is at this day But his words do not imply that the Church shall always be so manifest and never hid Mountains themselves being sometimes hidden in a mist For he saith in other places The Church shall sometimes be obscured and the Cloud of Offences may shadow it Epist 48. It shall not appear by reason of the unmeasurable Rage of Vngodly Persecutors Epist 80. It is like the Moon and may be hid in XIX Psalm Yea so obscured that the Members of it may not know one another as he speaks in his sixth Book of Baptism against the Donatists C. 4. What St. Cyprian saith is not contrary to this V. We maintain he saith That the Church was not always to remain Catholick or Vniversal and that the Church of Rome is not such a Church Answer WE maintain the quite contrary to the first Part of his Proposition asserting that the Church is always to remain Catholick or Vniversal not confined to one Country as the Jewish was but spread all the World over The second Part indeed we do maintain That the Church of Rome is not such a Church that is which is the thing they contend for is not the Universal Church but hath its limits and was anciently bounded within certain Regions beyond which it did not extend The first Scripture he alledges against us is a promise to Christ which we believe hath been fulfilled in part II. Psalm 8. and will be more and more fulfilled before the end of the World but hath nothing in it peculiar to the Church of Rome which at the best is but a piece of his Inheritance The second speaks expresly not of the Vniversality of Christ's Kingdom I. Luke 33. but of its Perpetuity and is as much verified in other Churches as in the Roman which is so far from being the only Universal Church that in this sense it is not Universal at all The third is directly against him For it shows that the Faith of the Gospel unto which he now skips I. Colos 3 c. when he should have said the Church of which he was speaking was planted at Coloss which was never under the Jurisdiction of Rome and there fructified and grew as much as in other places Nor will the next place help him where St. Paul doth not call the Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans but only saith I. Rom. 8. their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world I. Rom. 8. that is the fame of it was spread all the world over as Menochius one of their own honestly interprets it For what was done at Rome could not be concealed from the rest of the World saith Theodoret because the Roman Emperors having their Palace there from whence all sort of Officers were sent and whither all People resorted who had any boon to beg by whom it was signified every where That the City of Rome had received the Faith of Christ Thus he which shows the Gospel was spread in the World before it came to the City of Rome it not coming from thence but from Jerusalem and not coming thither till many other places had received it who were not beholden to Rome for it With what face then against such a clear sense of the words could this Man say that St. Paul in express terms calls The Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans or the Church of Rome When the words rather import that he calls the Faith of the Romans the Faith received in the whole World But he saith neither the one nor the other tho if he had it would prove nothing but that there was one and the same Faith then at Rome which was in other places The truly Catholick Faith from whence Churches were named Catholick not from their extending all the World over which was impossible and Jerusalem and other Churches were as much so as Rome it self and were so before there was a Church at Rome In short a Catholick Church signified no more than an Orthodox Church It is a matter of serious Lamentation that men should go about to pervert such plain and easy Truths as this and should heap up Scriptures to prove mere Nonsence For all the Scriptures which he bids us further look into he saith are not to be understood That the whole World should be Catholick at one and the same time Let the Reader consider what it is for the whole World to be Catholick as he hath explained it but for the whole World to be the whole World And he will have an hard task to make Sense of the next words that the whole World being converted unto Christ at sundry times it shall comprehend a greater part of the World than any Sect of Hereticks shall ever do I thought the whole World would certainly comprehended the whole World and not only the greater part of the World It is impossible by such Jargon as this to understand the true Sense of being Catholick or Vniversal Which the Church is either with respect to Faith because there is the same Faith in all parts of the true Church or with respect to Place because no Country is excluded from it which will receive this Faith or with respect to Time because it continues throughout all Ages tho not always in such an extent as to be actually in all Nations For those Countries which were once Parts of the Catholick Church are not so now And if those that are now so should lose the Faith still the Church might be Catholick if others embraced it as Bellarmine * L. IV. De Ecclesâ— c. 7. himself confesses If only one Province should retain the true Faith the Church might truly and properly be called Catholick as long as it might be clearly shown that it was one and the same with that which had been at sometime or in divers throughout the World According to his former Method he carries us now to the Fathers and mâ—kâ—s them guilty of as much Nonsense as himself For he makes St. Cyprian confess that part is the whole But the comfort is he either did not understand or else misrepresents St. Cyprian who speaks not there of the Authority but of the Example of the Roman Church and especially of Cornelius their Bishop who remaining constant in time of Tryal made all his Brethren every where rejoyce particularly Cyprian himself who in that very place stiles Cornelius and others his Fellow-Priests or Bishops For what Priest saith he can chuse but rejoyce in the praises of his Fellow-Priests as if they were his own It is not to be expressed with what Joy and Exultation he heard of his Fortitude whereby he made himself a Captain and Leader of Confession unto the Brethren c. And then follows While there is among you i. e. Cornelius and his Brethren one Mind
Epist LX. Edit Oxon. and one Voice all the Roman Church hath confessed that is their Faith which the Apostle praised was be come famous as it follows in the next words and while they were thus Unanimous thus Valiant they gave great Examples of Vnanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est They were all stedfast in their Faith which this poor man construes as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholick Church By translating those words thus The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Which he vehemently denied ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons That every mans Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed and commanded those to return home who had appealed to Rome which he shows was most just and reasonable unless the Authority of the Bishops in Africk seem less than the Authority of other Bishops to a few desperate and profligate persons who had already been judged and condemned by them Epist LIX This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius to which I could add a great deal more if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush if they have any shame left who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church St. Austin of whom I must say something lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him and the whole Church of Africk in a Council of Two hundred Bishops made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church and therefore could mean no such thing as this man would have in his Book of the Vnity of the Church Where he saith in the 3d Chapter That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings but out of the Divine Oracles and if the Holy Scriptures have design'd it in Africa alone c. whatsoever other Writings may say the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause and none be the Church but they But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise designing the Church to be spread throughout the World And then he goes on to say Chap. 4. that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head but yet do so dissent those are his words which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously from his Body which is the Church that their Communion is not with the whole Body wheresoever it is diffused but is found in some part separated it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church than of any other part of the Catholick Church and in truth makes them like the Donatists since their Communion is not with the whole Body which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion but they are found in a part of it seperated by themselves The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin I assure the Reader is as much besides the matter and therefore I will not trouble him with it And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom in his Apology against Ruffinus But this I find L 3. the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle viz. I. Rom. 8. admits not such deceit and delusion into it c. Where it is to be noted That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle is one thing and the Roman Church another And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time was certainly most pure but who shall secure us it is so now If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so we should not believe it because it is not what they then believed nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time but much altered in many Points And suppose St. Hierom had told us It is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholick Faith it must be meant of the then Roman Faith and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith No nor more than is said for thus Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople writes in an Epistle * Council of Ephes p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome We also have obtained the name of New Rome and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith the Prophets and Apostles mark that he doth not say on the Roman Church whâ—re Christ our Saviour and God is the Corner-stone are in the matter of faith nothing behind the elder Romans For in the Church of God there is none to be reckoned or numbred before the rest †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also c. i. e. if he were alive Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City as he had theirs at Old Rome for we as well as they following his Doctrine and Institutions wherein we are rooted are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith wherein we stand and rejoice c. X. The Reformers he saith hold That the Church's Vnity is not necessary in all points of Faith Answer THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes where he saith IV. Ephes 5. there is One Faith Which we believe is necessary to make One Church every part of which blessed be God at this very day is baptized into that one and the same Faith and no other contained in the common Creed of Christians called the Apostles Creed Therefore so far Church Vnity is still preserved But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith Nor should the Differences which may be among Christians about such matters break Unity of Communion And if they do those Churches which are thus broken and divided by not having external communion one with another may notwithstanding still remain both of them Members of the same one Catholick Church because they still retain the same one Catholick Faith Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time and the African and Roman in Stephen's time differed in external Communion and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ This is more than I need have said in answer to him but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies not our Opinions We believe as the Apostle teaches us IV. Ephes 5. IV. Ephes 5. and from thence conclude That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith truly so called that is all things necessary to be believed Nor do we differ in any such things and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church II. Jam. 10. The second
Vniversal Mâ—narch over all the Earth Which is as reasonable from these Principles as one visible Head of the Church But to answer his question plainly There is no one visible Head here because Christ the Head of the Church both Triumphant and Militant hath ordered it otherwise Having placed saith St. Paul 1 Cor. XII 28. in the Church first Apostles not Peter or any one alone over the rest but the Apopostles were left by Christ the Supreme Power in the Church Here I cannot but conclude as that great and good Man Dr. Jackson * L. III Chap â— doth upon such an occasion Reader Consult with thy own heart and give sentence as in the sight of God and judge of the whole Frame of their Religion by the Foundation and of the Foundation which is this Supremacy of Peter by the wretched Arguments whereby they support it For from the other Scriptures which follow in this Writer their Arguments stand thus David was made Head of the Heathen XVIII Psal 43. therefore Peter was made Head of the Church Instead of the Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands XLV Psal 16. therefore Peter ruled over all the rest as a Prince Simon he sirnamed Peter III. Mark 16. therefore he had authority over all because named first The same is gathered from I. Act 13 merely from the order of precedence which must be granted to one or other in a Body where all are equal Finally Christ's kingdom shall have no end I. Luke 33. therefore St. Peter must reign for ever in his Successors St. Paul was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Corinth XI 5. therefore what common Reason would have concluded therefore there were more chief Apostles besides Peter and St. Paul was not inferior to the greatest of them not to Peter himself These are his Scripture-Arguments for their Supremacy And his Fathers affirm nothing at all of Peter which is not said of other Apostles Particularly St. Chrysostom who says no such thing of Peter as he makes him in his 55th Hom. upon Matthew expresly says St. Paul governed the whole World as one Ship Hom. 25. upon 2 Corinth and frequently calls him as well as Peter Prince of the Apostles and calls them all the Pastors and Rectors of the whole World in his 2d Hom. upon Titus And to be short the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew commonly ascribed to St. Chrysost calls all Bishops the Vicars of Christ Hom 17. Finally there is no Title so great which is not given to others as well as Peter by ancient Writers even the Title of Bishop of Bishops the name of Pope Holiness Blessed and such like XII We hold he saith That a Woman may be Head or Supream Governess of the Church in all Causes as the late Queen Elizabeth was Answer NOne of us ever called Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church unless as it signifies Supream Governour And that indeed we assert she was and all our Kings are of all persons whatsoever in all Causes But because some leud People perverted the meaning of this our Church took care to explain it in one of the Articles of Religion that no man might mistake in the matter unless he would wilfully as this Writer doth who could not but understand that it is expresly declared Article XXXVII that when we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government we do not give to our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments c. but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself That is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers This is our avowed Doctrine Now what do our Bibles say against this Nothing but a woman may not teach 1 Tim. II. 12. c. 1 Tim. II. 12. And do not we say the same that our Princes may not minister the Word or Sacraments What a shameless sort of People have we to deal withal who face us down that we affirm what we flatly deny And when he pretends faithfully to recite the words of our Bible after the New Translation as he doth in his Preface here he gives us another Translation in the second Text he alledges 1 Cor. XIV 34. But take it as it is it proves nothing but his folly and impudence unless he could shew that Queen Elizabeth preached publickly in any of our Churches But see the Childishness of this Writer in alledging these Texts against the Queen which make nothing against our Kings who are not Women sure And we ascribe the same power to them which we did to her and no more to her than belongs to them From Scripture he betakes himself to Reasoning which proceeds upon the same wilful Mistake we cannot call it but Calumny against our express Declaration to the contrary That we give our Kings such an Headship or Supream Power as makes them capable to minister the Word and Sacraments From whence he draws this new Slander That many hundreds of them have been hang'd drawn and quarter'd for denying this Power VVhereas every one knows the Oath of Supremacy is nothing else but a solemn declaration of our belief that our Kings are the Supream Governors of these Realms in all Spiritual things or Causes as well as Temporal and that no Foreign Prince or Prelate hath any Jurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in these Realms c. Now what can he find in his Fathers to oppose this There were none of them for above 800 years who did not believe this that Emperors and Kings are next to God and the Pope himself ought to be subject to them L. II. 1. The words of Optatus speak the sense of them all There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor And none can deny the Ancient Custom to have been that the Clergy and People of Rome having chosen the Pope the Emperor confirmed or invalidated the Election as he pleased Adrian indeed would fain have changed this Custom Anno 811. but still it continued a long time that the Election was not accounted valid till the Emperor's Confirmation And he cannot but know if he have read his own Authors that after Adrian's attempt above forty Popes from John IX to Leo IX were all created by the Emperors who frequently also deposed Popes And Popes were so far from having any such Authority over the Emperors that when Pope Gregory VII adventured upon it it was esteemed a Novity not to say an Heresy as Sigebert's words are ad Anno 1088. which had not sprung up in the World before But the Reader may here observe how well skill'd this Man is in the Fathers who places John Damascen in the very front of them
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
but rather inclines to the contrary Opinion The XCI Psalm 11 12. XCI Psal 11 12. Proves the very same That God gives his Angels charge of Good men But it neither speaks of one who is the Angel-keeper nor that the Angels whether more or fewer remain always with good men There were a great many about one Prophet Elisha 1 Kings VI. 12. But it is not likely that those Troops were his constant Guard But it is in vain to appeal to S. Cyril of Alexandria his opinion that it is meant of the Angel-keeper for they will not in other cases as I shall show shortly stand to his judgment It is true in the XII Acts 13. XII Acts 13. The Jewish Christians who were assembled in Mary's House were of opinion That it was the Angel of St. Peter who knock'd at the door But whether this opinion was true or no is the question which the Scripture doth not resolve Nor can we gather the Faith of the Primitive Church which this man thinks is apparent from this place from the opinion of a few of the Jewish Christians who had many opinions which I hope this man will not justifie And though this should prove such a man as Peter had an Angel-Guardian it will not prove that every man hath For this seems to have been the old opinion among the Jews That only excellent men Persons of great integrity and usefulness had such attendants to take care of them for instance Jacob as one may gather out of St. Chrysostom's Third Hom. upon the Colossians But it doth not appear that they thought they had them always nor one and the same when God favoured them with their Ministry And thus Mr. Calvin in that place of his Institutions which this man quotes says he does not see what should hinder us from understanding this Angel of St. Peter of any Angel whatsoever to whom God committed the care of him at that time whom we cannot therefore conclude to have been his perpetual keeper Let who pleases see more he will not find one of the Scriptures he quotes speak home to the point No not those out of Tobit which he knows we do not own for any part of the Rule of our belief for it doth not follow that every man hath an Angel-Guardian if Tobit had one who accompanied him in that journey No Tobit himself had not his company alway but the Angel when he had finished his journey departed from him See how foolish this man is who not only quotes Books which we allow not to be Holy Writ but alledges places there that make against him And his Fathers he quotes as madly beginning with St. Gregory and putting even Gregory of Tours before St. Austin And the Reader may judge of what value his Testimonies are by what he alledges out of St. Hierome whose words if he would have given us intirely it would have appeared they carry no Authority with them For it immediately follows Whence we read in the Revelation of St. John to the Angel of Ephesus of Thyatira and the Angel of Philadelphia As if these had been Guardian Angels of these Churches to whom our Saviour wrote when all agree they were the Bishops of those Churches as Ribera confesses who justly wonders that St. Hierome or any one else should think them to be Angelical Spirits If St. Hierome wrote those Commentaries it is manifest he departed from the opinion of other Fathers when he saith That every soul hath its Angel assigned it from its Nativity For they say only That every Believer hath this privilege There needs no more be said in this matter which can at most be no more than a probable opinion and therefore it is not contrary to the Faith to deny that every one of us hath an Angel for his custody and patronage XXVII That the holy Angels pray not for us nor know our thoughts and desires on earth Answer NOne of us say That the holy Angels pray not for us in general no many Protestants grant it but we have no reason to believe they pray for us in our particular concerns and we are sure they do not intercede for us by their Merits for they have none We are sure also that they know not our thoughts or desires unless they be discovered by external effects or signs or they be revealed to them by God For the Scripture expresly saith God only knows the heart 1 Kings VIII 39. 1 Cor. II. 11. And this Suarez * L. 2. de Angel c. XXI n. 3. himself saith is a Catholick Assertion That an Angel cannot naturally know or see the act or free consent of any created will unless by him that hath such a tree affection it be manifested to another And this he saith is de fide and proves it from Scriptures and Fathers Now if any one will say that God doth reveal our internal thoughts and desires to the Angels he is a very bold man unless he have a Divine Revelation for it None of the Scriptures here mention'd say any such thing The first of them I. Zach. 12. I. Zac. 12. only proves That an Angel prayed not for a particular person and his particular necessities but that he would have mercy upon Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that is upon the whole Nation This many Protestants grant and therefore he belies them when he saith They believe the Angels do not pray for us For this very place is alledged by the Apology for the Augustan Confession and by Chemnitius in his Common-places as an argument why they grant Angels pray for the Church in general For this Text proves no more The next Tob. XII 12. tho out of an Apocryphal Book XII Tob. 12. says nothing of the Angels praying for us but of their bringing mens prayers before the Holy One Which the same Protestants also allow meaning thereby only a Ministerial Oblation of mens Prayers before God as they explain themselves not a Pr pitiatory Oblation which is proper only to Jesus Christ VIII Rev. 4. Unto whom the third place belongs VIII Rev. 4. not to an ordinary Angel but to that great Angel of the Covenant whom the Prophet speaks of III. Mal. 1. out of whose hand the smoke of the incense came and ascended up before God So St. Austin and Primasius nay Viega a famous Jesuit affirms that most Interpreters by this Angel understand Christ And he gives these good reasons for it Unto whom but to him alone doth it belong to offer the Incense of the whole Church that is their Prayers in a golden Censer Who but he could send down part of the Fire with which the golden Censer was filled v. 5. upon the earth and inflame it with the Fire of the Divine Love and the Flaming Gifts of the Holy-Ghost c. See the Folly of this man who applies that to Angels which belongs in the opinion of most Interpreters unto Christ alone And see his Falseness also who
knows what 's done because he lays false accusations to the charge of good Christians So this Text signifies as Menochius himself expounds it The accuser saith he is the backbiter the calumniator the detractor who accuses the Saints with false criminations and calumnies as anciently he did Job A most excellent argument to prove the Devil knows what is done here because he is a lyar a false accuser who tells what was never done Will people never open their eyes and see the senselessness of these men who trouble the World with their Brain-sick Discourses He promised express Scriptures and perpetually falls into pitiful arguing As he doth here upon another Scripture in the Old Testament 2 King VI 12. where because Elisha is said to know what the King of Israel said in his Bed-chamber 2 Kings VI. 12. he concludes that he knew by the light of Prophecy even the inward thoughts And what it God had revealed this to him which he did not would it follow that he knew the words and the thoughts of all Israel And because he knew what the King said in secret at some time that he knew what he and all his People said at all times These are extravagant Conceits fit only for men in Bâ—dlam What the light of glory as he calls it can make the Souls of the Blessed understand we cannot tell but they are not capable to understand all particulars as you heard before And therefore St. Austin * Cura pro Mâ—â—tuis c. 14. in the Book and Chapter before-quoted by himself argues quite otherwise that it doth not follow because the rich man told Abraham how many Brethren he had therefore he knew what his Brethren did and what they suffered at that time In like manner he would have argued no doubt in any other case if there had been occasion that because the Saints for instance know some things which they are told by others from this World we must not infer that they know other things besides them That which follows is like this but much worse For because Elisha 2 Kings V. 26. 2 Kings V. 26. being afar off as he says saw all that passed between Naaman and Gehasi therefore the Saints he concludes see what passes in this World What mad stuff is this Elisha was not afar off for the Text saith expresly v. 19. Naaman was departed from him a little way when Gehasi ran after him And in the very same Book we find that though Elisha knew this thing at some distance from him yet he did not know another which was as easie to know viz. That the Shunamite's Son was dead 2 King IV. 27. And how doth St. Paul's being wrapt into the Third Heaven which is his next proof give us any reason to believe that they who are there know what is done upon Earth These things hang together like Harp and Harrow Nor doth it appear that St. Stephen saw from Earth as far as Heaven Our Saviour indeed presented himself unto him standing not sitting VII Acts 55. as this man quotes it at the right hand of the Divine Glory which then also appeared But so it had done in ancient times in the very door of the Tabernacle where the Congregation of Israel saw it without looking as far as Heaven But if we take it otherwise it doth not follow that because God can make his Divine Glory shine from Heaven to Earth therefore any one can see from Earth to Heaven or from Heaven to Earth Much less that the Saints can always see what is done here on Earth For St. Stephen could not alway behold the glory of God and our Lord standing at his right hand but only at that time upon an extraordinary occasion when God in an extraordinary manner shone upon him All his own Divines will tell him that Arguments are not to be drawn from Parables such as that of the Rich man and Lazarus to which he makes his next resort For if we allow that way of reasoning then he may prove from hence that we and the Saints may talk together though at this distance one from another as the Rich man did with Abraham and Abraham with him Of all the ways that have been invented to shew how the Saints may know what we do there was never any so extravagant as this of their seeing from Heaven what is done here I believe the Reader is weary of such Discourse as this especially if he lookt for express Scripture which this man bad him expect Therefore I shall not exercise his patience with any further notice of what he saith about the Communion of Saints which may be without the least knowledge they have of us or we of them as appears by the Communion of all the Members of Christ's Body here on Earth some of which never heard of or have ever seen the other Look never so long in the other Scriptures he quotes you will find nothing in them to the purpose And the first of his Fathers is a Counterfeit the two next we shall meet withal presently to prove we may pray to the Saints which is the drift also of this Discourse XXXII That the Saints pray not for us Answer THere is no such assertion as this among us but he again calumniates us For though the Saints cannot know our particular wants and therefore cannot make particular Prayers for us yet that in general they pray for that part of God's Church which is here on Earth and perhaps for this we cannot affirm certainly for some particular persons who were well known and dear to them when on Earth we do not deny But if we did he is so ill provided of Proofs and of Scripture for it that those which he alledges will work no belief in us For in V. Rev. 8. V. Rev. 8. there is a plain representation of the Church here on Earth not in Heaven So the latter end of their Song v. 10. might have informed him where they say Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests and we shall reign on the Earth And thus many of the Fathers understood it as he might have learnt from Viega one of their own Doctors So thâ—t he might have sp red his lo how c. and we may rather say in imitation of it Lo how silly an Interpreter this is of such Divine Mysteries What is recorded in a Book of no authority 2 Macc. XV. 14. 2 Maccab XV. 14. concerning Judas his Dreams is not worth considering and it proves no more if we should allow it but only a general recommendation of that Nation to God XV. Jer. 1. The next place out of XV. Jer. 1. doth not imply that Moses and Samuel then prayed for them in Heaven but that if they did or rather if two such powerful persons were then alive to intercede for that People they should not prevail And so St. Hierom whom this man belies as he doth us plainly enough expounds it
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
declared their Belief that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ who was made a curse for us and that through his Death and Passion of which the Cross was a Memorial they expected all manner of Blessings from God But all this was of Humane Institution for which we find no directions in Scripture None of the places he alledgeth say a syllable of it much less expresly mention this sign Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII VII Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads With what mark we are not told In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him and of blessing his Disciples but nothing of signing either with the Cross or any thing else which therefore is not founded in these or indeed in any other Scriptures The Fathers we know speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions but do they say it was founded in Scripture Not a word of that which is the only point And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now as many other Rites have been which were no less in use in Ancient times than that was particularly the Custom of Praying Standing not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day between Easter and Whitsuntide Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice and as it had been in use before and not then introduced but only confirmed so continued in the Church for 800 years and yet is now quite disused I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue as well as Bodily Protection which they in the Roman Church now expect from the Sign of the Cross for which there is not either Scripture or other Ancient Authority LII That the Publick Service of the Church ought not to be said but in a Language that all the People may understand Answer IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly This is our Doctrine which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible that unless the Bible contradict it self nothing can be found there to the contrary I Luke 8. St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spake when he ministred in the Sanctuary Nor do we find in the Bible the least mention of Publick Prayers he made there but only of burning Incense which the People well understood represented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance which they made without while he burnt Incense within Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer the meaning of which was as well understood by the People as what they themselves spake The Angel indeed tells him v. 13. thy Prayer is heard but this doth not prove he spake any words but rather lifted up his mind to God when the Incense ascended towards Heaven For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words But suppose he did how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times the Language of the Country Tho it is not material whether he did or no for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice And therefore this place if it prove any thing proves too much that the Publick Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People where they can neither hear nor see the Priest The XVI Levit. 17. XVI Lev. 17. is most absurdly alledged to serve this purpose because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven by virtue of his most precious Blood wherewith he entred in thither Besides the High-Priest of old said not one word while he staid there and therefore this can be no argument the People need not understand the Publick Prayers of the Church which are made not in such a Secret Place as that was but openly in the hearing of all the People Who by this reasoning may be shut out of the Church as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers and the Priest left there to a silent Service by himself Here Fathers being wanting for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue he pretends he hath no need of them tho he needlesly heapt them up where he could find a word that seemed to look that way he would have it But he supplies this want with a bold untruth That the practice of the whole Christian World for these many hundred years hath been against us who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand Which can be salved by nothing but by another proud falsity that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World For no Church uses Latin Service but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome all others use the Language of their several Countries Nay there are some who have acknowledged his Authority that would still have the Publick Service in their own Language which the People understood For shame let these men leave off Writing and betake themselves to their Prayers that God would forgive them their abominable Falshoods wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause particularly in this point about Publick Service in a Language the People do not understand Which they are sensible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul in 1 Cor. XIV and therefore this man thinks himself concern'd to attempt an Answer unto what we alledge from hence At first he distinguishes between Publick Prayer and Private which here is very idle for it is evident the Apostle speaks of Publick Prayers in the Church verse 19. When the whole Church came together in one place verse 23. Secondly He saith this place is against us because it proves the Common Service of the Church was not then in a Tongue which every man understood but in another Language not so common to all verse 16. Mark how he contradicts himself before he supposed or else he talk'd impertinently that the Apostle discourses of Private Prayers now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church of which he speaks but shews it was not in the Common Language What a brow have these men who can thus out-face the clearest truth That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons and condemns as utterly inconsistent with the very end of Speech as well as with the Edification of the Church this man makes to have been common allowed Practice Was there ever such Prevarication A man had better have no use of Reason than Discourse on this fashion no Tongue at all than talk at this rate expresly against the Apostle's Injunction who requires him who could not deliver what he spake
our sins to any man but to God only Answer THis is a most impudent falshood for we press this as a Duty in some cases for the quieting of mens Consciences when they are burdned with Guilt particularly before they receive the Communion and when they are sick But that which we affirm in this matter is That God doth not require all Christians to make a particular Confession privately to a Priest of every sin he hath committed tho only in thought under pain of being damn'd if he do not Much less do we believe such Confession to be Meritorious and Satisfactory for sin Nor do the Scriptures which he quotes prove a syllable of this doctrine The first he alledges III. Matth. 5 6. Matth. III. 5 6. speaks of those who confessed their sins before they received Baptism of John the Baptist But what is this to Confession of sins after Baptism And besides there is not a word of their confessing them to John nor of particular Confession of every sin And therefore Maldonate tells such raw Divines as this We ought not to rely upon this Testimony for it is manifest it doth not treat of Sacramental Confession which was not yet instituted And Bellarmine their great Master durst venture no further than to call this which was done at John's Baptism a figure of their Sacramental Confession And this poor man himself concludes no more from hence than this That we may confess our sins who doubts of it not only to God but also to man But this is very short of what he undertook to prove by express Texts That we ought to confess c. Act. XIX 18 19. Nor dare he venture to conclude any more from the next place but that we may confess our sins to men XIX Acts 18 19. Where he bids us Behold Confession but doth not tell us to whom So we are never the wiser because it might be to God and that before all the Company as the words seem to import But he bids us also Behold Satisfaction because several people not the same he spake of before brought forth their curious Books which were worth a great deal of money and burnt them before all men A plain and publick demonstration indeed that they detested those Magical Arts whereby they gave also satisfaction to all men of their sincere renunciation of such wicked practices But what proof is this of a Compensation made to God hereby for their Sins which deserved of him an acquittance His Third Text is still more remote from the business V. Numb 6 7. Numb V. 6 7. and therefore alledged by wiser heads than his such as Bellarmine only as a figure of Sacramental Confession the least shadow of which doth not appear For there is neither Confession of all sins here mentioned but only of that particular for which the Sacrifice was offered nor Confession of the sin to the Priest but rather to the Lord as the words more plainly signifie If a man or wâ—â—an commit any sin that men commit and do trespass against the LORD and that person be guilty then they shall confess their sin which they have done An unbiassed Reader would hence conclude they were bound to confess their sin to the LORD against whom they had trespassed His other Scriptures perhaps he was sensible were nothing to the purpose and therefore he only sets down the Chapter and Verse as his manner is when he bids See more where nothing is to be seen For the first is only the same we had out of St. Matthew The next V. James 16. speaks of one man's confessing his sins to his neighbour The next we had before under the former Head And the last I am willing to think is mis-printed or his mind was much amiss when he noted it XVII Matth. 14. His Fathers also have only the word Confession not saying whether to God or to man and he thinks that enough But it is a shameless thing to quote St. Chrysostom for this Doctrine who in so many places exhorts his people only to confess their sins in private to God that Sixtus Senensis is forced to expound him as if he spake only against the necessity of such Publick Confession as was abolished at Constantinople But Petavius who proves there was no such Publick Confession is fain to desire the Reader to be so kind as not to take St. Chrysostom's words strictly but spoken popularly in a heat of declamation And we are content to do so if they would be so just as to do the same in other cases But still we cannot think St. Chrysostom so very hot-headed but that sometimes he would have been so cool as to have spoken more cautiously and not have so frequently over-lasht as they make him That which he quotes out of Ambrose he is told by Bellarmine is Greg. Nyssen so little doth this poor man know of their own Authors As for his sitting to hear Confessions if his Author be worth any thing which is much suspected by Learned men of his own Communion it is meant of Publick Confession such as was in use in his time XVI That Pardons and Indulgences were not in the Apostles times Answer NOthing truer by the Confession of their own Authors particularly Antoninus * Part I. Tit. X c. 3. in his Sums Of these we have nothing expresly neither in the Scriptures nor out of the sayings of the Ancient Doctors The same is said by Durandus and many others who have been so honest as to confess That such Indulgences and Pardons as are now in use are but of late invention There being no such thing heard of in the Ancient Church as a Treasure of the Church made up of the Satisfaction of Christ and of the Saints out of which these Indulgences are now granted for the profit of the dead as well as of the living Whereas of old they were nothing but Relaxations of Canonical Penances when long and severe Humiliations had been imposed upon great Offenders which sometimes were thought fit to be remitted upon good considerations either as to their severity or as to their length Now this which was done by any Bishop as well as he of Rome we are not against But such Indulgences are in these ages of no use because the Penitential Canons themselves are relaxed or rather laid aside and no such tedious and rigorous Penances are inflicted which the Church of Rome hath exchanged for Auricular Confession and a slight Penance soon finished The first place he produces out of our Bible to countenance their Indulgences 2 Cor. II. 10. we had before to prove men may forgive sins Sect. XIV and others have alledged it to prove men may satisfie for their sins now it is pressed for the service of Indulgences What will not these men make the Scripture say if they may have the handling of it But after all this will not serve their purpose for the Pardon the Apostle here speaks of was nothing
but the restoring him again to Christian Communion who had been thrown out of the Church But is this the Indulgence they contend for in the Church of Rome Will this serve their turn Then every Church hath as much power as this comes to and the whole body of the Church will have a share in this power of Indulgences For St. Paul speaks to all the Corinthian Christians in general that they should forgive him And so he doth also in the next place here alledged v. 6 7. Ibid. v. 6.7 of the same Chapter which speak of a Punishment inflicted ed by many which he tells them ought not to be continued but contrarywise Ye ought to forgive him and comfort him c. Upon which words hear what your Menochius says This Punishment was publick Separation from the Church out of which he was ejected by MANY i. e. by you all with detestation of his Wickedness c. The forgiveness of which was taking him into the Church again as Theodoret expounds the next words v. 8. Vnite the member to the body joyn the sheep together with the flock and thereby show your ardent affection to him He bids us see more in two other places of Scripture which we have examined before for other purposes but he would have serve for all A sign they have great scarcity of Scripture-proofs and therefore he gives us a larger Catalogue of Fathers which he packs together after such a fashion as no Scholar ever did For after Tertullian and Cyprian who speak only of the forenamed Relaxation of Canonical Censures he mentions the Council of Lateran but doth not tell us which though if he had it would have been to no end For the first Lateran Council was above Eleven hundred years after Christ And Innocent III. who is his next Father lived an hundred year later holding the IVth Lateran Council 1215. After these he brings St. Ambrose Austin Chrysostome who lived 800 years before and knew of no Indulgences but such as I have mentioned Lastly He tells us Urban the second granted a Plenary Indulgence and when lived this holy Father do you think Almost eleven hundred years after Christ Anno 1086. A most excellent proof that the Romish Indulgences were in use in the Apostles times Can one think that such men as this expect to be read by any but fools who perhaps may imagine this Vrban was contemporary with the Apostles It is some wonder he did not quote that holy Father Hildebrand Greg. VII who something before this granted Pardon of Sins to all those who would take up Arms against his Enemies Poor man he did not know this else he would have mentioned him rather than Vrban who was but his Ape The Protestants hold if you will believe him XVII That the Actions and Passions of the Saints do serve for nothing to the Church Answer A Most wicked Slander for we look upon what they did and suffered as glorious Testimonies to the Truth they believed and preached as strong incitements to us to follow their Examples and as eminent Instances of the Power of God's Grace in them for which we bless and praise him and thankfully commemorate them But all this serves for nothing to the Church that is to the Church of Rome unless men believe there is a Treasury which contains all the superfluous Satisfactions of the Saints who suffered more than they were bound to endure Of which vast Revenue that Church having possessed it self it serves to bring abundance of Money into their Coffers which must be paid by those who desire to be relieved out of these superabundant Satisfactions of the Saints by having them applied to them for the supply of their defects This is the meaning of this very man it appears by the Scriptures he quotes for their belief I. Col. 24. The first is I. Col. 24. which speaks of the Persecutions St. Paul endured in Preaching the Gospel to the Colossians which tho grievous to him was so beneficial to them that he rejoiced in his Sufferings and resolved to endure more for the confirmation of their Faith and for the edification of the Church of Christ This he calls filling up what was behind of the afflictions of Christ Because Christ began to testifie to the Truth by shedding of his Blood and thence is called the Faithful Witness But it remained still that the Apostles should give their Testimony by the like Sufferings because the Gospel was to be carried to the Gentile World which could not be effected without their enduring such hardships as Christ had endured in Preaching to the Jews Thus Theodoret expounds That which was behind or which remained of the Affliction of Christ But here is not a word of Satisfaction no not by Christ's Sufferings which were of such value that there was nothing of this nature left to be done by others This better Men than this of their own Church ingenuously confess Particularly Justinianus a Jesuit whose words are these upon this very place He saith he filled up what was wanting of the Passion of Christ not to merit indeed or make Satisfaction for what can be wanting to that which is Infinite but as to the Power and Efficacy of bringing Men to the Faith that his Mystical Body which is the Church may be perfected c. For he signifies in the latter end of the Verse That he suffered for the enlarging or propagating of the Church to confirm and establish its faith that he might provoke others to his imitation I could add many more to shew the Folly of this Man who saith From hence Ground hath always been taken for Indulgences A notorious falshood not always for Indulgences are late things not by all Men in their Church since it used them For Estius in his Notes upon this place absolutely disclaims it and saith Tho some Divines hence argue that the Passions of the Saints are profitable for the remission of sins which is called Indulgence yet he doth not think this to be solidly enough concluded from this place Which I have been the longer about because they are wont to make a great noise with it The next place they curtail'd heretofore in this manner Philip. II. 30. He was nigh unto Death not regarding his Life to supply your lack leaving out what follows of service towards me which made it sound something like as if their lack of Goodness had been supplied by his Merits or rather Satisfaction for Merit will do no service in this case But Bishop Montague bang'd them so terribly for this foul play that now they have printed it right tho alas nothing to the purpose And therefore this Man doth not venture to say so much as one word upon this Text but barely recites the words and leaves the Reader to make what he can of them And all that Menochius a truly Learned Expositor of their own could make of them is this That St. Paul being in Prison Epaphroditus