often divided among themselves and their Definitions plainly contradictory one to another Witness Pope Gregory I and Pope Boniface III. The former condem'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop as abominable and Antichristian z Lib. 4. Epist 32 33 36 38. the later ambitiously affected and obtain'd it from the Tyrant Phocas a Plat. in vit Bonifacii III. Sabellic Ennead 8. l. 6. Pope Innocent I. held the Eucharist was necessary for Infants b Aug. Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Binii Concil Tom. 1. p. 769. Pope Pius IV. denounced an Anathema against those that held it c Conc. Trid. Sess 21. Can. 4. And certainly neither do these Divisions take their Rise from the reading of the Bible by the common People 3. The Learned Romanists are divided among themselves in all those Points of Doctrine in which they are divided from Protestants I shall instance in some viz. The Popes Infallibility and Vniversal Pastorship his Power over Princes and Dominion in Temporals the Canon of Scripture and Traditions of the Church the Sacrifice of the Mass and Communion in one kind the Worship of Images and Invocation of Saints the Doctrines of Purgatory and Indulgences to which I shall add but one more viz. Transubstantiation Tho they seem pretty well agreed to burn or hang those that deny it yet there is not one question about it in which they are at an agreement among themselves To borrow the Words of a learned Bishop of the Church of Ireland No sooner says he was this fatal Sentence given he means the Definition of Transubstantiation in the Lateran Council but as if Pandora's Box had been newly set wide open whole swarms of noisom Questions and Debates did fill the Schools Then it began to be disputed by what means this Change comes whether by the Benediction of the Elements or by the repetition of those Words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY Then was the Question started what the demonstrative Pronoun HOC signifies in these Words THIS IS MY BODY Whether this thing or this Substance or this Bread or this Body or this Meat or these Accidents or that which is contain'd under these Species or this Individuum vagum or lastly which seems stranger than all the rest this nothing c. Then it began to be argued whether the Elements were annihilated Whether the Matter and Form of them being destroyed their Essence did yet remain Or the Essence being converted the Existence remain'd Then the Schoolmen began to wrangle what manner of Change this was Whether a material Change or a formal Change or a Change of the whole Substance both Matter and Form And if it were a Conversion of the whole Substance then whether it was by way of Production or by Adduction c. (d) Bp. Bramh. Answ to the Epist of M. de la Militiere This is only a short taste of what the Reader may find in the Book quoted in the Margin Nor do they only quarrel about the Manner but some of their greatest Men do not believe and others plainly deny the Article it self as any one may see who will but take the pains to consult the learned Preface to a Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points c. and a Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation It is probable that if all the Disputes upon all Points controverted among Protestants were put together they would not amount to a greater number than those of the Papists in this one Article To conclude this Let any Learned Romanist tell me what his Judgment is in any one Point controverted between them and us and I will engage upon short warning to produce another Learned Romanist who shall contradict him And are not Men so entirely united in Judgment among themselves excellently qualified to upbraid Protestants with their Divisions 4. In that he says To such Readers as St. Peter calls Vnwary and Ignorant Arianism may be as obvious in this Book as Christ's Divinity It is a sign that he expected no other than such unwary and ignorant Readers For he must be ignorant indeed in these Matters who does not know That not the Ignorant but the Learned not the Laity but the Clergy were the Persons to whom Arianism was in this Book so obvious Witness the Councils of Sirmium of Milan and Ariminum I need not tell him That one or two of the Bishops of Rome either grosly dissembled or Arianism was for a time more obvious to them in this Book than Christ's Divinity And whereas he says That when such an one viz. one that is Unwary and Ignorant undertakes the interpreting of this Book 't is a hazard whether in the end he comes out Quaker Anabaptist Presbyterian Independent Muggletonian Socinian or Atheist He had spoken nearer the Truth if he had said When such an one takes this Book as interpreted to him by a Popish Priest or Jesuit in the disguise of a Quaker Anabaptist c. We know who have been imploy'd to sow and foment Divisions among us to draw our People into separated Meetings upon the pretence of a more pure and spiritual way of Worship We can tell him of great numbers instructed in Handy-craft Trades trained up to dispute one for Presbytery another for Independency a third for Anabaptism sent over hither by order from Rome so that when the deluded People have thought they had heard a gifted Tradesman they have heard a Romish Priest in that disguise We can acquaint him with those who have been detected exercising their Talents in several sorts of Meetings But that which follows is most surprising That it is a venture whether Cruelty cutting of Throats Oppression Tyranny dethroning of Kings murder of Princes shall not with him viz. the ignorant Reader become a necessary Duty and a true serving of the Lord. This I say is most surprising and doubtless he rubb'd his forehead hard before he wrote it since he knows That all these have for some hundreds of Years been taught and practised by the greatest Men of his own Church and therefore it is not a venture but beyond all peradventure that when Place and Time serve they will be so again He well knows what the great Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius Perron c. What the Learned Jesuits Suarez Lessius Azorius c. What his own Country-men Cardinal Allen Father Parsons Creswel c. have written for the deposing and murdering of Kings He knows what Pope Gregory VII Gregory IX Innocent III Innocent IV Boniface VIII Paul III Pius V Sixtus V Gregory XIII have not only taught but acted in pursuance of these Doctrines He knows there was a Holy League among those who had not the Bible in their Banners as well as a Solemn League and Covenant among those who had And he knows or at least may soon know if he please That the chief Weapons of the Rebellion in Forty two were setch'd from Rome
be true of many of the Vulgar is it not also as true of many of the Learned yea of many of the most Learned in the Church of Rome May it not as truly be said how many may be found among your Bishops Cardinals and Popes who according to their different humours as their Interest changes espouse different Doctrines and Perswasions Witness in elder times Pope Liberius and Vigilius who were either Hereticks or Catholicks as their Interest changed And for later times witness the Cardinal of Cusa who one while more zealous than he for the Authority of a General Council above the Pope But when he expected to be made a Cardinal who more zealous for the contrary Doctrine Upon which Richerius his Words are observable By this saith he we are given to know that very many who have defended the Truth in a state of Poverty have deserted the same out of hope of Dignities and a more plentiful Fortune and especially out of an ambition of being made Cardinals (l) Hist Concil general l. 3. p. 479. Witness Aeneas Sylvius who vehemently opposed that Doctrine when he was Pope which he had before as vehemently maintained when he was Clerk to the Council of Basil And that it was interest that gave him this new Light not I but Richerius and Maimbourg plainly assert (m) Richer Hist Concil general l. 4. parte 1. c. 6. Maimb Prerog Of the Church of Rome c. 25. p. 338. Yea the Pope himself in his Bull of Retractation says in effect as much for speaking of the Disputes between him and Juliano Cardinal of St. Angelo he confesses the Doctrine he forsook was the ancient and that he embraced was new (n) Tuebamur antiquam sententiam ille novam defendebat Witness the Cardinal of Lorrain Does not he he himself confess that his Interest being turn'd he turned with it (o) Hist of the Counc of Trent l. 8. p. 767. Was not his Perswasion different according to the different Impressions he received from the Pope and the Queen of France When he first came to Trent how contrary his Sentiments in several Points were to those he had afterward when the State of affairs in France was altered and he had been caressed by the Pope and his Holiness had gain'd his good Opinion may sufficiently appear by comparing the places quoted in the Margin (p) Hist of the Counc of Trent ps 659 692 703 704 712 733 743 744 767 782 813. It 's too well known to need to be mentioned how that Gardiner Bonner and all the Popish Bishops Fisher only excepted espoused different Doctrines and Perswasions as their Interests changed and according to the different Impressions they received either from the King or the Pope And don't you now see how to these same Bishops Cardinals and Popes the Word of God was not always the same but alter'd according to Seasons and Times That it was one Word of God that directed Aeneas Sylvius while he was Secretary to the Council of Basil another while he was Pope That in King Henry VIII's and King Edward VI's Reigns the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs was in Gardiner's and Bonner's Bibles in Queen Marie's Reign the Pope's was found instead of the King 's The Conclusion hence is unavoidable That if all Men are to be denied the reading of the holy Scriptures who according to their different Humours as their Interest changes espouse different Doctrines and Persuasions they must be denied to many more than the Vulgar unless their Bishops Cardinals and Popes are to be placed in that rank SECT III. In the next place the Representer gives us his Reasons why the Vulgar so differ in the sense of the Bible which are two one of them imply'd the other expressed That which is imply'd is the Obscurity of the Scripture That which is express'd is the setting up every Man 's private Reason to be Judg of Scripture (q) Chap. 9. p. 58. Reason I. I. The Obscurity of the Scripture For if it be so plain and easy says he how comes it there is so little agreement in the understanding it When the Protestants affirm that the Scripture is plain and easie they mean it is so to those only who read it with honest Hearts who sincerely desire to know the Truth and to direct their Lives answerable to it and they mean that it 's so not simply in all things but in all things necessary to Salvation And when they affirm this they affirm no more than St. Austin did Believe me saith he whatsoever is in those Scriptures speaking of the Scriptures of the old Testament which are more obscure than those of the new it is high and Divine they contain nothing but what is true and that Doctrine which is most fit for the repairing and restoring of Souls and so disposed that there is no Man but may draw thence that which is sufficient for him provided he comes devoutly and piously affected as true Religion requires (r) Quicquid est mihi crede in Scripturis illis altum divinum est inest omnino veritas reficiendis instaurandisque animis accommodatissima disciplina plane ita modificata ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum devotè ac piè ut vera Religio poscit accedat De utilitate credendi c. 6. They affirm no more than what St. Chrysostom did for he says That all things necessary are manifest (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 3. in 2. ad Thess They affirm no more than what the Bishop of Rome did formerly For the Holy Scripture saith Pope Gregory as I find him quoted by the Authors of the Preface of the Mons Testament is as a great River which runs always and which will run to the end of the World. The little Children and the Men of full Stature the strong and the weak do there find that living Water that springs up even to Heaven It offers it self to all and it suits it self to all It hath a simplicity that abases it self to the most simple Souls and a height that exercises and raises the most lofty †P. 9. Nay they say no more than what many learned Romanists of this present Age have said The Bishop of Vence speaking of the new Testament says The Son of God hath in it taken care to teach us CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY our whole Duty to him as well as our whole Duty to our Neighbour and our selves This is that which the Gospels contain The Epistles of the Apostles are a Comment upon it and an Explication more enlarged and distinct which leave not any thing in the Christian Life we ought to live upon Earth unexplain'd (t) Preface of Mr. Arnaud And Mr. Arnaud says That the holy Fathers have noted that one of those things which shew the Divinity of the holy Scriptures and in which they excel all the Writings of Men
so slippery so weak various wavering changeable inconstant as you see the private Reason of the Learned is to be rely'd on by them as their Guide in expounding of Scripture How can you imagine it possible for all Christians to concur in the same Belief while the Learned who read and expound the Scripture give differing and contrary interpretations of it For as long as the Scripture is no otherwise in their Heads and Hearts than by the interpretation they make of it their Faith must necessarily be as various as their Interpretation And is not the Story of the Manna which follows as applicable to the Learned For was not the taste of the Manna as different to the Priests as it was to the People Did it not relish according to that kind of Meat that was most grateful to every Priest's Palate Now if the Priests in Canaan had receiv'd a Command of bringing forth that sort of Meat whose taste should be like that of the Manna they ate in the Desert was it possible they should all agree in their Dish Since tho the Manna was the same they all fed on yet the Relish was as different as their Tempers and Palats Don't you therefore see that Men will never be of one Spirit and one Mind until the reading of the Scripture be prohibited to the Learned and not to some but to all his Holiness as Infallible only excepted For if it be allow'd to the Cardinals notwithstanding their Eminences above others together with his Holiness they will never agree in the sense of it For I can tell you of many Cardinals who have differ'd from his Holiness and among themselves too about the sense of it Is it not then as plain as Demonstration that there will be no end of Controversies as long as the Scriptures are read by any Man in the World besides the Pope And perhaps not then neither for since he is not infallible but when he speaks from his Chair which seldom happens at other times he may chance to contradict himself and give one sense of Scripture this Year another the next It were therefore most advisable could it possibly be effected that the Book it self were utterly abolished Let not any Man interpret this to the disparagement of Learning since nothing can be more evident than that the Learned have vast Advantages above the rest of Mankind for attaining to the true meaning of the more obscure Texts of Scripture provided they sincerely search after Truth and are so humble so sensible of their own liableness to mistake that they daily implore the Divine Assistance But if they be destitute of these Qualifications they are not only as subject to err but to err more dangerously than others In the beginning of the 10th Chapter the Representer talks again at the same impertinent rate so agreeable to him is this way of reasoning that he naturally falls into it in every Chapter But the Vanity of it lies so open that it need not be further exposed If any Man please to consult the place I shall leave it to himself to judg whether it be not every whit as applicable against permitting the Scripture to the Learned as the Vulgar But the Representer may say The Church of Rome does not allow the Learned to interpret Scripture according to their own private Reason For the Council of Trent has decreed That no Man presume to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense of the Church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers And has not the Church of England her Confession of Faith contrary to which she allows none of her Members to interpret Scripture Does she not admit all such Traditional Interpretations as can be derived from the Fountain And for all such Texts as are obscure and doubtful does she not direct the Vulgar to consult their Guides Tho it is true she does not command them to believe that White is Black or that Vice is Vertue if the Priest says that it is But however the Church of Rome denies them the liberty of interpreting the Scripture in their own sense it is certain that they commonly take it else how comes it that they give such different senses of the same Scripture How comes it that many of the Learned expound the sixth Chapter of St. John of the sacramental eating of Christ's Flesh and many as learned as they say that no such matter is there intended How comes it when so many tell us that these words This is my Body are so plain for Transubstantiation that he must be quite blind who does not see it that others whose sight is as good as theirs tell us they are not able to see this in them Do these Learned Men in their Exposition of the Scripture give us the sense of the Roman Church or do they not If not they follow their own private Reason if they do their Church gives contrary senses of Scripture and is as far from being one in this respect as it is from being Catholic He confesses p. 63. That some of the Protestants to keep up the Face of the Church do speculatively contend for Authority and Guides But then he says In Fact they defeat all these their Pretensions How do they in Fact defeat them Because they own no Authority so great or safe but it is to be subjected to the controul of every private Examiner They own an Authority so great as to Matters of External Government as to be subject to the controul of no Man who lives in Communion with the Church But he means an Authority so great that whatsoever the Church commands and prescribes to be receiv'd as the Truth and Faith of Christ it ought to be received But can the Church have no Authority unless Men are bound to believe without examination whatsoever she prescribes to be believed If so then had she no Authority in our Saviour's and his Apostles days no nor for several Ages after them For if any such Authority had been own'd in the fourth Century how came it to pass that after the Nicene Council the Arian Heresy spread more than it had done before If this be to open a Gate to all the Fanaticisms and Quakerisms in the World 't is certain the Protestants did not first open it but it was long before open'd by our Blessed Saviour when he gave this Command to his Disciples Call no Man Father upon the Earth for one is Your Father which is in Heaven neither be ye called Masters for one is Your Master even Christ (h) Mat. 23. 9 10. As much as to say There is none upon Earth by whose sense a Christian is to be absolutely determin'd his Faith is not to be resolv'd into any Man's Authority But by the Creed all Christians are bound to believe the Holy Catholic Church Yes That there is such a Church and that this Church teaches all Truths necessary to be known But it is one thing to believe this another thing to believe as
the Church of Rome doth And tho Protestants never refuse to yield assent to all such Doctrines as the Church truly Catholic hath in all Ages taught yet they can see no reason to pin their Faith upon the Church of Rome there being as vast a difference between the Church of Rome and the Church Catholick as between the Church of York and the Church of England But St. Paul Heb. 13. 17. commands all to obey and submit to those that are over them 'T is true and I grant that by those that are over them he means Ecclesiastical Superiors But does not the same St. Paul command Children to obey their Parents and Servants to obey their Masters Would he therefore have all Children and Servants to take their Faith upon trust from their Parents and Masters He also commanded every Soul to be subject to the Higher Powers and yet I am pretty confident that his meaning was not that every Christian should then believe as the Roman Emperor did But he commands to obey and submit not only as to External Government but as to Truth and Belief Then those who had Arian Bishops as a great part of the Church for some time had were bound to believe that Christ was not God and those who had Donatist Bishops were bound to believe that the Church of Rome was so far from being the Catholick Church that it was not so much as a Part of it But how does the Representer prove That the People ought absolutely to submit their Faith to those that are over them because the Apostle says v. 7. whose Faith follow And does he not say Chap. 6. 12. Be ye Followers of them who through Faith and Patience inherit the Promises Are we therefore bound to believe as every deceased Christian hath believed In both places the Apostle speaks of Christians departed this Life in the later of Christians indifferently in the former of Christian Bishops And the words should be render'd Remember them which have had the Rule over You which have spoken to You the Word of God such for instance as James Bishop of Jerusalem who had witness'd the Faith by his Death whose Faith follow And the meaning is this Imitate them in their Constancy and Perseverance in the Christian Profession and Practice notwithstanding all the Persecutions you meet with in the World. The Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. may relate either to Timothy himself or to that Summary of Christian Doctrine that follows But suppose it relate to the Church that particular Church was primarily meant in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself and I think no Romanist says That a Man is bound to believe as every particular Church believes The words of Christ Matth. 18. 17. If he hear not the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man and a Publican are also impertinent because he speaks there not of Matters of Faith but of Fact and directs what course is to be taken for the ending of private Quarrels between Man and Man tho had he spoken of Matters of Faith they would not have been to the purpose because by the Church can be meant no other than that particular Church of which the offending Brother was a Member I need say no more to shew how unconcluding those Reasons are by which he would perswade us to abandon our Reason and to take the sense of Scripture upon trust from his Church CHAP. IV. I Proceed now to the fourth and last Head viz. The false Constructions as the Representer calls them which the Protestants make of this Practice of the Church of Rome or the wrong Inferences they deduce from it Which are these three 1. That the Vulgar Papists are deprived of the Word of God. 2. That they take up all their Belief upon trust 3. That the Reason why they are not permitted to read the Bible is for fear lest they should discover the Errors of their Religion Whether these are Misconstructions or no I shall leave the impartial Reader to judg after I shall have consider'd those Reasons by which he endeavours to prove that they are so SECT I. The first Protestant Inference is That the Vulgar 〈…〉 Papists are deprived of the Word of God of the Food of their Souls (i) Chap. 6 p. 43 44 4◠To prevent Cavils and Evasions I premise this The Protestant does not say that the Vulgar Papists have nothing of the Scripture allow'd them He very well knows that some shreds of it are now and then given them in Sermons and some small parcels in their Catechisms and Manuals of Devotion But what then Will it hence follow that it is false to say they are deprived of the Scripture Will not every Man say That he is deprived of his Father's Will who is allowed no more than the sight of here and there a Line transcrib'd from it Or that a Man's Inheritance is detain'd from him who has no more than a small Pension given him out of it One may a little wonder that this should be reckon'd a false Inference What! are they not depriv'd of the Word of God who are not suffer'd to read it or so much as to have it in a Language they understand No says the Representer The Vulgar of our Communion have more of this Holy Food than those of any other Perswasion whatsoever (k) P. 45. This is yet more wonderful That they should not be permitted to have it and yet that they should have more of it than those who have the whole of it in their Hands and daily read it How shall we unriddle this Why They are taught it by their Pastors Be it so Does it thence follow that they have more of it than those of other Perswasions who are taught it by their Pastors as well as they For whereas he presently suggests That the Protestants are for leaving their Pastors that they may teach themselves that 's a Calumny Tho the Protestants read the Scriptures themselves yet they do not reject their Pastors They do not think the use of the one does render the other needless now any more than it did in the first Ages of the Christian Church when they both went together and were both thought necessary But that they who are taught it by their Pastors only should have more of it than those who are both taught it by them and have the whole of it in their own possession is as true as that a part is more than the whole But the Representer will say Their Pastors teach them all that is necessary for them to know How shall the Vulgar know this We can tell them of Pastors who have concealed from their People some of the most necessary Points of the Christian Faith but I need not name them to the Representer But how are the People assur'd that what they teach them is indeed the Word of God and not their own Inventions when they are not suffered to examine