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
in the bond of Peace For he speaks here saith Theodoret of concord and the Rule is the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine by which if we walk't it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this that they have broken all Communion by their Tyrannical impositions and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine VI. Gal. 16. The next place evidently speaks of the self-same thing that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith we are sure of the Divine Favour In short the Rule here spoken of is that of the New Creature mentioned in the foregoing words v. 15. But the 4th Text 2 Cor. X. 15. more fully shews this man to be a meer Trifler with words without their sense For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule or line of Faith as he dreams but only of the bounds and limits of those Countrys in which the Apostle had preach'd the Gospel as Menochius himself interprets it This he might have learnt if he had pleased by the very next words where the Apostle saith he did not boast in another man's line or rule of things made ready to his hand i. e. those Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles glorying as Menochius well glosses in other mens Labours as if they had been his own Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures by the Regions in which the Apostles preached An excellent proof that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture because St. Paul had his own Rule and others had their Rule that is not one and the same for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line i. e. in those places where others had done it already Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits when they write on this fashion Either they have no understanding of what they write or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers who understand nothing else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff 1 Cor. XI 16. From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians Chap. XI 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second could he have found the Word Rule there which was all he sought for not regarding the Sense But alas he could find only the Word Custome in that place which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule And what is this Rule as he will needs have it of which the Apostle is there speaking Is it about any matter of Faith No only about Womens praying bare-faced without a covering over them which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church So the same Menochius whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church because he saith in his Preface he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers And what Church doth St. Paul here mean only one Church or all that he had planted He himself answers We have no such custom nor other Churches of God neither therefore you not only cross us but the whole Church as Theophylact expounds the words And to the same effect Theodoret he shows that these things did not seem so to him only but to all the Churches of God Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this of all the Churches for any thing wherein we differ and see whether we will be contentious Tho' I must tell them that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times tho' never so many hundreds and the Authority of those few Pastors as this man calls them which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves infallible men and other Apostolical persons who were guided by their directions And now he comes to tell us by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture instead of telling us by what names the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called For the good man when he had gone thus far had forgotten what he was about The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no service For it is Rom. VI. 17. saith Theophylact to live aright and with an excellent Conversation Or that Form of Doctrine saith Menochius which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching Unto which is there opposed not disunion and disorder c. as this Scribler pretends but their serving sin But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alledges else he would not have had the impudence if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it to mention the next place of Scripture 2 Corinth X. 16. A thing made ready to hand 2 Cor. X. 16. He should have said things made ready if he would have stood to his promise of quoting express words of our Bible For so it is both in our Translation and in the Original and even in the Latin Translation it self By which is meant as the same Menochius judiciously observes Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit And so Theodoret he reproves those saith he who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers c. Let the Reader here again look about and see if he can spy a word about disunion discord disobedience c. in this place of which this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges 1 Tim. VI. 20. In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling and opposition of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust not the Churches trust as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text. And what is this depositum or trust but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel unto which he opposes the new Phrases and the new Doctrines which the School of Simon Magus had brought in as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret whose words are these They that had their Original from Simon were called Gnosticks as much as to say men endued with Knowledge For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent they said God had revealed to them This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge From whence I think it clearly follows that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures Which is the Doctrine he saith let the Romanists mind this which all that have the dignity of Priesthood ought carefully to keep and propose to themselves as a certain Rule and by this square all that they say all that they do In short Tertullian de Prescript C. 25. understands by the thing committed unto him that Doctrine
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
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
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
but he returns to his old way of Calumniating For there is no such Position maintained among us but expresly the contrary in our XVIth Article After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from Grace given and Faith is a Grace and Gift of God and fall into sin and by the Grace of God we may rise again c. The only question is Whether they that once have Saving Faith may lose it totally and finally In which there are various opinions not only among us but among themselves some saying it may be lost totally but not finally others that it may be lost in both regards But this is no matter of Faith but only of Opinion for which we do not break Communion All his Proofs therefore out of Scripture are perfectly impertinent for they prove what none of us deny That men may lose their Faith after they have received it As for his Fathers St. Austin in that very Book which he quotes * De correp gratia c. 12. asserts the direct contrary to what is here pretended to be his sense That there are some who cannot finally lose the Grace of God For comparing the Grace which Adam had with that which is now given to the Saints he saith To the first man who had received a power not to sin not to dye not to desert the good estate in which he was created was given the aid of Perseverance not whereby he was made that he should persevere but without which he could not by his Free-will have persevered But now to the Saints who are predestinated by God's Grace to the Kingdom of God there is not only given such an aid of Perseverance but such an one that Perseverance it self is given them not only that without this gift they cannot persevere but also that by this gift they cannot but persevere For our Saviour saith to his Apostles not only without me ye can do nothing XV. Joh. 5. but withal v. 16. Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you that ye should go and bring forth fruit and that your fruit should remain I have quoted this at large that such Writers as I have to deal withal may blush if they can at such shameless Untruths as they father upon St. Austin And let a deeper blush colour this man's cheeks who quotes the Council of Trent which was but a little above a hundred years ago among the Ancient Fathers His next Charge is They maintain XXIV That God by his Will and inevitable Decree hath ordained from all Eternity who shall be damned and who saved Answer AND who is he that dares maintain the contrary When our Lord hath said in express terms XVI Mark 15 16. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the eternal purpose of God in Christ which the Apostles were commanded to publish every where as his inevitable Decree concerning mankind which cannot be avoided That if they do not believe the Gospel which is preached to them they shall perish but if they sincerely believe it and be baptized they shall be saved This Babbler I doubt not would have said something else but he had not the wit viz. That we maintain God hath for his own mere Will and Pleasure without any respect to mens Faith or Unbelief resolved to damn some and to save others But this is not the Doctrine of our Church as he might have seen in our XVIIth Article If any among us teach such Doctrine it is no more than some of their own Doctors have taught And it is a most senseless thing to accuse us of that which if it be a fault they are as chargeable with it themselves His Scriptures prove nothing contrary to us but we expresly teach according to the first of them 1 Tim. II. 3. 1. Tim. II. 3. That we ought to receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture And therefore we must believe That God would have all men to be saved notwithstanding which such Triflers as this man is must be told that God will have some men to be damn'd as I show'd before and these two Propositions do not contradict one the other The next is of the same import 2 Pet. III. 9. 2 Pet. III. 9. God is not willing any should perish but that all should come to repentance And yet he is willing nay resolved that all those shall perish who will not repent For want of other Scriptures he runs to those that are Apochryphal and quotes a passage out of the Book of Wisdom which we believe to be Canonical enough in this point And then he returns to Scripture a great many Texts of which he jumbles together with some Apocrypha but if any one will take the pains to consult them he will find they do not contradict any thing that We or other Protestants affirm Even they who believe the absolute and irrespective Decree consent to what the Prophet Hosea saith XIII 9. which is his first place That every man's destruction is of himself He beats the air therefore in alledging those places and the sayings of the Fathers to which we subscribe and so do all other Protestants whose true opinion this poor Ignoramus did not understand and therefore could not oppose For those that say the cause why some are reprobated is God's Will and Pleasure yet maintain the cause of their Damnation and Destruction is their own sins This if he had questioned and ask'd them Why God reprobates this man rather than another they would have had St. Austin as ready at hand as he hath to answer for them You seek to know the Causes of God's Will when the Will of God is the very cause of all things that are For if the Will of God have a Cause there is something which antecedes his Will which it is impious to believe If any man therefore ask Why God made this The Answer is Because he would If he go on to ask Why would he He searches for something greater than God's Will when nothing greater can be found Let human temerity therefore bridle it self and not seek for that which is not lest he do not find that which is L. de Gen. contra Manich. C. 2. Further they hold saith he XXV That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation and to believe that he is of the number of the Predestinate Answer NO man in his wits much less any Church ever uttered such foolish words as these which are inconsistent with the former Assertion That God hath resolved to damn some men How can they who say this oblige every man to believe he shall be Saved The most that any one hath said is that not every one but every true believer every one that is justified ought to be so assured So Bellarmine
merits have so loaded us as to make us not beloved of God we may be relieved by the merits of those whom God doth love For when he saith Let me alone that I may destroy them what is it but to say I would have destroyed them had they not been beloved of thee Now what is this to the meritorious intercession of the Saints in the other World when he speaks of the merits as his phrase is of Moses here on Earth I have been the longer in this 2 Chron. VI. 16. because it will serve to answer all the rest For in 2 Chron. VI. 16. the Prayer expresly relies upon the promise God had made to his Servant David not upon David's merits In the next place CXXXII Psal 1. CXXXII Psal 1. God is desired to remember David's afflictions but how doth it appear that they merited If this Psalm was made by David as many think from the first 8 Verses of it sure he was not so immodest as to plead his own merits with God The truth is the Penner of this Psalm whoever he was most likely Solomon puts God in mind of David and his fidelity to him under all his sufferings because of the Covenant God had made and confirmed by an Oath with that pious man v. 10 11 12. He doth wisely only to name the next place 2 Chron. I. 9. for the words are expresly against him which are these Now O Lord God let thy promise unto David my Father be established But the alledging LXIII Isa 17. argues gross Ignorance for it 's a plain desire God would return to them for the sake of the Twelve Tribes of Israel which contain'd his people who were his inheritance as Menochius and indeed the Text it self expounds it And this desire is founded upon the above-named Covenant Promise or Oath made to their Fathers which he may find in a number of Places 1 King VIII 25 26. 2 Chron. XXI 7. LXXXIX Psal 3 4. Why he adds the two next places unless to make a show I cannot imagine For H ster's Apocryphal Prayer hath nothing in it sounding this way but only those words O God of Abraham And David only says 1 Chron. XXIX 8. O God of Abraham Isaac and Israel our Fathers Which no Man in the World but himself I believe will take to be naming them for his Intercessors as he speaks when they evidently signify the favour and kindness God had to them which he hoped he would graciously continue according to his Promise unto his People Israel The last place XX. Exod. 5. is a direct Confutation of all that he saith for it mentions not the Merits of good Men but the Mercy which God will show unto thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandments God of his infinite Mercy put an end to the reign of these Men who thus fouly abuse his holy word that they may no longer pervert the right way of the Lord and mislead his People into pernicious Errors XXXIV That we ought not expresly to pray them to pray or intercede to God for us Answer HEretofore the words were these That we may not pray to them which is the true point But now they are changed into We may not pray them to pray for us As if the Church of Rome did no more than this when it is manifest they pray directly to them and Invocation according to their Doctrine is a part of that Worship which is due to them whereas praying them to pray for us as one man desires another to do hath nothing of worship in it He could not go on to deal sincerely as he had begun in the former Section Truth is a very great stranger to them and their great business is to misrepresent both our Opinion and their own Luk. XVI 24. The very first Scripture also which he quotes over again if it prove any thing proves more than he would have us think is their Opinion For the Man doth not say I pray Father Abraham pray for me but have mercy on me But I have told him before this is a Parable which he will by no means allow and thinks to choke us with the Voice of ten Renowned and Ancient Fathers who all affirm this to be a true History and not a Parable But this Man hath very ill luck with his Fathers for the very first he mentions who should have been one of the last Theophylact not only calls it a Parable but is so confident of it that he says they think foolishly so it is in the Greek tho in the Latin they leave out that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolishly who take it for an History The Reader I believe blushes for this Man who if he could or would have look'd into Maldonate a Jesuit of no mean note he might have found several other Fathers whom Theophylact follows in this opinion And St. Chrysostome among the rest who indeed sometimes says it is a History but doth not say as this Man makes him that it is not a Parable And if the Cause must be carried by the Voices of Fathers I can name him more than Ten or a Dozen who say the Souls of the Faithful do not enjoy the Glorious Vision of God till the Resurrection And therefore Saints can neither know our Prayers nor are to be invoked as he concludes merely from this Parable Concerning which I think both Maldonate and Menochius two considerable Jesuits have very judiciously resolved for the quieting of this doubt whether it be History or Parable that it is both For that there was a rich man and a poor called Lazarus that the one when he died went to Hell and the other was carried to Abraham's Bosome is a History But that the rich man talk'd with Abraham and desired him to send Lazarus to cool his Tongue with a drop of Water is a Parable adjoyned to the History for they that are in Hell do not ask Courtesies of the Saints Now it happens unfortunately for this man that what he grounds his Argument upon falls within that part which is Parable Father Abraham have mercy on me Which Maldonate judiciously observes is a form of Speech which Beggers use as they lye in the High-way showing their sores and well represents how Lazarus and he had changed Conditions Lazarus was poor here and the rich man stript of all there Here the rich man enjoyed his pleasure and there Lazarus rejoyced No man of sense can reject this Interpretation And yet this Writer cries out Lo two Saints are here prayed to and besought in one verse Nay he hath the Confidence to ask us For God-sake where are your Eyes Truly mine are newly open this morning when men are wont to be most sober and I can see none to whom the rich man addresses his Request but Abraham alone How this man came to see double I leave it to himself to consider Here is not a word said to Lazarus in this Parable
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
in a known Tongue or had no Interpreter To hold his peace and speak to himself and to God v. 28. His Argument to justify their Practice is so silly that it cannot but make a good man sigh deeply to think that poor ignorant People should be mis led by such Ideots For he takes him who occupied the place of the unlearned in verse 16. to be one who was required or supposed to be there to supply the unlearned man's place That is saith he one who should have further understanding of that Tongue in which the Service of the Church is said Which he imagines is a proof the Service was not in the Vulgar Tongue for then there had been no need of one to supply the Ideots place c. This is such a gross piece of Duncery as his Master Bellarmine would have corrected if he had look'd into him or any of the Ancient and Modern Interpreters Who by one that takes up the place of the Vnlearned do not understand one that acts in the stead of an Vnlearned Person that 's a dull fancy never heard of among the Learned but one that sits in the Place or Bench is in the Form as we speak of the Vnlearned That is an Ignorant Person who is the man that the Apostle saith could not say Amen if he understood not what was said in the Thanksgiving So Menochius upon that Text He that sits among the Simple and Rude who are ignorant of Tongues how shall he say Amen That is approve thy Prayer if he do not understand it His Cavil therefore at the Geneva Ministers is foolish if not malicious for they translate the words honestly not deceitfully according to the certain sense of them there being no difference between an Ideot and he who supplies the place of an Ideot We know of no Reformed Churches where they do not say Amen to their Publick Prayers Here we are sure the People are enjoyned so to do Therefore it is another Slander if he object this to us who have not turned Amen into So be it as he says many of the Reformed Churches have done If it be true that any have expounded the word into others of like signification it was for the Edification of the People and no body hath just reason to find fault with them if the People did not understand its meaning Which they did in Greece as much as in Judea and therefore the Apostle had reason to retain it But he belies St. Austin as he hath done us when he makes him say It is not lawful to turn Amen into any other language without the scandal of the whole Church For he saith * L. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 10. There is such variety of Latin Interpreters of the Scripture as makes the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek necessary that when one doubts of the Latin recourse may be had thither this is worth marking for other purposes Tho some Hebrew words indeed we often find are not interpreted as Amen Allelujah Racha and Osanna c. Which Antiquity hath preserved partly for the more sacred Authority tho they might have been interpreted observe that as Amen and Allelujah partly because it 's said they cannot be translated into another tongue as the two other words Racha and Osanna In which discourse he says nothing of the unlawfulness of Translating the Hebrew words nor of the scandal their Translation would give but only of some of them particularly Amen being more venerable in the Original Language than in any other What he says in his Epistles I cannot stand to examine for in that Epistle which he quotes there is nothing to be found about this matter In conclusion he is driven to this shift to say That our own Service is not understood because it consists partly of the Psalms of David which he most falsly says are the hardest part of all the Bible and of Lessons out of the Old and New Testament which are not understood by the people But is this all that our Service consists of Have we not Prayers and Thanksgivings easie to be understood every word As in the other part of the Service they understand enough for their Edification whereas of their Mass the simple people understand nothing Or suppose they understand a little yet this will not make their case like ours because the people with us have all in their vulgar Language tho they do not every one understand all but they have not a word in their vulgar language tho some perhaps may understand a little of the Latin Tongue And what is the reason they dare not trust the Mass in the vulgar language Because it is hard to be understood No but quite contrary because the people would easily find things there which confute their own Religion and are conformable unto ours For who would believe Purgatory any longer who heard the Priest say in the vulgar tongue Lord remember thy servants and handmaids that are gone before us with the sign of Faith and sleep in the sleep of peace If they be in peace every one would be ready to say Then they are not burning in the Purgatory fire and what need I give my money to Pray them out from thence The like passages there are that would make them believe Transubstantiation to be a Fable and that it is a novel thing to have the Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue which I have not room to mention But desire the Reader to observe how this practice is condemned out of the mouths of many great persons in their own Church I will name Two One is Cardinal Cajetan upon 1 Cor. XIV who saith Out of this Doctrine of Paul we learn That it is better for the Edification of the Church that the Publick Prayers which are said in the audience of the people should be said in the tongue common to Clerks and People than said in Latin A most ingenuous Confession in which he doth but follow one of their Saints viz. Anselm in his Exposition of the same Chapter That is good which thou sayest but another is not edified by thy words which he understands not Therefore since you meet in the Church for Edification those things ought to be said in the Church which may be understood by men and afford Edification to the hearers CONCLVSION NOW I leave all men who have a grain of common sense and common honesty whether this man who both in the Title and Conclusion of his Book pretends to judge us out of our own mouth II. Jam. 4. be not as St. James speaks a judge of evil thoughts That is as his Menochius expounds it one who reasons ill and therefore judgeth ill 1 Tim. I. 7. Who desiring to be a Teacher of others understands neither what he saith nor whereof he affirms As will be confessed by all who follow our Saviour's Rule VII John 24. Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment FINIS ERRATA PAge 38. line 20. r. to be come P. 54. l. 26. r. of Religion P. 90. l. 24. r. all together P. 105. l. 1. r. Arts whereby P. 145. l. 24. r. 1 Cor. IX 27. P. 172. l. 25. r. heard of much less have ever seen P. 184. l. 5. r. Rich Man P. 187. l. 14. r. ad Pop. Antioch P. 193. l. 21. r. things done at P. 207. l. 15. r. solemn Rite P. 213. l. 6. r. most suitable P. 217. l. 16. r. Tert. Sum. Ibid. l. 17. r. mere impudence P. 218. l. 1. r. Bona for Bonell P. 224. l. 21. r. S. Victore P. 231. l. 21. r. speaking of Virgins P. 250. l. antepenult r. visible P. 253. l. 11. r. God's footstool P. 262. l. 14. r. of Fathers to countenance
never a one of which there is any mention much less express mention of Tradition And in the last the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver are expresly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes XV. Acts 28. For it is said v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude and delivered the EPISTLE What an unlucky man is this to confute himself after this fashion As for his Fathers he durst not quote the words of any but two only St. Basil and St. Chrysostome The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil * De Spiritu Sancto c. 27. into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition which as it belongs not at all to his subject so it contradicts his sense in another place Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith where he saith It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance either to reject what is written or to add any thing that is not written But admit those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil's they are manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that sense wherein he takes them For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them For instance the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing the Consecration of him that is baptized standing in Prayer on the first day of the week and all the time between Easter and Whitsontide And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty such as Praying towards the East and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture Nay he proceeds so far as to say in the words following that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel or rather contract it into a bare Name A saying so senseless or rather impious that if these men had but a grain of common honesty they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world by such spurious stuff as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is As for St. Chrysostome it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church And unless they be confirmed by Scripture he contradicts himself in saying Traditions not written are worthy of belief For upon Psal 95. he saith expresly If any thing unwritten be spoken the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. understanding of the auditors halts and wavers sometimes inclining sometimes haesitating sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying and again receiving it as probable but when the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit Sav. written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth it confirms and establishes both the words of the speaker and the minds of the hearers V. Next he makes us affirm That a man by his own understanding or private spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture Answer THere is no such crude saying as this among us But that which we affirm is That a man may in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed rightly understand the Holy Scripture so far as is necessary for his Salvation Who should understand or judge for him but his own understanding we can no more understand than who should see for him but his own eyes if he have any and be not blind And what is there to be found in our Bibles expresly against this The first place is far from express for the gift of Prophecying doth not to every one expresly signifie the interpreting of Scripture 1 Cor. XII 8. it having manifestly another signification in some places viz. Inditing Hymns Besides if this place were pertinent forbidding all to interpret Scripture but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy their Church must not meddle with that work for they have not that Gift no more than those that follow discerning of Spirits divers kinds of Tongues c. His second place is as impertinent 2 Pet. 1.20 21. for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture but of the Prophetical Scripture it self Which was not of private interpretation that is the proper invention of them that Prophecied for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth not at the will and pleasure of man but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things or foretold future were acted by the Spirit of God and spake those things which were suggested by Him These are the words of Menochius which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this mans Glosses who babbles here about a company of men and those very holy who are to do he knows not what which private and prophane men cannot do As if all private men were prophane and all companies of men were holy The Lord help them who follow such Guides as these The third place 1 Joh. IV. 1. if it say any thing to this purpose is expresly against him For it is a direction to every Christian not to be of too hasty belief But to try the Spirits that is Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God Now how should Christians try or examine them but by using their own understandings to discern between pretended inspirations and true If they must let others judge for them they cross the Apostle's Doctrine for they do not try but trust To tell us that their Church is infallible and therefore ought to judg for us is a pretence that must also be tried above all things else and in which every man 's particular judgment must be satisfied or else he cannot with reason believe it And to believe it without reason is to be a fool Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits but lays down these two in the following words 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh he was a deceiver v. 2. And 2ly if any man rejected the Apostles and would not hear â—hem he was not to be received himself v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error This makes it plain the Apostle did not leave them then without means of judging aright as he hath not left us now who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church which cannot be tried by particular men is past my understanding and I believe he did not understand it himself but used it as a big phrase to amuse
poor people withal Who may easily understand that St. John speaks of particular persons or of the Doctrines vented by certain persons who pretended to be inspired whom every particular Christian was bound to examine and try by this mark whether they contradicted what the Apostles taught which was sufficient if they did to discover them to be Impostors His Fathers he only names and therefor they signifie nothing to common Readers for whose sake I write this confutation of his folly Which makes him bring in Luther as saying the same that he doth that is giving him the lye who accuses Protestants of affirming that which the very chief of them according to him denies But whether Luther say as he makes him or in what sense I am not able to affirm for I cannot find the words VI. They affirm That St. Peter's Faith hath failed Answer THere needs no more to make him confess the truth of this than only to ask him whether St. Peter did not deny his Master which our Saviour supposes in the words immediately following those he quotes Luk. XXII 32. Luk. 22.32 When thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren He was therefore out of the way for a time which is all we mean when any of us say Peter's Faith hath failed Not finally but for that present He fell though he recovered himself So that this is an Equivocal Proposition Peter's Faith hath failed which is true and so is the contrary his faith hath not failed Both are true in different respects It did fail and that notoriously when he denied his Master over and over But it was more stedfast afterward even by his fall which our Saviour foreseeing prayed particularly for him that he might not utterly miscarry Which is no Prerogative as this man fancies it that Christ prayed principally for him but rather tended to his disparagement as denoting him to be weaker than the rest and indeed so much the weaker because in his own opinion he was the strongest The second Text Mat. 16.18 XVI Mat. 18. as he manages it is expresly to another purpose For he lays the weight of his Discourse it appears by the consequence he draws upon those words the gates of hell shall not prevail against What the Text saith expresly against it that is the Church not against thee that is Peter They that are wiser argue from the foregoing words Thou art Peter and upon this rock c. If this be to his purpose the faith of St. Peter must be the Rock upon which the Church is built which they do not love to hear of and if it be the Rock was thrown down and the gates of hell prevailed against it at the time before mention'd when he denied his Master Which made a great man * Dr. Jacks L. 3. c. 7. say Doubtless that Religion which hath no better ground of Infallibility than Peter 's faith which was not secured from a threefold denial of Christ was first planted by the spirit of error and Antichrist The third Text we had before in the second Chapter where I have answered his question XXIII Matth. 2 3 how Christ might command the people and his Disciples also to do whatsoever they that sat in Moses his chair bad them and yet those Doctors might err But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail he asserts the Scribes and Pharisees when they sat in Moses his Chair could not err which is to justifie their putting our Lord Christ to death Whither will not the folly of such men as this carry them who mind not when they overthrow the Christian Religion to establish their own conceits Nay this man doth not mind when he ruins even his own conceits For if the truth of Christian Religion hath been no better preserved by the Romanists in the Chair of St. Peter than the truth of the Jewish Religion was preserved by the Scribes and Pharisees in the Chair of Moses the Roman Church is certainly become Antichristian He hath pickt up a fourth Text which hath nothing in it of Peter XI Joh. 49 51. no more than the former but only tells us that the Jewish High Priest Prophecied XI Joh. 49 51. Yet this is an express Text forsooth to prove that Peter's faith could not fail It is not easie to have patience enough so much as to read such wretched nay wicked stuff as this Which still proves if it be to the purpose that the High Priest speaking forth of his Chair could not but determine truly and consequently gave a right judgment when he condemned Christ to be put to death For he sat in the same Chair when he passed sentence on Christ and when he thus Prophecied both were in a Council which was assembled on purpose to resolve what to do with him XI Joh. 47. XXVI Mat. 57. Here the good man is in great want of Fathers and contents himself because he cannot help it with Leo whose words he doth not rightly translate For Leo doth not say If the Head were invincible but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered Worsted it was for the present though not quite overcome For he lost the confession of Faith with his mouth saith Theophylact though he kept the Faith or the seeds of faith as he speaks in his heart But unless a man do confess with his mouth as well as believe in his heart he cannot be saved Both are necessary unless St. Paul cross St. Peter X. Rom. 9 10. But what is all this to the purpose suppose St. Peter's faith did not fail what then Must we conclude from thence the Pope's faith cannot fail Stay there One of his own Communion a great man * Launoy Part V. Epist ad Jac. Bevillaq indeed hath shown that there being four Interpretations of this place XXII Luk. 32. the greatest number of Ecclesiastical Writers he reckons up XLIV and among the rest this Pope Leo expound it of the Faith of Peter alone which Christ prayed might not be lost in that time of Temptation which was a coming But next to this they are most numerous who think Christ prayed for the Vniversal Church that it may never fail in the faith In which number is Thomas Aquinas one of their Saints who expresly proves from this place that the Universal Church cannot err because he who was always heard by God said to Peter upon whose confession the Church is founded I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Where it is evident he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter separately from the rest of the Church but for the whole Church whose person Peter sustained as St. Austin is wont to speak Or as Gregory the Great 's words are of which Church he was the first Member But this belongs to the next Head where he saith we affirm VII That the Church can err and hath erred WHich is true in one sense though not true in another For if by Church be meant the
Universal Church and by erring be meant departing from the Truth in matters of necessary belief then we say the Church though it may mistake in matters of lesser moment yet cannot thus err because Christ will always have a Church upon Earth which cannot be without the belief of all things necessary to make it a Church But if by Church be meant the Church of Rome or any other particular Church we say it may err even in matters of necessary belief as St. Paul plainly supposes in his caution he gives the Romans XI Rom. 20 21. and thus many Churches have erred and faln from Christianity Now what hath he to say out of our Bibles which is expresly contrary to this First he alledges a place out of the Prophet Isaiah LIX Isa 21. LIX Chap. 21. where there is not one express word either of the Church or of it s not erring but only of what God will do for those who turn from transgression in Jacob as the words before going are upon whom we may suppose he Covenants and engages to bestow his Spirit c. Now before the Church of Rome whom this man here intends can apply this Text to themselves they must prove that they are the people who turn from transgression in Jacob which will be a very difficult task And when that 's done this Text may prove to be a command rather than a promise that it is their duty having God's Spirit who by faith and charity is diffused in the whole Church that is in the hearts of the faithful as Menochius here glosses and his words that is saith he his precepts they should keep them faithfully and not suffer them to depart out of their own mouth and their own heart as he goes on or out of the mouth and heart of their Children It is a most wretched inference for after all his brags of express Texts he is fain to come to that at last which this man draws from hence therefore the Church cannot err He might with respect to the sense have said more colourably therefore the Church cannot sin The folly of which every one sees men being too negligent on their part when God hath done his The next place is less to the purpose for it is a peculiar promise as appears by the whole context unto the Apostles of Christ XIV Joh. 16. In whose hearts he promises the Holy Ghost shall inhabit as Menochius expounds it performing the Office of a Comforter and of an Instructer And this for ever not for so short a time as Christ stayed on Earth with them but all the days of their life But let us extend this promise to their Successors they can never prove the Apostles have no Successor but only at Rome To which this promise can by no inferences be confined but must extend to the whole Church of Christ with whom he is still present by his Spirit to preserve them in the way of truth if they will be led by it In the nex place XVIII Mat. 17. he is at his C llâ—ctions again instead of express words for his Talent is meer bragging XVIII Matth. 17. without any performance But how doth he gather from this Text that the Church cannot err Why that he leaves to his Reader telling him only it may be clearly gathered but he for his part did not know how though it may be others do Let them try who have a mind I can find nothing in this place which concerns matters of faith and he himself seems to be sensible of it when he saith the Church cannot err in her Censure But what Church is this and what Censure It belongs to every Church to censure him that wrongs his Brother after he hath been admonished of the injury he hath done first in private and then before two or three Witnesses This being done where should he be proceeded against but in the Church where he lives Unto which if he will not submit but continue obstinately his injurious actions he is justly to be lookt upon as no Christian No man that is unprejudiced can read this Text with all its circumstances and not take this to be the sense of the words And then if they prove the Church cannot err we shall have as many infallible Tribunals as there are Churches XXXV Is 8. That which follows XXXV Isa 8. speaks of not erring but says nothing of the Church unless he make the Church to be fools who the Prophet saith shall not err How much wiser would this man have been if he had but consulted some such Author as Menochius Who observing that the Prophet saith v. 4. God will come he will and save you i. e. God incarnate as he expounds it by the way here mentioned v. 8. understands that narrow way which he taught leading by holiness of manners and life to the holy place i. e. to Heaven And upon the last words fools shall not err therein gives us this good Protestant Gloss for even the simple and unskilful might easily learn those things which are necessary to salvation The way is plain in these matters and none need err about them unless they will And I wish it was not a wilful error in this man to say that we affirm the whole Church and all holy men that ever have been therein for these 1000 years have erred There cannot be a greater calumny for we believe the whole Church cannot stray from the way that leads to Heaven though some particular Churches may There is nothing contrary to this in V. Ephes 27. V. Ephes 27. Which if it prove any thing of this nature proves the Church is so perfectly pure that it hath no sin in it But I doubt we must stay for this happiness till the other world when the Church will indeed be made a Glorious Church I have noted as he desires the words without spot wrinkle or any blemish and yet I think it possible that some Church or other hath taught horrible Blasphemies and Abominations For St. John in the Revelation tells us it is not only possible but certain XVII Rev. 3 4. And there are we think very evident proofs that the present Roman Church of which he is so fond and always hath in his mind when he speaks of the Church is described by St. John in that place We have seen so little in these Texts that I cannot find in my heart to look into the rest several of which we have had already as XXII Luk. 32. XXIII Mat. 3. XVII Deut. 8. XV. Act. 28. And he seems to have intended nothing but meerly to make a show of more strength than he had which made him thrust in among the rest V. Ephes 27. which I have just now examined His Fathers also are only Names without their sense and so let them pass Next he saith we affirm VII That the Church hath been hidden and invisible HE still goes on in his ambiguous way of stating our