which the Apostle delivered in this Epistle To which Theodoret adds the grace of the Holy Ghost which he received at his Ordination That is his Office committed unto him and all the Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on him to qualifie him for this Office He bids us see more in several other places of Scripture whose words he is not pleased to recite and therefore I shall pass them by Because if there had been any thing to be seen in them to his purpose he would have set them forth at large And there is as little to be seen in the Fathers whom he mentions to confirm his pretended Catholick Doctrine And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus and Tertullian without alledging their words But he adventures to set down some words out of Vincentius Lirinensis tho he doth not tell us where to find them We need not go far indeed to seek for them they being in the beginning of his Book where he that is able to read it may find a full confutation of the Romish Pretences For having said that the way to preserve our Faith found is first by the Authority of the Divine Law Secondly by the Tradition of the Catholick Church He raises this Objection which shows how much the first of these is above the other Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect and abundantly sufficient unto it self for all purposes mark this which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cause what need is there to joyn unto this the Authority of the Catholick Sense To which he answers that the Scriptures being a great depth are not understood by all in the same Sense But Novatian understands them one way Photinus another Sabellius Donatus Arrius c. another And therefore because of the windings and turnings of Error the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation should be directed according to the Rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense Thus he ends his Book as he begins it We have not recourse to Ecclesiastical Tradition because the Scripture is not sufficient to it self for all things but because of various Interpretations But then he immediately subjoins in the entrance of his Book what that Catholick Sense is Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where and always and by all Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide our selves and from which the Church of Rome hath departed For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron where he expresly owns this Rule p. 22. Edit Lond. 1612. And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himself which this Writer should have been so honest as to have confessed For in conclusion Cap. XXXIX he saith that the ancient Consent of Fathers is to be studiously sought and followed not in all the little Questions of the Divine Law or Scripture for alas there is no Consent but only or chiefly in the Rule of Faith That is in those Questions as he explains it Cap. XLI on which the Foundations of the whole Catholick Faith rely And further he observes That all Heresies cannot always be confuted this way but only those which are newly invented as soon as they arise before they have falsified the Rules of the Ancient Faith and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients by the spreading of their poison For inveterate Heresies and such as have spread themselves must not be impugned this way but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture or at least-wise by the Universal Councils of Catholick Priests wherein they have been convinced and condemned I have been the longer in this because he is a most worthy Witness as this man calls him by whom we are willing to be tried And so we are by Tertullian some of whose words he also at last adventures to alledge out of two Chapters of his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks But as he jumbles together words far distant one from another so he durst not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX which would have explained the reason why sometimes they disputed not with Hereticks out of the Scripture because that Heresy of which he there treats did not receive some Scripture and if it did receive some Cap. XVII it did not receive them intire but perverted them by additions and detractions as served its purpose c. In short they would not acknowledg these things that is the Scriptures by which they should bave been convinced To what purpose then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures No let them believe saith he Cap. XXIII without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scripture just as the present Romanists now do From whence it is that he calls Hereticks Lucifugae Scripturarum men that fly from the light of the Scriptures L. d. Resur Carn C. XLVII Insomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the same Book Cap. III. Take from Hereticks those things which they have learnt from the Heathen that they may state their questions out of the Scripture alone and they cannot stand Unto which Rule if the Papists will yield their Cause is gone Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture and we desire no more Unto which it is manifest Tertullian appeals in other places so plainly that there is no way to evade it particularly in his Book of the Flesh of Christ Cap. VI. Let them prove the Angels took Flesh from the Stars if they cannot prove it because it is not written then Christ's Flesh was not from thence c. And again in the same Chapter there is no evidence of this because the Scripture doth not say it And plainest of all in the next Chapter I do not receive what thou inferrest of thy own without Scripture Let these men blush if they can who thus shamelesly pervert all things to a wrong sense as they do these two words Rule and Form of Faith Which this man hath the Confidence to say is the knowledge of Tradition But how we should know any Tradition to be true which is not contained in the Scripture is the Question Especially since there have been so many false Traditions as is confess'd by all sides Besides it is so far from being true that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith or put it before the Scripture that Vincentius expresly puts the Divine Scripture in the first place as our Guide and then the Ecclesiastical sense as a means in some cases to find the sense of Scriptures Cap. XIII And Tertullian as expresly in that very Book which he quotes and in the Chapter preceding makes the Apostles Creed the Rule of Faith Which is all contained in the Scripture and needs the help of no Tradition but that to prove it But after all I must ask what 's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this
Imprimatur Apr. 14. 1692. JO. CANT AN ANSWER To a BOOK Spread abroad by the Romish Priests INTITULED THE Touchstone OF THE Reformed Gospel WHEREIN The True DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND and many Texts of the HOLY SCRIPTURE are faithfully Explained By the Right Reverend Father in God SYMON Lord Bishop of ELY LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE READER I Must let the Reader understand that the Book which I answer first appeared in the latter end of the Reign of King James I. under the Name of A Gagg for the New Gospel When it was immediately so exposed to the Scorn of all Men by Mr. R. Mountague afterward Bishop of Chichester and at last of Norwich that for many Years it sculkt and durst not show its head till they imagined that Baffle was forgot and then out it came again in the Reign of King Charles II. as if it had never been seen before with this New Title The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospel And the better to disguise the Cheat they begin the Book with a New Chapter or Section and have quite left out that which was formerly the Last Chapter transposing also the order of some of the rest making Amendments as they imagine in several places and adding several whole Chapters For there were but XLVII Points one of which as I said they now have wholly omitted which they charged upon us and undertook to confute in the First Edition But now they are improved to Two and Fifty and set out as formerly with a long Preface of the very same Stamp with the Book full that is of broad-fac'd Vntruths Of which it may be expected I should here give some account But my Answer to the Book it self is grown so much bigger than I designed that it must be omitted For the great Reason which was urged by those who had power to persuade me to undertake a New Answer to it was because Bishop Mountagu's was so large that few could purchase it And therefore they thought it needful there should be a more Compendious Confutation of the Book though now it be inlarged especially since they found it in every Parish of this great City and in the very Prisons where the Romish-Priests could meet with any entertainment For which Reason the same Persons have persuaded me that what I composed at their desire in the latter end of the late Reign ought now to be published because the Priests of that Church they assure me are still very busie and make account this little Book which I answer will do their business For they put it into the hands of all those whom they hope to make their Proselites and desire them to read it as an unanswerable Piece Let the Reader judge of that when he hath seriously considered what I have said to discover both the weakness and the dishonesty of its Author Who understood neither the Scriptures nor Fathers he quotes or hath so perverted them that as it cost me more time so I have been forced to use more Words than I intended to employ to represent his unskilful or false dealing But I hope I shall neither tire the Reader nor entertain him unprofitably but increase his Knowledge by a right understanding of a considerable part of the Bible and of the Christian Doctrine Especially if he will be pleased to turn to the Texts of Scripture which I have explained but not quoted at length for fear of swelling this Answer into too great a Bulk Febr. 22. 1690. AN ANSWER TO THE TOUCHSTONE OF The Reformed Gospel I. The Protestants he saith affirm That there is not in the Church One and that an Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scriptures and conserving Vnity in matters of Faith Answer THIS Proposition is drawn up deceitfully For neither we maintain this nor they maintain the contrary universally and without limitation No Papist dare say there is one and that an Infallible Rule for understanding all the Holy Scripture For then why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible Why do their Doctors disagree in the interpretation of a thousand places He ought therefore to have said that we hold There is not in the Church one and that an infallible Rule for understanding as much as is necessary to Salvation c. And then he belies us For we believe the Scripture it self gives us infallible Directions for the understanding of its sense in all things necessary which if all would follow there would be Unity in matters of necessary belief But God will not force men to follow those Directions They may err and they may quarrel when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both The Scriptures therefore whereby he proves what he charges upon us must needs be impertinent But it is something strange that in the very first of them he should be so sensless as to give himself the lye For he pretends to refute our errors as his words are by the express words of our own Bibles and immediately puts in a word of his own instead of that in our Bibles which say quite another thing For instead of according to the proportion of faith which are the words of our Translation XII Rom. 6. He says according to the rule of faith What is this but that chopping and changing which he falsly charges us withall in the end of his Preface And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible which he promised to quote expresly but of the sense of that Scripture as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors particularly St. Chrysostom and his Followers XII Rom. 6. who by proportion understand the same with Measure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius one of their own Interpreters and a Jesuit secundum proportionem mensuram Fidei i. e. according to the measure of Vnderstanding and Wisdom which God hath bestowed Now what can you expect from a man who falsifies in this manner at the very first dash In the next Scripture indeed he finds the word Rule III. Philip. 16. III. Phil. 16. and presently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly c. Whereas it is manifest to all who are not blinded with Prejudice that the Apostle supposes in the words before v. 15. they were not all of a mind in some things for there were those among them that believed in Christ who thought the observation of Moses's Law to be necessary also to Salvation which was a dangerous error to mix Legal and Evangelical things together as Theodoret here expounds it but might possibly be cured if Christian Communion were not broken on either side by reason of this difference but every one both the perfect who understood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law and the imperfect who fancied it still lay upon them walked by the same rule c. that is preserved Christian Communion one with another
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
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
could not see the Church all Africk over it being at that time as plain as a Mountain or a lighted Candle as our Church now is at this day But his words do not imply that the Church shall always be so manifest and never hid Mountains themselves being sometimes hidden in a mist For he saith in other places The Church shall sometimes be obscured and the Cloud of Offences may shadow it Epist 48. It shall not appear by reason of the unmeasurable Rage of Vngodly Persecutors Epist 80. It is like the Moon and may be hid in XIX Psalm Yea so obscured that the Members of it may not know one another as he speaks in his sixth Book of Baptism against the Donatists C. 4. What St. Cyprian saith is not contrary to this V. We maintain he saith That the Church was not always to remain Catholick or Vniversal and that the Church of Rome is not such a Church Answer WE maintain the quite contrary to the first Part of his Proposition asserting that the Church is always to remain Catholick or Vniversal not confined to one Country as the Jewish was but spread all the World over The second Part indeed we do maintain That the Church of Rome is not such a Church that is which is the thing they contend for is not the Universal Church but hath its limits and was anciently bounded within certain Regions beyond which it did not extend The first Scripture he alledges against us is a promise to Christ which we believe hath been fulfilled in part II. Psalm 8. and will be more and more fulfilled before the end of the World but hath nothing in it peculiar to the Church of Rome which at the best is but a piece of his Inheritance The second speaks expresly not of the Vniversality of Christ's Kingdom I. Luke 33. but of its Perpetuity and is as much verified in other Churches as in the Roman which is so far from being the only Universal Church that in this sense it is not Universal at all The third is directly against him For it shows that the Faith of the Gospel unto which he now skips I. Colos 3 c. when he should have said the Church of which he was speaking was planted at Coloss which was never under the Jurisdiction of Rome and there fructified and grew as much as in other places Nor will the next place help him where St. Paul doth not call the Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans but only saith I. Rom. 8. their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world I. Rom. 8. that is the fame of it was spread all the world over as Menochius one of their own honestly interprets it For what was done at Rome could not be concealed from the rest of the World saith Theodoret because the Roman Emperors having their Palace there from whence all sort of Officers were sent and whither all People resorted who had any boon to beg by whom it was signified every where That the City of Rome had received the Faith of Christ Thus he which shows the Gospel was spread in the World before it came to the City of Rome it not coming from thence but from Jerusalem and not coming thither till many other places had received it who were not beholden to Rome for it With what face then against such a clear sense of the words could this Man say that St. Paul in express terms calls The Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans or the Church of Rome When the words rather import that he calls the Faith of the Romans the Faith received in the whole World But he saith neither the one nor the other tho if he had it would prove nothing but that there was one and the same Faith then at Rome which was in other places The truly Catholick Faith from whence Churches were named Catholick not from their extending all the World over which was impossible and Jerusalem and other Churches were as much so as Rome it self and were so before there was a Church at Rome In short a Catholick Church signified no more than an Orthodox Church It is a matter of serious Lamentation that men should go about to pervert such plain and easy Truths as this and should heap up Scriptures to prove mere Nonsence For all the Scriptures which he bids us further look into he saith are not to be understood That the whole World should be Catholick at one and the same time Let the Reader consider what it is for the whole World to be Catholick as he hath explained it but for the whole World to be the whole World And he will have an hard task to make Sense of the next words that the whole World being converted unto Christ at sundry times it shall comprehend a greater part of the World than any Sect of Hereticks shall ever do I thought the whole World would certainly comprehended the whole World and not only the greater part of the World It is impossible by such Jargon as this to understand the true Sense of being Catholick or Vniversal Which the Church is either with respect to Faith because there is the same Faith in all parts of the true Church or with respect to Place because no Country is excluded from it which will receive this Faith or with respect to Time because it continues throughout all Ages tho not always in such an extent as to be actually in all Nations For those Countries which were once Parts of the Catholick Church are not so now And if those that are now so should lose the Faith still the Church might be Catholick if others embraced it as Bellarmine * L. IV. De Ecclesâ— c. 7. himself confesses If only one Province should retain the true Faith the Church might truly and properly be called Catholick as long as it might be clearly shown that it was one and the same with that which had been at sometime or in divers throughout the World According to his former Method he carries us now to the Fathers and mâ—kâ—s them guilty of as much Nonsense as himself For he makes St. Cyprian confess that part is the whole But the comfort is he either did not understand or else misrepresents St. Cyprian who speaks not there of the Authority but of the Example of the Roman Church and especially of Cornelius their Bishop who remaining constant in time of Tryal made all his Brethren every where rejoyce particularly Cyprian himself who in that very place stiles Cornelius and others his Fellow-Priests or Bishops For what Priest saith he can chuse but rejoyce in the praises of his Fellow-Priests as if they were his own It is not to be expressed with what Joy and Exultation he heard of his Fortitude whereby he made himself a Captain and Leader of Confession unto the Brethren c. And then follows While there is among you i. e. Cornelius and his Brethren one Mind
Epist LX. Edit Oxon. and one Voice all the Roman Church hath confessed that is their Faith which the Apostle praised was be come famous as it follows in the next words and while they were thus Unanimous thus Valiant they gave great Examples of Vnanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est They were all stedfast in their Faith which this poor man construes as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholick Church By translating those words thus The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Which he vehemently denied ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons That every mans Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed and commanded those to return home who had appealed to Rome which he shows was most just and reasonable unless the Authority of the Bishops in Africk seem less than the Authority of other Bishops to a few desperate and profligate persons who had already been judged and condemned by them Epist LIX This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius to which I could add a great deal more if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush if they have any shame left who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church St. Austin of whom I must say something lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him and the whole Church of Africk in a Council of Two hundred Bishops made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church and therefore could mean no such thing as this man would have in his Book of the Vnity of the Church Where he saith in the 3d Chapter That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings but out of the Divine Oracles and if the Holy Scriptures have design'd it in Africa alone c. whatsoever other Writings may say the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause and none be the Church but they But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise designing the Church to be spread throughout the World And then he goes on to say Chap. 4. that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head but yet do so dissent those are his words which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously from his Body which is the Church that their Communion is not with the whole Body wheresoever it is diffused but is found in some part separated it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church than of any other part of the Catholick Church and in truth makes them like the Donatists since their Communion is not with the whole Body which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion but they are found in a part of it seperated by themselves The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin I assure the Reader is as much besides the matter and therefore I will not trouble him with it And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom in his Apology against Ruffinus But this I find L 3. the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle viz. I. Rom. 8. admits not such deceit and delusion into it c. Where it is to be noted That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle is one thing and the Roman Church another And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time was certainly most pure but who shall secure us it is so now If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so we should not believe it because it is not what they then believed nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time but much altered in many Points And suppose St. Hierom had told us It is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholick Faith it must be meant of the then Roman Faith and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith No nor more than is said for thus Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople writes in an Epistle * Council of Ephes p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome We also have obtained the name of New Rome and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith the Prophets and Apostles mark that he doth not say on the Roman Church whâ—re Christ our Saviour and God is the Corner-stone are in the matter of faith nothing behind the elder Romans For in the Church of God there is none to be reckoned or numbred before the rest †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also c. i. e. if he were alive Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City as he had theirs at Old Rome for we as well as they following his Doctrine and Institutions wherein we are rooted are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith wherein we stand and rejoice c. X. The Reformers he saith hold That the Church's Vnity is not necessary in all points of Faith Answer THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes where he saith IV. Ephes 5. there is One Faith Which we believe is necessary to make One Church every part of which blessed be God at this very day is baptized into that one and the same Faith and no other contained in the common Creed of Christians called the Apostles Creed Therefore so far Church Vnity is still preserved But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith Nor should the Differences which may be among Christians about such matters break Unity of Communion And if they do those Churches which are thus broken and divided by not having external communion one with another may notwithstanding still remain both of them Members of the same one Catholick Church because they still retain the same one Catholick Faith Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time and the African and Roman in Stephen's time differed in external Communion and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ This is more than I need have said in answer to him but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies not our Opinions We believe as the Apostle teaches us IV. Ephes 5. IV. Ephes 5. and from thence conclude That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith truly so called that is all things necessary to be believed Nor do we differ in any such things and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church II. Jam. 10. The second
Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith therefore instead of express words this man tells us by a likeness of reason it is the same in Faith that it is in Sin he who denies one Article denies all We deny none but only their New Articles which are no part of the Ancient Apostolick Catholick Faith IV. Act. 32. The next IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians And that which follows 1 Cor. I. 10. 1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was but what ought to be in the Church For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions as appears by that very Chapter Therefore he is still beside the Book and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us as an Argument we are not the true Believers the Apostle speaks of when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived nor is the Church of Rome or any other Church at such unity but there are various Sects among them He hath little to do who will trouble himself upon the account of such a Scribler as this to consider that heap of Texts which he hath hudled together without any order or any regard to his Point he was to prove What St. Austin also and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity doth not at all concern us who preserve that Unity which they have broken by preserving that One Faith from which they of the Church of Rome have departed For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did but they have another Faith of their own devising This is that wherein we cannot unite with them And all the Unity they brag of is in truth no better than that of the Jews Hereticks and Pagans who as St. Austin * De Verbis Domini Serm. VI. speaks maintain an Vnity against Vnity In this they combine together to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered as insufficient to Salvation Which is a conspiracy in Error rather than unity in the Truth XI That St. Peter was not ordained by Christ the first Head or Chief among the Apostles and that among the Twelve none was greater or lesser than other Answer WE are now come to the great Point which is the support of the whole Roman Cause But he neither knows our Opinion about it nor their own or else dares not own what it is We believe Peter was the first Apostle and that he was a Chief though not the chief Apostle For there were others who were eminent that is Chiefs upon some account or other as well as himself 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief neither we nor those of his own Religion know unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles one over another This is strange language which none understands Peter was first in Order Place Precedence but not in Power Authority and Jurisdiction in these none was greater or lesser than another Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible but most agreeable thereunto For so the Text saith X. Matth. 2. X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Observation to inform us That all the Evangelists when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose put Peter first Which doth not signifie he was the worthiest of them all that no way appears but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called we expresly read and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness it doth not prove his Authority over the rest as he is pleased to improve this Observation in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place for tho he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others they gave him no Superiority in Power but in that every one of them was his equal What follows upon this Text is so frivolous and childish a reasoning it ought to be despised Next he betakes himself to the Rock XVI Matth. 18. mentioned XVI Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again but they harden their hearts against it is not spoken of Peter as this man most impudently contrary to his own Bible makes the words sound but of the Faith which Peter confessed as the general current of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it But if we should by the Rock understand Peter it insinuates no Supremacy much less clearly insinuates it For none but such a man as this to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks would have thought of that at the reading of the word Rock but rather of Firmness Stability or Solidity which the Word plainly enough imports but nothing of Authority Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone with respect to his being the Soveraign and Absolute Pastor of his Church but because of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God Next to those who by Rock understand as I said the Faith which Peter confessed the greatest number of Ancient Expositors understand thereby Christ himself Unto whom this man hath the face to say these words do not agree because he speaks of the time to come I will build as if Christ were not always what he ever was being the same to day yesterday and for ever It is a burning shame as we speak that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors and to write Books which have nothing in them but trifling observations and false allegations For after all should we grant Peter to be the Rock it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so as much as he for the Church was built upon them all on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets II. Ephes 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him not One alone but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jerusalem i. e. the Church of Christ which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord XXI Rev. 14. The next place XVIII Matth. 18. XVIII Matth. 18. is so plain a promise to all the Apostles that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest especially if it be observed that when this Promise was fulfilled they were all equally partakers of it when our Saviour breathed on them and said unto them mark that he breathed on them all and said not to Peter alone but them i. e. the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whos 's soever sins ye retain XX. John 22 23. they are retained c. XX. John 22 23. Now he falls a Reasoning again for alas express Texts fail him but it amounts to no more than this That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place but gave him another name I am sorry for his ignorance that he did not know or for his dishonesty that he would not consider
but the restoring him again to Christian Communion who had been thrown out of the Church But is this the Indulgence they contend for in the Church of Rome Will this serve their turn Then every Church hath as much power as this comes to and the whole body of the Church will have a share in this power of Indulgences For St. Paul speaks to all the Corinthian Christians in general that they should forgive him And so he doth also in the next place here alledged v. 6 7. Ibid. v. 6.7 of the same Chapter which speak of a Punishment inflicted ed by many which he tells them ought not to be continued but contrarywise Ye ought to forgive him and comfort him c. Upon which words hear what your Menochius says This Punishment was publick Separation from the Church out of which he was ejected by MANY i. e. by you all with detestation of his Wickedness c. The forgiveness of which was taking him into the Church again as Theodoret expounds the next words v. 8. Vnite the member to the body joyn the sheep together with the flock and thereby show your ardent affection to him He bids us see more in two other places of Scripture which we have examined before for other purposes but he would have serve for all A sign they have great scarcity of Scripture-proofs and therefore he gives us a larger Catalogue of Fathers which he packs together after such a fashion as no Scholar ever did For after Tertullian and Cyprian who speak only of the forenamed Relaxation of Canonical Censures he mentions the Council of Lateran but doth not tell us which though if he had it would have been to no end For the first Lateran Council was above Eleven hundred years after Christ And Innocent III. who is his next Father lived an hundred year later holding the IVth Lateran Council 1215. After these he brings St. Ambrose Austin Chrysostome who lived 800 years before and knew of no Indulgences but such as I have mentioned Lastly He tells us Urban the second granted a Plenary Indulgence and when lived this holy Father do you think Almost eleven hundred years after Christ Anno 1086. A most excellent proof that the Romish Indulgences were in use in the Apostles times Can one think that such men as this expect to be read by any but fools who perhaps may imagine this Vrban was contemporary with the Apostles It is some wonder he did not quote that holy Father Hildebrand Greg. VII who something before this granted Pardon of Sins to all those who would take up Arms against his Enemies Poor man he did not know this else he would have mentioned him rather than Vrban who was but his Ape The Protestants hold if you will believe him XVII That the Actions and Passions of the Saints do serve for nothing to the Church Answer A Most wicked Slander for we look upon what they did and suffered as glorious Testimonies to the Truth they believed and preached as strong incitements to us to follow their Examples and as eminent Instances of the Power of God's Grace in them for which we bless and praise him and thankfully commemorate them But all this serves for nothing to the Church that is to the Church of Rome unless men believe there is a Treasury which contains all the superfluous Satisfactions of the Saints who suffered more than they were bound to endure Of which vast Revenue that Church having possessed it self it serves to bring abundance of Money into their Coffers which must be paid by those who desire to be relieved out of these superabundant Satisfactions of the Saints by having them applied to them for the supply of their defects This is the meaning of this very man it appears by the Scriptures he quotes for their belief I. Col. 24. The first is I. Col. 24. which speaks of the Persecutions St. Paul endured in Preaching the Gospel to the Colossians which tho grievous to him was so beneficial to them that he rejoiced in his Sufferings and resolved to endure more for the confirmation of their Faith and for the edification of the Church of Christ This he calls filling up what was behind of the afflictions of Christ Because Christ began to testifie to the Truth by shedding of his Blood and thence is called the Faithful Witness But it remained still that the Apostles should give their Testimony by the like Sufferings because the Gospel was to be carried to the Gentile World which could not be effected without their enduring such hardships as Christ had endured in Preaching to the Jews Thus Theodoret expounds That which was behind or which remained of the Affliction of Christ But here is not a word of Satisfaction no not by Christ's Sufferings which were of such value that there was nothing of this nature left to be done by others This better Men than this of their own Church ingenuously confess Particularly Justinianus a Jesuit whose words are these upon this very place He saith he filled up what was wanting of the Passion of Christ not to merit indeed or make Satisfaction for what can be wanting to that which is Infinite but as to the Power and Efficacy of bringing Men to the Faith that his Mystical Body which is the Church may be perfected c. For he signifies in the latter end of the Verse That he suffered for the enlarging or propagating of the Church to confirm and establish its faith that he might provoke others to his imitation I could add many more to shew the Folly of this Man who saith From hence Ground hath always been taken for Indulgences A notorious falshood not always for Indulgences are late things not by all Men in their Church since it used them For Estius in his Notes upon this place absolutely disclaims it and saith Tho some Divines hence argue that the Passions of the Saints are profitable for the remission of sins which is called Indulgence yet he doth not think this to be solidly enough concluded from this place Which I have been the longer about because they are wont to make a great noise with it The next place they curtail'd heretofore in this manner Philip. II. 30. He was nigh unto Death not regarding his Life to supply your lack leaving out what follows of service towards me which made it sound something like as if their lack of Goodness had been supplied by his Merits or rather Satisfaction for Merit will do no service in this case But Bishop Montague bang'd them so terribly for this foul play that now they have printed it right tho alas nothing to the purpose And therefore this Man doth not venture to say so much as one word upon this Text but barely recites the words and leaves the Reader to make what he can of them And all that Menochius a truly Learned Expositor of their own could make of them is this That St. Paul being in Prison Epaphroditus
of the Fish to drive away the Devil and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul I cannot devise for I never read nor he neither that they were sanctified any way None of his Fathers tho half of them are young ones in comparison ascribe any supernatural vertue to such things and therefore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness XXXVII That children may be saved by their Parents Faith without the Sacrament of Baptism Answer NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine For we teach That there is no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without Baptism Insomuch that by an express Canon LXIX every Minister is to be suspended for three months who suffers any Infant in his Parish to dye without Baptism being informed of its weakness and danger of death and desired to come and baptize the same And is not to be restored till he acknowledg his fault and promise before his Ordinary that he will not wittingly incur the like again But we do not tye God to those means to the use of which he hath tyed us and therefore do believe that by his infinite Grace and Mercy those Infants may be saved who without their own fault dye unbaptized And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church as appears from Socrates * L. V. Hist c. 22. who says In Thessaly they baptized only at Easter by which means many dyed unbaptized and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places to baptize only twice a year which custom he saith hath been changed because a great many departed without Baptism But still this is an evidence they did not think it absolutely necessary nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church such as Gabriel Biel Card. Cajetan and many others I could name condemn children to Hell who dye unbaptized but being the children of Faithful Parents look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace and capable of eternal life For which they give these reasons Frst The infinite Mercy of God who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained And secondly The like case under the Old Testament when Circumcision answered to our Baptism as this man acknowledges and the children dying unbaptized were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents So S. Bernard Epist 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather That even this notion of childrens being saved by their parents Faith without Baptism is no more our opinion than it is theirs Some say so among us and so do some among them Matters therefore being thus stated all his Texts are already answered We say the very same our Saviour doth III. Joh. 5. III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray That God will grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have c. But tho this be the ordinary way we dare not say it is the only God's Grace many of themselves acknowledge supplies the want of Baptism in extraordinary cases Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Austin for it who was very rigid in this point that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is sufficient without the visible Sacrament when not by contempt of Religion but by mere necessity they are deprived of Baptism And thus Peter Lombard * L. IV. Distin 4. c. 2. understands this Text it is to be understood of those who can be baptized and contemn it III. Tit. 5. proves no more but that Baptism is the ordinary way and ought not to be neglected where it can be had From XVI Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily That children must be Baptized or not Saved XVI Mark 16. because they cannot believe which is to make Baptism more necessary than Belief Whereas they cannot be baptized but upon a supposition of belief as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent * Sess VII Can. 14. Children wanting Faith in the first act are baptized in the Faith of the Church And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is that as our Lord saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved so he would have said had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned But he only saith He that believeth not shall be damned which makes Faith only absolutely necessary And I showed before there are those in his own Church who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose And thus the most learned of the Fathers expound those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. 1 Cor. VII 14. particularly Theodoret The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife by the husband that is saith he hath hope of Salvation but if either he or she continue in this disease their seed shall partake of Salvation Which is but reason for if the unbelieving husband suppose should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized who can think this child so dying perished His last Text XVII Gen. 14. XVII Gen. 14. proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism where they could be had as was shewn before For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness V. Josh 5. But who will say that all they who were born and died within that time which was forty years went without remedy to Hell His Fathers which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine are not worth examining because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism as St. Austin Epist 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easie to be understood for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption and our souls by the spirit And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism as the Papists themselves will not abide by but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion which must admit of some exception And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers as they call them particularly St. Bernard who disputes against it at large in the Epistle before-mentioned As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received That children of two or three days old were not to be baptized but they were to stay till the eighth day as in Circumcision But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism but that none should be denied it tho newly born who the rather should be received because not their own sins but anothers was there remitted to them XXXVIII That the Sacrament
of Confirmation is not to be used Answer HE knew very well that tho we deny Confirmation to be a Sacrament yet we use it not as a Sacrament nor as absolutely necessary to Salvation for we have declared that children baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved but so necessary unto compleat Communion that we require the Godfathers and Godmothers to bring children baptized to the Bishop to be confirmed by him when they come to years of discretion and we admit none to the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood till they be confirmed or be ready and desirous so to be Now where doth the Scripture say it is a Sacrament There is not a word of it in VIII Acts 14. VIII Acts 14. much less is it there expressly declared and declared to be necessary or so much as to be used by others but only that the Apostles laid their hands on those who were baptized and they received the Holy Ghost which I am sure no body can now communicate in such Gifts as were then bestowed But above all it is to be noted that there is nothing said here of the Chrysm or anointing with holy Oyl in which they make this Sacrament consist but only of laying on of hands unto which they have no regard For thus Confirmation is performed in the Roman Church the Bishop takes sanctified Chrysm as they call it made of Oyl and Balsom and therewith anoints a person baptized with the thumb of his right hand in the form of a Cross upon the forehead which is bound with a fillet on the anointing till it be dry and it is also accompanied with a box on the ear all which is plainly ordered to be done in their publick Office of Confirmation But nothing of laying on of Hands is there mentioned which they deny to be either the matter or the form of this Sacrament tho we read of nothing else but this laying on of hands either here or in what follows A clear Demonstration that this place is expresly against their pretended Sacrament of Confirmation VI. Hebrew 1. is so far from being contrary to our Doctrine that some of their own Authors * Salmero Justinianus think it doth not speak of Confirmation at all but of the Benediction of Catechumens and others and some of our Authors think it doth even Mr. Calvin himself But then it is expresly said to consist in laying on of hands and ought not to be turned into a Sacrament but look'd upon as a solemn Form of Prayer as St. Austin calls it for Youth who being grown beyond Childhood made a Profession of their Faith and thereupon were thus blessed Which pure Institution as Mr. Calvin's words are is to be retained at this day and the Superstition corrected Behold how vilely the Protestant Doctrine is calumniated by such wretched Writers as this who seem not to understand Common Sense For he saith Confirmation is here called not only one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ but a Foundation of Repentance when all but such as himself clearly see that the Apostle here makes the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works to be one of the Principles of Christ's Doctrine as laying on of hands is another He betrays also notorious ignorance or falshood in the Citations of his Fathers to which he sends us For Tertullian plainly speaks of the Vnction which accompanied Baptism in his Country not of a distinct Sacrament from Baptism And Pacianus also mentions it as a solemn Right in the Sacrament of Baptism wherein Children are regenerated So doth St. Cyprian likewise even in that place which he mentions where is no such sense as he dreams For he disputes for the Re-baptizing of Hereticks because it is not enough if hands be laid upon them unless they receive the Baptism of the Church for then they are fully sanctified and made the Children of God if they be born by both Sacraments for it is written Vnless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. This latter part this Man conceals which shows St. Cyprian speaks altogether of Baptism in which there were then Two Rites Washing with Water and Laying on of Hands Which were not Two Sacraments properly but Two parts of the same Sacrament which he calls both the Sacraments of Baptism Just as Hulbertus Carnotensis calls the Body and Blood of Christ in the Communion Two Sacraments which in truth are but one For speaking of three things necessary to Salvation he saith of the Third that in it Two Sacraments of Life that is the Lords Body and his Blood are contained St. Hierom likewise speaks of Laying on of Hands but not as a distinct Sacrament For he earnestly contends in that Book that the Spirit is conferred in Baptism and that there can be no Baptism of the Church without the Spirit I have not taken any notice of St. Ambrose for those Books of the Sacrament which gounder his Name are none of his XXXIX That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord was but a Figure or Remembrance of the Body of Christ received by Faith and not his true and very Body Answer THIS is Fiction and false Representation For we expresly declare in the XXVIII Article of our Religion That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death in so much that to such as rightly worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. And in our Catechism we also declare That the inward and spiritual Grace in this Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper And Mr. Calvin himself saith as much But if we had not been of this mind his first place of Scripture XXII Luke 15. XXII Luk. 15. would have proved nothing against us for it speaks only of eating the Passeover in which he instituted this Sacrament but that followed after Here he speaks only of the Paschal Feast Insomuch that Menochius thus interprets it He most earnestly desired to eat the Paschal Lamb of this year and this day in which the Eucharist was to be instituted and shortly after it was to be shown by his Death how much he loved Mankind whom he so redeemed It was not therefore the Pasche as this Man speaks of his true Body and Blood which our Saviour thus desired to eat This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine who hath a Divinity by himself which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God But St. Peter was a better Divine than he who applies those words of David to our Blessed Saviour My flesh shall rest in hope because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell c. II. Acts 26 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine whether there can be any Hope without Faith which made him confidently expect
as he fancies receiving succor after death I cannot conceive For it signifies our dying as Menochius himself expounds it departing this life as Theophylact who knew of no other sense unless it be understood saith he of Pusillanimity being condemn'd Nor doth St. Austin in the next place XXIII Luke 44. say that Souls may be holpen in Purgatory But expresly declares if no sin were to be remitted in the last judgment our Lord would not have said of a certâ—in sin it shall not be remitted in this world nor in the world to come Which the Thief hoped for when he Prayed Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom And if the Theif had any such erroneous Notion in his head which we do not believe of going to Purgatory when he died our Lord presently freed him from that false conceit by that gracious promise This day shalt thou be with me in Paradice It is a lamentable Cause which must be supported by such an Author as Jason of Cyrene whose Book is of no credit But if it were the place he cites 2 Maccab. XII 44 45. proves nothing but Prayer for the dead which doth not infer a Purgatory For the Greeks use Prayer for the dead who believe nothing of Purgatory And indeed the Text it self tells us their Prayers had respect not to the deliverance of those Prayed for out of the flames of Purgatory but to their Resurrectien And if they had believed Purgatory they could not according to the Popish opinion have prayed for these men who died in mortal Sin being defiled by things belonging to Idols which were found under their Garments Now the Romish Church doth not admit such people as die in mortal Sin into Purgatory See how weak all their proofs are of this great Article of their Faith For there is no greater strength to be found in the rest of his Texts which he hath jumbled together after a very strange fashion as if a long row of Chapters and Verses would do his business Nor did the Fathers in the Six first Ages know any thing of this Doctrine Gregory indeed called the Great began to talk of it and laid the foundation of it But his Authority is not great being much addicted to Fables and relying upon pretended Revelations Visions and Apparitions And as for Origen's Purgatory St. Austin saith * De haeres â— 43. What Catholick Christian is there whether learn'd or unlearn'd who doth not vehemently abhor it And yet this man is not ashamed to alledge his Testimony by which the Reader may make a judgment of the rest XLVIII That it is not lawful to make or have Images Answer THIS is another shameless slander as his own Bellarmin confesses â— 2. de Eccles Triumph c. 8. who says the opinion of Calvin himself is this That Images are not simply forbidden but he admits only of an Historical use of them The sum of our Doctrine is this That it is not lawful to make an Image of God and so some of their own Church have confessed nor to make any Image to be worshipped If we should have further added That it is unlawful to make or have Images because of the danger of Idolatry we could have justified our selves by the Authority of as wise men as any in their Church For more than one of the Ancient Fathers were of this opinion who were never condemned by the Ancient Church nor was this reckoned among their Errors His Texts of Scripture are impertinently alledged XXV Exod. 18. For God might command that to be done XXV Exod. 18. which he forbad them to do without such a special Order And there is no proof that the Cherubins were made with Faces of beautiful young men as this Writer asserts but the contrary is apparent as many have demonstrated He belies St. Hierom also when he makes him say the Jews worshipped them which the best of their own Authors deny Particularly Lorinus a famous Jesuit upon XVII Acts 25. Concerning the Cherubims made by God's Command and other Images made by Solomon it must be said that they were only an Appendix and additional ornament of another thing and were not of themselves propounded for adoration which it is manifest the Hebrews did not give them And Vasquez saith the same out of Tertullian that no worship was given to the Cherubims alledging no less than twelve Schoolmen of that opinion Why should I trouble my self therefore any further with such a Writer whose next Scriptures are still about the Cherubims and therefore are already answered For he doth not believe I hope that when the Apostle IX Hebr. 1. speaks of the Ordinances of Divine Service that is Commandments about the Worship of God as Theodoret and from him Menochius expounds it and after many other things mentions the Cherubims of glory he intended they should have divine service performed to them If not then his observation is frivolous for no body denies there were such things as Cherubims in the most holy place where no body saw them much less worshipped them When he hath done with his Scriptures he goes about to prove so fond he is of Images that an Image is of divine and natural right because we always form one in our mind when we conceive and understand any thing As if it were all one to form an Idea invisibly in the mind and to make a vsible standing representation of it in Wood Brass or Stone Such Writers tire one with their folly and falshood which is notorious in what he quotes out of Saint Austin in the conclusion of this Chapter Who taking notice that some Pagans had forged a Story of I know not what Books written by Christ to Peter and Paul concerning the secret Arts of working Miracles says they named those two perhaps rather than other Apostles to whom those pretended Books were directed because they might have seen them painted with Him in many places Which whether it be meant in private Houses as is most probable or in publick places it is manifest St. Austin did not regard such Pictures for he presently adds in the very next sentence which this false Writer conceals these remarkable words Thus they deserved to err utterly who sought for Christ and his Apostles not in the holy Books but in painted Walls And it is no wonder if they that counterfeit in forging Books he means were deceived by them that paint XLIX That it is not lawful to reverence Images nor to give any honour to insensible things Answer NOW we are come indeed to the business but they seem afraid to touch it For first instead of saying it is not lawful to worship Images as it was before when Bishop Montague answered this Book now they dwindle it into reverence of them And then they fallaciously tack to this a Proposition of another nature that no honour is to be given to insensible things Which is a new Calumny for we do upon some occasions give honour