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
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
Scriptures are hard to be understood but that there are some things therein hard to be understood and those things in St. Paul's Epistles The rest of the Scripture notwithstanding this may be easy and the hard places he doth not say are wrested by every body but only by such as are unlearned and unstable Let us but learn and be stedfastly fixed in the Principles of Religion and practice accordingly then we shall not be in that danger but may read the Revelation it self without hazarding our Salvation Nothing will be in danger of Destruction by reading the Scriptures humbly and piously as they themselves teach us to do but only Men's Vices and the Roman Church which it is easy to see in that hard Book The Revelation is doomed in due time unto Destruction For without understanding every particular Passage one may easily see in general with a little help that Rome is there intended and not Pagan Rome but Christian which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State The following Text is like to this which doth not say VIII Acts 30. That the Eunuch could understand nothing in the Scriptures for then he would not have troubled himself to read them but that he could not understand that place of the Prophet which he was reading when Philip met with him Which was obscure to him only in part not in the whole before he was converted to Christianity but is not so to us who enjoy the glorious Light of the Gospel In which there are some things we cannot understand neither with a Guide nor without But other things as I said are so plain that we cannot mistake them unless we do it wilfully Against which there in no help tho we had the most Infallible Guide that ever was The next place speaks not one word of the difficulty of the Scriptures but rather supposes them to be easy enough even in those matters of which Christ was speaking XXIV Luke 25. XXIV Luke 25. if the Apostles had not been then fools and slow of heart Which Names they had not deserved if the Scriptures had been so hard that it was not their fault they could not understand them before he expounded them The things they read there were not in themselves difficult but the Disciples did not at that time sufficiently attend to what was written For if they could not as this Man affirms have understood them I do not see how they could be justly blamed by our Saviour much less so severely reprehended Besides it is to be observed both of this place and the former that they speak of the Prophetical Writings in which there are greater Obscurities than in other Parts of Scriptures and yet even these if they had not been Fools might have been understood without putting our Saviour to the pains of expounding them One would be tempted to think the Man distracted when he set down the next place V. Rev. 1. V. Revel 1. to prove his Position For the sealed Book which the Angel said no man could read was not the Bible but the ensuing Prophecy which our Saviour presently after opened and hath in some measure let us into its meaning I beseech the Reader to mark what a dolt this Man is who makes the Book of Scripture to be shut with so many Seals that even in St. John 's and the Apostles times none could be found either in Heaven or Earth able to open the same or look therein For what is the consequence of this if it be true but that the Bible must be quite thrown away and neither Priest nor Bishop nor Pope nor Council look therein For they cannot be more able than St. John and the rest of the Apostles O that all People would see by what sottish Guides they are led on in darkness If he had thought that heap of Texts which follow would have done him any Service we should have had their words no doubt and not merely the Chapter and Verse but they are set down only for show and the V. Revelat. is reckoned again to make up the Tale. The Holy Fathers are mentioned for no other end their words being so full and so numerous on our side that it would fill a bigger Book than this if I should muster them up Particularly those very Fathers whom he quotes and in the very Books he mentions are of our minds But it is sufficient for the ordinary Reader to observe that at this Man's rate of proving no Body must read the Scriptures no not such as St. Ambrose if the Scriptures be such a Sea as he speaks of a depth of Prophetical Riddles But the truth is St. Ambrose doth not say what this Man makes him speak Not that it is a depth c. but that it hath in it profound Senses and a depth of Prophetical Riddles It hath so and it hath also plain places in it which are not so deep but they may be fathomed by ordinary even by shallow Capacities St. Austin saith nothing contrary to this but must be supposed to know enough tho much less than what he did not know And so must the rest of the Fathers be understood or else the Scripture is good for nothing if even such Men as Dionysius Gregory the Great c. could understand little or nothing of it If what they say be to his purpose it is concerning themselves and not others and therefore they ought to have refrained from reading the Scripture as well as the Vulgar What then will become of the Common People if their greatest Guides could know so little of the Mind of God His last Author he took upon trust or else is an egregious Falsifier For there is nothing to that purpose in the Chapter he quotes L. VII cap. 20. There are words to that effect in the 25th Chapter where Irenaeus writing against those who denied the Revelation of St. John to be a Divine Book saith Tho I do not understand it yet I suppose there is a deeper sense in the Words and not measuring those things nor judging of them by my reasonings but giving more to Faith I esteem them to be higher than to be comprehended by me but I do not reject that which I cannot understand but admire it the more because I am not able to understand it Now with what face could this Man apply that to the whole Scripture which is spoken only of the Book of the Revelation Let the Reader judg by this what honestly he is to expect in other Quotations IV. He makes us say next That Apostolical Traditions and Ancient Customs of the Church not found in the Written Word are not to be received nor do oblige us Answer THIS is a downright Calumny for we have ever owned that Apostolical Traditions if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible are to be received and followed if delivered by them as of necessary Obligation But we do likewise say That we know no such
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
Traditions for those which have been called so have been rejected even by the Roman Church it self or having received them they have laid them aside again In short they sometimes pretend to Traditions where there are none and where there are they have forsaken them and in several Cases they pervert them and turn them into another thing As they have done for instance with Purgatory-fire which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgment and not till then but they have kindled already and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein As for ancient Customs sometimes called also Traditions they have not been always alike nor in all places one and the same But the Church of England declares That whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions i. e Customs and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly c. They are the very words of our XXXIVth Article of Religion Which teaches withal That every particular or National Church hath Authority to change and abolish such Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority c. And now what hath this Babbler to alledge out of our Bible against this Truly Nothing at all but only the word Tradition which he is very ignorant if he do not know that we own For we affirm That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions And of such the Apostle speaks in 2 Thess II. 15. 2 Thess II. 15. which is thus expounded by Theodoret Keep the Rule of Doctrine the words delivered to you by us which we both Preached when we were present with you and wrote when we were absent So that the things which were spoken were not different from those which were written but the very same He spoke when he was with them what he wrote when he was gone from them Whence it is clear indeed That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth were of equal Authority with what was written as this man gravely saith for they were the same And it is also certain as he adds That before the New Testament was written all was delivered by word of mouth But what then Therefore Apostolical Traditions are to be received Yes because what was delivered by word of mouth was the very same which afterwards was written But here is no shadow of proof that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written Nor is there more in the next place 2 Thess III. 6. 2 Thess III. 6. but much less for there is not a syllable of word of mouth and Theodoret expresly says That by Tradition here the Apostle means not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Words but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Works that is he bids them follow his Example as St. Chrysostom also understands it which he proves to be the meaning by what follows where he saith the Apostle teaches what he had delivered by his Example For your selves know how ye ought to follow us for we behaved not our selves disorderly among you c. v. 7 8. Wherefore as I may better say than this man doth in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let all good men withdraw ftom them who thus falsly pretend to Tradition when they dare not stand to the Interpretations of the best of the Ancient Fathers and walk disorderly by breaking their own Rule which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous consent Counc of Trent Sess IV. From hence he runs back like a distracted man who catches at any thing at random to the First Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 2. which one would have expected in the Front But perhaps he was sensible it had nothing in it but the bare word Tradition to his purpose and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader 's mind would be possessed with a false Notion which would make any thing go down with him And the truth is there is nothing here for his turn For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apostle be about matters of Order and Decency as one would think by what follows concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered they themselves acknowledge such Traditions do not oblige in all places and times If the Apostle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine how doth it appear that now they are not written As that about the Holy Communion is which the Apostle speaks of in the latter part of that Chapter v. 23 c. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition I mean shamefully forsaken it by leaving off the ministration of the Cup to the people which according to what the Apostle saith he received from the Lord and delivered unto them ought to be given as much as the Bread Consider then I beseech you with what Conscience or Sense this man could say That we reject all Traditions when we receive this for instance more fully than themselves And how he abuses St. Paul in making him as schismatically uncharitable as himself by representing him as disowning us for his Brethren which St. Austin durst not do by the Donatists who are so far from forgetting him in all things that we remember him and his words better than they do and keep to his Traditions as I said just as he hath delivered them unto us Poor man he thinks he hath made a fine speech for St. Paul and made him say to us quite contrary to that he says to the Corinthians Whereas according to Theodoret another kind of Interpreter than he the Apostle dispraises the Corinthians as much as he makes him dispraise us For these words saith he do not contain true Praise but he speaks ironically and in truth reprehends them as not having kept the Orders which he had set them As if he had said You have full well observed the Traditions which I left with you when there is such unbecoming behaviour among you in the time of Divine Service Which no body need be told unless he be such an Ideot as this is not a form of Commendation but of Reproof Lastly He comes from express Scripture to none at all for he betakes himself to Reasoning and asks a very doughty question If nothing be to be believed but only what is left us written wherein should the Church have exercised her self from Adam to Moses the space of Two thousand six hundred years Let me ask him another How doth he prove nothing was written all this time Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him if not out of Ancient Records It is more likely there were Writings before his than that there were not However our saying There were can no more be confuted than his saying There were not can be proved If the Reader be not satisfied with this he bids him see more Scriptures and names near a dozen places in
never a one of which there is any mention much less express mention of Tradition And in the last the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver are expresly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes XV. Acts 28. For it is said v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude and delivered the EPISTLE What an unlucky man is this to confute himself after this fashion As for his Fathers he durst not quote the words of any but two only St. Basil and St. Chrysostome The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil * De Spiritu Sancto c. 27. into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition which as it belongs not at all to his subject so it contradicts his sense in another place Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith where he saith It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance either to reject what is written or to add any thing that is not written But admit those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil's they are manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that sense wherein he takes them For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them For instance the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing the Consecration of him that is baptized standing in Prayer on the first day of the week and all the time between Easter and Whitsontide And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty such as Praying towards the East and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture Nay he proceeds so far as to say in the words following that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel or rather contract it into a bare Name A saying so senseless or rather impious that if these men had but a grain of common honesty they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world by such spurious stuff as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is As for St. Chrysostome it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church And unless they be confirmed by Scripture he contradicts himself in saying Traditions not written are worthy of belief For upon Psal 95. he saith expresly If any thing unwritten be spoken the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. understanding of the auditors halts and wavers sometimes inclining sometimes haesitating sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying and again receiving it as probable but when the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit Sav. written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth it confirms and establishes both the words of the speaker and the minds of the hearers V. Next he makes us affirm That a man by his own understanding or private spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture Answer THere is no such crude saying as this among us But that which we affirm is That a man may in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed rightly understand the Holy Scripture so far as is necessary for his Salvation Who should understand or judge for him but his own understanding we can no more understand than who should see for him but his own eyes if he have any and be not blind And what is there to be found in our Bibles expresly against this The first place is far from express for the gift of Prophecying doth not to every one expresly signifie the interpreting of Scripture 1 Cor. XII 8. it having manifestly another signification in some places viz. Inditing Hymns Besides if this place were pertinent forbidding all to interpret Scripture but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy their Church must not meddle with that work for they have not that Gift no more than those that follow discerning of Spirits divers kinds of Tongues c. His second place is as impertinent 2 Pet. 1.20 21. for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture but of the Prophetical Scripture it self Which was not of private interpretation that is the proper invention of them that Prophecied for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth not at the will and pleasure of man but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things or foretold future were acted by the Spirit of God and spake those things which were suggested by Him These are the words of Menochius which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this mans Glosses who babbles here about a company of men and those very holy who are to do he knows not what which private and prophane men cannot do As if all private men were prophane and all companies of men were holy The Lord help them who follow such Guides as these The third place 1 Joh. IV. 1. if it say any thing to this purpose is expresly against him For it is a direction to every Christian not to be of too hasty belief But to try the Spirits that is Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God Now how should Christians try or examine them but by using their own understandings to discern between pretended inspirations and true If they must let others judge for them they cross the Apostle's Doctrine for they do not try but trust To tell us that their Church is infallible and therefore ought to judg for us is a pretence that must also be tried above all things else and in which every man 's particular judgment must be satisfied or else he cannot with reason believe it And to believe it without reason is to be a fool Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits but lays down these two in the following words 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh he was a deceiver v. 2. And 2ly if any man rejected the Apostles and would not hear â—hem he was not to be received himself v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error This makes it plain the Apostle did not leave them then without means of judging aright as he hath not left us now who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church which cannot be tried by particular men is past my understanding and I believe he did not understand it himself but used it as a big phrase to amuse
our sins to any man but to God only Answer THis is a most impudent falshood for we press this as a Duty in some cases for the quieting of mens Consciences when they are burdned with Guilt particularly before they receive the Communion and when they are sick But that which we affirm in this matter is That God doth not require all Christians to make a particular Confession privately to a Priest of every sin he hath committed tho only in thought under pain of being damn'd if he do not Much less do we believe such Confession to be Meritorious and Satisfactory for sin Nor do the Scriptures which he quotes prove a syllable of this doctrine The first he alledges III. Matth. 5 6. Matth. III. 5 6. speaks of those who confessed their sins before they received Baptism of John the Baptist But what is this to Confession of sins after Baptism And besides there is not a word of their confessing them to John nor of particular Confession of every sin And therefore Maldonate tells such raw Divines as this We ought not to rely upon this Testimony for it is manifest it doth not treat of Sacramental Confession which was not yet instituted And Bellarmine their great Master durst venture no further than to call this which was done at John's Baptism a figure of their Sacramental Confession And this poor man himself concludes no more from hence than this That we may confess our sins who doubts of it not only to God but also to man But this is very short of what he undertook to prove by express Texts That we ought to confess c. Act. XIX 18 19. Nor dare he venture to conclude any more from the next place but that we may confess our sins to men XIX Acts 18 19. Where he bids us Behold Confession but doth not tell us to whom So we are never the wiser because it might be to God and that before all the Company as the words seem to import But he bids us also Behold Satisfaction because several people not the same he spake of before brought forth their curious Books which were worth a great deal of money and burnt them before all men A plain and publick demonstration indeed that they detested those Magical Arts whereby they gave also satisfaction to all men of their sincere renunciation of such wicked practices But what proof is this of a Compensation made to God hereby for their Sins which deserved of him an acquittance His Third Text is still more remote from the business V. Numb 6 7. Numb V. 6 7. and therefore alledged by wiser heads than his such as Bellarmine only as a figure of Sacramental Confession the least shadow of which doth not appear For there is neither Confession of all sins here mentioned but only of that particular for which the Sacrifice was offered nor Confession of the sin to the Priest but rather to the Lord as the words more plainly signifie If a man or wâ—â—an commit any sin that men commit and do trespass against the LORD and that person be guilty then they shall confess their sin which they have done An unbiassed Reader would hence conclude they were bound to confess their sin to the LORD against whom they had trespassed His other Scriptures perhaps he was sensible were nothing to the purpose and therefore he only sets down the Chapter and Verse as his manner is when he bids See more where nothing is to be seen For the first is only the same we had out of St. Matthew The next V. James 16. speaks of one man's confessing his sins to his neighbour The next we had before under the former Head And the last I am willing to think is mis-printed or his mind was much amiss when he noted it XVII Matth. 14. His Fathers also have only the word Confession not saying whether to God or to man and he thinks that enough But it is a shameless thing to quote St. Chrysostom for this Doctrine who in so many places exhorts his people only to confess their sins in private to God that Sixtus Senensis is forced to expound him as if he spake only against the necessity of such Publick Confession as was abolished at Constantinople But Petavius who proves there was no such Publick Confession is fain to desire the Reader to be so kind as not to take St. Chrysostom's words strictly but spoken popularly in a heat of declamation And we are content to do so if they would be so just as to do the same in other cases But still we cannot think St. Chrysostom so very hot-headed but that sometimes he would have been so cool as to have spoken more cautiously and not have so frequently over-lasht as they make him That which he quotes out of Ambrose he is told by Bellarmine is Greg. Nyssen so little doth this poor man know of their own Authors As for his sitting to hear Confessions if his Author be worth any thing which is much suspected by Learned men of his own Communion it is meant of Publick Confession such as was in use in his time XVI That Pardons and Indulgences were not in the Apostles times Answer NOthing truer by the Confession of their own Authors particularly Antoninus * Part I. Tit. X c. 3. in his Sums Of these we have nothing expresly neither in the Scriptures nor out of the sayings of the Ancient Doctors The same is said by Durandus and many others who have been so honest as to confess That such Indulgences and Pardons as are now in use are but of late invention There being no such thing heard of in the Ancient Church as a Treasure of the Church made up of the Satisfaction of Christ and of the Saints out of which these Indulgences are now granted for the profit of the dead as well as of the living Whereas of old they were nothing but Relaxations of Canonical Penances when long and severe Humiliations had been imposed upon great Offenders which sometimes were thought fit to be remitted upon good considerations either as to their severity or as to their length Now this which was done by any Bishop as well as he of Rome we are not against But such Indulgences are in these ages of no use because the Penitential Canons themselves are relaxed or rather laid aside and no such tedious and rigorous Penances are inflicted which the Church of Rome hath exchanged for Auricular Confession and a slight Penance soon finished The first place he produces out of our Bible to countenance their Indulgences 2 Cor. II. 10. we had before to prove men may forgive sins Sect. XIV and others have alledged it to prove men may satisfie for their sins now it is pressed for the service of Indulgences What will not these men make the Scripture say if they may have the handling of it But after all this will not serve their purpose for the Pardon the Apostle here speaks of was nothing
performs him those good Offices which the Philippians should have done had they not been absent But he so much neglected himself while he was wholly intent upon serving the Apostle that he fell dangerously sick and lay for a time without hope of Life Finding so little relief in these places of Scripture he betakes himself to arguing from that Article of our Creed The Communion of Saints Which Bellarmine L. 1. de Indulg c. 3. from whom he borrows these goodly proofs manages on this manner We are taught by this Article that all the Faithful are Members of one another being a kind of living Body Now as living Members help one another so the Faithful communicate good things among themselves especially when those which are superfluous to the one are necessary or profitable to the other This is admirable Catholick Doctrine The Saints have more than they need and therefore they communicate it to us for the supply of our wants But this should have been proved and not supposed that the Saints have more than enough something to spare and that their Passions were Satisfactions and Superabundant Satisfactions After which it would still remain a pretty undertaking to prove that because one Member helps another when it suffers any thing therefore the Sufferings of one Member will Cure another Member the Pain for instance of the long Finger will free the little Finger from the pain which it it suffers Thus the Actions and Passions of Saints are not imparted to us as this Man presumes from the Relation we have one to another and yet they serve for very good purposes to the Church as I have already shown And one would imagine he distrusted this Argument after he had set it down because he runs back again to the Scriptures A great Company of which he heaps up to no more purpose than if he had quoted so many Texts of Aristotle I will give the Reader a taste of one or two The first is CXIX Psalm 63. I am a companion of all them that fear thee and of them that keep thy precepts Thus the words run expresly in our Bible Now let me beseech the Reader to consider what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant for the Church Militant or Patient or for both he can find contained in this Text as he saith there is in all the Passages he quotes Let him look into the next and I will be his Bonds man if he meet with a word of any Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant but only mention of many Members which make up but one Body 1 Cor. XII 12. And what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant can one gather out of St. Paul's care for all the Churches 2 Cor. XI 28. As for LIII Isaiah the Church always thought it a Prophecy of the Sufferings of Christ and not of the Saints and so the Apostles interpret it in many places If he mean LIII Psalm 9. as one Edition of his Book hath it there are not so many Verses in it and we should be as far to seek for any sense if we should see more and therefore I will look no further What the Fathers affirm he bids us also see but doth not tell us and I cannot trust him so much as to think it worth my pains to look into the places to which he points us St. Austin I am sure the first he names is abused by him who hath not a word of this matter in his Second Chapter of his Book about the Care of the Dead which is altogether concerning this Question Whether the Dead suffer any thing for want of Burial Upon the LXI Psalm indeed which he quotes at last he mentions that place of St. Paul 1 Coloss 24. and discourses how Christ suffered not only in his own Person but in his Members every one of which suffers what comes to his share and all of them together fill up what is wanting of the Sufferings of Christ So that none hath Superabundant Sufferings but he expresly saith That we every one of us Pro modulo nostro according to our small measure Pay what we owe mark that not more than we are obliged unto which is the Romish Doctrine but what we are bound unto and to the utmost of our Power we cast in as it were the stint or measure of Sufferings which will not be filled up till the end of the World Which is directly against what this Man and his Church would have For they that bring in but their share and nothing more than they owe have no redundant Passions out of which flow superfluous Satisfaction XVIII That no Man can do Works of Supererogation Answer HOW should he When no Man can Supererogate till he have first erogated In plainer terms no Man can have any thing to spare to bestow upon others for this they mean by Supererogating till he hath done all that is bound to do for himself And therefore Bishop Andrews * Resp ad Apolog. Bellarmini p. 196. well calls these works of Supererogation proud pretences of doing more than a man needs when he hath not done all he ought For these two things are necessary to make such Works as they mean by this word First That a Man have done all that God's Law commands Secondly That he have done something which it commandeth not But who is there that hath done all which God's Law requires That is who is without all Sin Therefore who can by doing some voluntary things to which he is not bound do above his Duty when he falls so much below it in things expresly commanded There is another great flaw also in this Doctrine for they suppose precepts to require a lower degree of Goodness and counsels a more high or excellent Which is false for Gods Precepts require the heigth of Virtue and Councils only show the means whereby we may more easily in some circumstances attain it As forsaking all keeping Virginity are not perfections but the Instruments of it as they may be used The places which he brings to prove men may do such works are first XIX Matth. 21. XIX Mat. 21. Where there is not a word of doing any thing which might be bestowed upon others but only of laying up treasure to himself in Heaven by doing a thing extraordinary We do not say all things are commanded but some are counselled yet there are men of great Name in the Church such as St. Chrysostome and St. Hilary who call this a Commandment which Christ gave the young man And so it is if he would come and follow Christ that is be one of his constant attendants as the Apostles were who had left all that they might give up themselves wholly to his Service The next is no more to the purpose 1 Cor. VII 25. 1 Cor. VII 25. for no body thinks there is any command to live single but it was a prudent Counsel of the Apostle at that time when the Church
because they faithfully reprehended themselves and therefore guile was not found in their mouth because if they had said they had no sin they had deceived themselves It is plain by this they did not look upon such persons as without all sin but only sincere and intire in their obedience to Christ's Commands Nay it is evident Zachary himself whom St. Luke so highly commends was not thus blameless as to be without all sin for he was much to blame in not believing the Angel who brought him a message from God and was punished for not believing it by being struck dumb till the Angel's word was fulfilled All his other Scriptures therefore and Fathers proving that which none of us deny are here alledged in vain He next of all saith we maintain XXI That Faith only justifieth and that Good Works are not absolutely necessary to Salvation Answer WHat shall one do with a man that opposeth he knows not what The first part of this Proposition is St. Paul's who in effect saith the same III. Rom. 28. II. Gal. 16. Therefore no man should be so bold as to contradict it but rather explain it which it is easie to do for when we say Faith only justifies this Faith includes in it a sincere purpose of good living without which we believe it will not justifie And therefore the second part of it is a new slander That we affirm Good works are not necessary to Salvation the direct contrary to which we heartily believe For it is absolutely necessary to our Salvation we all affirm that we act according to our Faith tho by such Good works we can merit nothing neither Justification nor Salvation But we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ by Faith not for our own works or deserving as the words are in the XIth Article of our Religion So that when we say by Faith it is manifest we exclude not Good works but only the merit of them And thus Luther himself shows upon V. Gal. That Faith alone will not suffice tho Faith alone justifies Therefore all his Scriptures might have been spared especially the first of them 1 Cor. XIII 2. 1 Cor. XIII 2. which speaks of a miraculous Faith and besides doth not contradict us who believe Faith without works will not avail to Salvation though let us do never so much we can never merit it by what we do The second Text II. Jam. 24. James II. 24. is agreeable to what we say That the Faith which justifies includes in it a purpose of well-doing Such an one as was in Abraham whose Faith in purposing to offer up Isaac was imputed to him for Righteousness tho he had not actually done as he purposed to do In like manner if any man sincerely profess the Christian Faith and be baptized he is justified tho he have not as yet brought forth the fruit of it in good works witness the Eunuch VIII Acts 37. which if he should not produce afterward he could not be saved St. Austin in that very Book and Chapter which he quotes expresly saith Good Works follow him that is justified they do not precede him that is to be justified What doth he think of the Thief upon the Cross who only believed and was not so much as baptized II James 14. is not contrary to what we say but according to it Mr. Calvin himself upon these very words saith Therefore we are saved by Faith because it joins us to God which is done no other way but that living by his Spirit we be governed by him St. Paul and St. James agree very well though the one say We are not justified by Faith only which is St. James's Doctrine and the other St. Paul in effect says We are justified by Faith only when he saith We are justified by Faith without Works As he shows in Abraham's case where he opposes Justification by Faith and Justification by Works and affirms Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith St. James alledging the same case and the very same words proves he was justified by Works and not by Faith only Can any one think they make use of the same instance for quite contrary ends It is a wonder men do not learn this plain and easie truth from hence That Faith alone having in it a purpose of well-doing enters us into the state of Justification before we have done what we purpose but Good Works are necessary to continue us in this state and so may be said to justifie us that is continue our Justification which Faith only cannot do The last place V. Gal. 6. we have noted so well that we expresly declare in our XIIth Article That Good works cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's Judgment these are the great things we deny yet they do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith And the Doctrine of St. Austin * L. de Fâ—de Operib c. 14. is perfectly ours which I will set down because it explains all that I have said A good life is inseparable from Faith yea in truth Faith it self is a good life And again * Lib. Quest 83. q. 76. How can he that is justified by Faith chuse but work Righteousness But if any man when he hath believed presently depart this life the Justification of Faith remains with him no good work preceding because he came to it not by Merit but by Grace nor following because he was not suffered to remain in this life From whence it is manifest what the Apostle saith We conclude a man is justified by Faith without works All his other Scriptures therefore serve only to shew his Ignorance if not his Malice in charging us with the denial of that which we affirm That good works are necessary to Salvation His Fathers he had better have kept to himself for they frequently say Faith only justifies Even Origen * In Cap. III. upon that very Book the Epistle to the Romans affirms that Justification of Faith alone suffices tho a man hath not done any works Which he proves by the example of the Thief upon the Cross and the Woman in VII Luke to whom our Saviour said Go in peace thy Faith hath saved thee But perhaps saith he some reading this may think he may neglect to do well since Faith alone sufficeth to Justification To whom we say That if any man doth wickedly after Justification without doubt he despiseth the Grace of Justification Neither doth a man receive Forgiveness of sins for this that he may think he hath a License given him to sin again for a Pardon is given him not for sins to come but for sins that are past And what he saith upon the next Chapter not the Vth. as this man quotes him but the IVth doth not contradict this Faith cannot be imputed to those who believe in Christ but do not put off the old man with his unrighteous
to be raised out of his Grave XXII Luke 18. That which follows also in XXII Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine c. plainly belongs to the Paschal Feast as they stand in St. Luke who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Institution of the Sacrament and speaks of the Cup that is there administred as different from the Cup he had before mentioned If this Man had understood his business he should rather have alledged XXVI Matth. 29. where immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament he adds these words But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine c. which St. Luke puts before the Institution But it is a wonderful stupidity to conclude from hence as this Man doth That Christ will drink his own Blood in Heaven or else he concludes nothing because there is no material Bread and Drink in use there Menochius to name no others might have taught him better who thus expounds this passage Our Saviour speaks after the manner of men who being to depart from their Friends for a long time are wont to say We shall Eat and Drink together no more As I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day c. when I shall drink ANOTHER New and Coelestial Wine with you in the Banquet of Eternal Glory And he might have known that we from hence with a wonderful force to use his own phrase conclude That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration because our Saviour calls that which he said before was the New Testament in his Blood the fruit of the Vine that is Wine And so not only we but Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin Hierom Epiphanius Bede Euthymius and Theophylact refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Christ before mentioned as Maldonate himself acknowledges and could not produce so much as one Father to the contrary He might have known also that a great many of his own Church VI. John 51. do not think St. John VI. 51. and other verses of that Chapter speaks of Sacramental Bread as for other reasons so for this that if he did then such as Judas who eat the Sacramental Bread must have Eternal Life Which we find our Lord promises v. 40 47. to those who believe on him and this we take to be the eating he here speaks of as appears by the whole scope of the Chapter For if any such Conversion as they fancy in the Sacrament and call Transubstantiation could be proved out of this Text it would prove the Flesh of Christ is turned into Bread rather than the Bread into his Flesh because he saith The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh To make this good literally it is manifest his Flesh must be made Bread See into what Absurdities these men draw themselves by their perverse Interpretations It is not worth considering what he saith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verse there being those of his own Church as well as he that by living Bread understand Bread that gives Life which is must suitable to the words preceding and unto v. 33. We have noted often enough our Saviours words both in XXVI Matth. 26. and XXII Luke 19. And therefore do not say as he slanders us That Christ gave and the Apostles received nothing else but bare Bread for it was the Sacrament of Christ's Body as Druthmarus and a great many more Ancient than he expound those words This is my Body We believe also and thankfully acknowledge that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ But those are St. Paul's words 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviours which spoils this man's Observation that our Lord calls it his Body both before and at the very giving of it Which if he had done tho these as I said are St. Paul's words who only calls it the Communion of his Body c. it would prove nothing but that the Bread is his Body which we believe and they are so absurd as to deny Tho we have bidden them note how St. Paul in that very place he next mentions 1 Cor. XI often calls that which he saith is the Lord's Body by the name of Bread v. 26 27 28. But they shut their Eyes and will not take any notice of it Why should we then regard his frivolous Argument to which he at last betakes himself against our true and real receiving of Christ by Faith Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a sufficient Answer in his Notes upon this Chapter We receive him after a Spiritual manner By Faith on our behalf and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ So there is no need either of our going up to Heaven or Christ's coming down to us as he sillily argues His Ancient Fathers have been so often viewed and shown to be against them by our Writers and that lately particularly the two first he mentions that I will not go about a needless labour to give an account of them XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds and that one alone sufficeth not Answer VEry true for so Christ appointed so the Apostles both received and gave it so the Church of Christ for above 1000 years practised and wo be to them who alter Christ's Institution Which cannot be justified by such fallacious Arguments as this man here uses instead of giving us express Scripture for it That he promised but alas could find none and therefore makes little trifling reasonings his refuge First from VI. John 51. VI. John 51 53. which I have shewn doth not speak of Sacramental eating but if it did the next Verse but one he could not but see told him that it is as necessary to drink Christ's blood as to eat his flesh To which the Answer is not so easy as he fancies for we have only Dr. Kellison's word for it that the conjunction and is used for or Men may put off any thing by such shifts and it is as sufficient and as learned for us to say it is expresly and in our Bible and not or and you do nothing if you confute us not as you undertook by the express words of our own Bible How strangely do men forget what they promise and what they are about Besides the Fathers from these very words prove the necessity * See late Treatise against Communion in one Kind Ch. 3. of giving both the body and blood of Christ and attribute a distinct effect to each of them Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose in I. Cor. XI The flesh of Christ was delivered for the salvation of the body and the blood was poured out for our souls He should have proved not barely affirmed that Christ gave the Sacrament to the Disciples at Emaus XXIV Luke 30 35. XXIV Luke 30 35. We say he did not though
if he had it is to be supposed there was Wine as well as bread else it will prove it is lawful for their Church to consecrate as well as to give the Communion in one kind alone Nor are there any of the ancient Interpreters who thus expound it St. Austin and Theophylact only apply it allegorically and mystically to the Sacrament as Jansenius ingenuously acknowledges the vertue of which may be here insinuated as Theophylact phrases it not expresly declared to enlighten the eyes of men The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew is thus to be understood or else we must make St. Paul's breaking bread in the Ship among the Soldiers and Mariners Acts XXVIII to be giving the Sacrament for that Writer joins this together with the other The later Scholastick Writers all expound it of common breaking of bread such as Albertus Magnus Bonaventure Dionys Cathusianus nay Tho. Aquinas himself whatsoever this man is pleased to say as any one may be satisfied who can look into him in Tertull. Dist XXI Q. 55. It is more impudence to quote II. Act. 42. to prove one kind to be sufficient when all acknowledge this Action was performed in the Apostolical Assemblies by giving the Wine as well as the Bread Therefore breaking of bread is used as a short form of Speech to signify they had Communion one with another at the same holy Feast He durst not here quote so much as one single Father as hitherto he hath done every where else because they are all manifestly against him As not only Cassander and such as he acknowledge but Cardinal Bonel * Rer. Liturg l. 2. c. 18. himself saith that Always and every where from the beginning of the Church to the Twelfth Century the faithful communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine XLI That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice and that the Mass is not a Sacrifice Answer HE began to speak some truth in this Proposition but could not hold out till he came to the end Falshood is so natural to them that it will not let them declare the whole truth when that which they said already would directly lead them to it For having said we do not believe there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church why did he not conclude that we deny the Mass to be a proper Sacrifice This had been honest for it is the very thing we have constantly said because proper sacrificing is a destructive Act by which that which is offered to God is plainly destroyed That is so changed that it ceases to be what before it was This they themselves confess and it is from this principle among others that we conclude there is no proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament Malachy I. 11. It is manifest Mal. I. 17. from the current Consent of the Ancient Interpreters speaks of an improper Sacrifice viz. prayer and thanksgiving represented by the Incense So Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Chrysostome and divers others His reasoning upon this place therefore is very childish for the Offering here spoken of is neither Christ sacrificed on the Cross nor Christ in the Sacrament for he cannot be often sacrificed But if we will apply it to the Sacrament it is the Commemorative Sacrifice which is there made of the Sacrifice of Christ with the sacrifice of Prayer Praises Thangsgivings and the oblation of our selves Souls and Bodies to him Such a Sacrifice we acknowledge is offered in the Holy Communion The Psalmist in CX Psam 4. Psal CX 4. speaks of the Priesthood of Christ which endures for ever in Heaven not of any Sacrificing Priest here on Earth where he presents himself to God in the most holy place not made with hands Nothing can be more contrary to the Scripture than to say Melchisedeck sacrificed Bread and Wine unless we will make his offering them to Abraham unto whom he brought them forth as several of the Fathers consent to be a proper Sacrifice But what dare not such men say when he affirms that Christ exercises an eternal Priesthood upon Earth tho the Apostle expresly tells us the contrary VIII Heb. 4 Some of the Fathers indeed make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and that which Melchisedeck brought forth but this is against the Popish Notion who will not have Bread and Wine to be sacrificed in the Eucharist though the Fathers expresly say they are His Argument from XXII Luke 19. is very idle For when Christ saith This is my Body which is given for you the meaning is which I have offered to be a Sacrifice to God X. John 17. and am about actually to give in Sacrifice for you And so their own Vulgar Interpreter understood it and translates this word 1 Cor. XI 24. tradetur not which was then given but was to be given viz. to die And so he constantly interprets the other part not is shed but shall be shed And if he spake here in the next words XXII Luke 20. of what was given to the Apostles in the Sacrament it would prove that the Blood of Christ is shed in the Sacrament which is directy contrary to their own Doctrine which makes it an unbloody Sacrifice All the other Scriptures speak of the Priesthood of Christ which none can exercise but Christ himself See them who will he will find this true Not one of his Fathers have a word of a proper Sacrifice much less of a Propitiatory but of a reasonable unbloody mystical heavenly Sacristce which proves the contrary to what they would have As the Fathers do also when they say it is a Sacrifice and then immediately correct themselves in some such words as these or rather a Commemoration of a Sacrifice viz. of Christ on the Cross a Memorial instead of a Sacrifice And thus Aquinas himself understood it XLII That Sacramental Vnction is not to be used to the Sick Answer THERE are many things Sacramental which are not Sacraments and others called Sacraments by the Ancients which are not properly so as the Sign of the Cross the Bread given to Catechumens washing of the Saints Feet c. because they were Signs and Symbols of some sacred thing So was Vnction but not appointed by our Saviour to be a Sacrament of the New Testament This he should have proved if he could have perform'd any thing and that it confers grace from the work done or hath a power by Divine Institution to cause holiness and righteousness in us as the Roman Catechism defines a Sacrament But it was impossible and therefore he uses these dubious words Sacramental Vnction which we see no reason to use unless we could hope for such miraculous Cures as were performed therewith by the Apostles V. Jam. 4. His first Text V. Jam. 4. hath not a word of Sacrament or Sacramental in it and plainly speaks not of their Extream Vnction which is for the health of the Soul when a man is a
dying but of anointing for the health of the Body and the restoring a man to life Therefore he might have spared his Discourse about the matter and form c. of a Sacrament for their Sacrament is not here described but an holy Rite for a purpose as much different from theirs as the Soul is from the Body and Life from Death VI. Mark 13. Mark VI. 13. His own best Writers confess belongs not to this matter containing only an adumbration and a figure of the Sacrament but was not the Sacrament it self as Menochius expounds the place according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent which saith this Sacrament as they call it was insinuated in VI. Mark Now that is said to be insinuated which is not expresly propounded mark that but adumbrated and obscurely indicated See how ignorant this man is in his own Religion XVI Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing but only of laying on of hands and yet this man hath the face to ask as if the Cause were to be carried by impudence if they are not sick in their wits who oppose so plain Scriptures When nothing is plainer than that these places speak of Miraculous Cures as they themselves would confess If they would speak the truth to use his words and shame the Devil For Cardinal Cajetan a man of no small learning expresly declares neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned speak of Sacramental Vnction Particularly upon those words of St. James which is the only place the best of them dare rely upon he thus writes It doth not appear that he speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction either from the words or from the effect but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed in the Gospel for the cure of the Sick For the Text doth not say Is any man sick unto death but absolutely is any man sick And the effect was the relief of the sick man on whom forgiveness of sins was bestowed only conditionally Whereas Extream Vnction is not given but when a man is at the point of death and directly tends as its form sheweth to remission of sins Besides St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the sick man to pray and anoint him which is disagreeing to the Rite of Extream Vnction Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him for he was no Friend to Protestants but would not lie for the Service of his Cause And before him such Great men as Hugo de S. Victori Bonaventure Alex. Halensis Altisiodor all taught that Extream Vnction was not instituted by Christ His Fathers say not a word of this Extream Unction Both Origen and Bede as Estius acknowledges accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous sort of sins to the remission of which there is need of the Ministry of the Keys and so they refer it to another Sacrament as they now call it viz. that of Absolution See the Faith of this man who thus endeavours to impose upon his Readers as he doth also in the citing of St. Chrysostome who saith the same with the other two and of St. Austin who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo without adding any words of his own to signify the sense As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his Next to this he makes us say XLIII That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders And that Ordinary Vocation and Mission of Pastors is not necessary in the Church Answer HERE are Two Parts of this Proposition in both of which he notoriously slanders us and in the first of them dissembles their own Opinion For we do not say That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders but that this is not a Sacrament properly so called conferring sanctifying Grace and that the outward Sign among them is not Imposition of Hands but delivering of the Patin and Chalice concerning which the Scripture speaks not a syllable Nor is any man admitted to be a Pastor among us but by a Solemn Ordination wherein the Person to be ordained Priest professes he thinks himself truly called according to the Will of our Lord c. unto that Order and Ministry and the Bishop when he lays hands on him saith in so many words Receive the Holy Ghost c. which is the conferring that Grace which they themselves call gratis data and which the Apostle intends in the Scriptures he mentions 1 Tim. IV. 14. In the first of which 1 Tim. IV. 14. there is no express mention of Grace which he promis'd to show us in our Bible but of a Gift By which Menochius himself understands The Office and Order of a Bishop the Authority and Charge of Teaching And so several of the Ancient Interpreters such as Theodoret St. Chrysostom understands it As others take it to signify extraordinary Gifts such as those of Tongues Healing c. none think it speaks of sanctifying Grace So that I may say alluding to his own words See how plain it is that this Man doth not understand the Scripture And hath made a mere Rope of Sand in his following reasoning for there is this Mission among us of which the Apostle speaks viz. A Designation unto a special Office with Authority and Power to perform it The Apostle speaks of the same thing in 2 Tim. I. 6. 2 Tim. I. 6. where there is no mention of Grace at all but only of the Gift of God which was in him Which if we will call a Grace a word we dislike not it was not a Grace to sanctify but to inable him to perform all the Offices belonging to that Order ex gr strenuously to Preach the Gospel and to propagate the Faith c. They are the words of the same Menochius from whence I may take occasion again to say See how plain the Scripture is against him And how fouly he belies us in saying that we affirm Laying on of Hands not to be needful to them who have already in them the Spirit of God For after the Bishop hath askt the question to one to be ordained Deacon whether he trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that Office and Ministration c. And he hath answer'd I trust so then the Bishop after other Questions and Answers layeth hands on him Which is not to sanctify him for that is supposed but to impower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God The Apostles words V. Hebr. 4. are alledged after his manner to prove what none of us deny That no man may take this Office upon him unless he be called to it They who have a mind to see more may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures some of which are the same again prove nothing but a Mission by laying on of Hands which we practice
And one of them 1 Tim. V. 22. can never be proved to belong to Ordination being referred by many of no small Name to Absolution For Imposition of Hands was used in giving that as well as in giving Orders which is an unanswerable Argument that this is not a Sacrament because the only sign that can be pretended out of Scripture to belong unto it viz. Imposition of Hands is not proper to giving Orders but common to other things None of his Fathers nor any others for many Ages knew of more proper Sacraments than two only And therefore it is but to waste Paper and abuse the Readers patience to show how impertinently those whom he mentions are alledged XLIV That Priests and other Religious Persons which have vowed their Chastity to God may freely Marry notwithstanding their Vow Answer THERE is no such loose Doctrine among us But we say That it is free for Priests to Marry as well as other Persons for Marriage is honourable in all and the Bed undefiled Which signifies we think that Chastity may be preserved in Marriage as well as in Virginity Therefore we further say no man ought rashly to Vow he will never marry when he is not sure of his power to contain For this is not given to all as Christ himself saith XIX Mat. 11. but every one hath his proper gifts from God one after this manner another after that 1 Cor. VII 7. If any one hath made such a Vow we say he ought to use his endeavours to keep it but if he cannot without Sin he ought to Marry for in this case the matter of his Vow ceases This is our Doctrine which is not contrary to the Scripture XXIII Deut. 22. There is mention of a Vow in XXIII Deut. 22. but not of Chastity which he undertook to show us expresly in our Bible Alas that was impossible and so he falls a talking of Vows about other matters And yet even in such Vows as this whereof Moses speaks if a Person was not in his own power or vowed a thing impossible for him to give or a thing not acceptable to God he was not bound by his Vow 1 Tim V. â— 12. The next place 1 Tim. V. 11 12. is against him For the Apostle would not have Widows taken into the Office of Deaconesses when they were young as the Church of Rome lets Boys and Girls of Sixteen years old vow Virginity but requires Timothy to refuse such if they offered themselves to that Service and take in none under the Age of Sixty when it was likely they would have no mind to change their Condition as the younger would be apt to do Who thereby became guilty of a great fault as Menochius expounds having Damnation in departing from the Covenant they had made to devote themselves to the Service of the Church For they had not chosen Widowhood with the Judgment of Reason or just Consideration as Theophylact glosses in which case the Apostle allows them to Marry v. 14. Upon which the same Theophylact thus again Paraphrases In the first place I wish they would not make void their Contracts or Covenants but because they desire Marriage I desire it also condescending to them For it is better they should be Mistresses of Families that is look after their own House and Labour than running about to other Folks Houses be trifling and idle Which is the sense of more Ancient Fathers than he particularly of St. Cyprian who speaks of Virgins that after they had dedicated themselves to God were found in bed with men saith It was better for them to Marry than to fall into the Fire by their Offences * Epist ad Pompon His Master Tertullian saith the same speaking of this very Text. Nay St. Austin tho he do not approve of Marriage after a Vow yet resolves that such a Marriage is not to be dissolved And their own Doctors determine That when a thing is unprofitable and hinders a greater good what is promised by a Vow ought not to be kept Upon which their Dispensations are founded even in this solemn Vow of Chastity 1 Tim. V. 15. I have said the more of this because it answers what he pretends out of the 15th verse of the same Chapter where the Apostle doth not call their Marrying turning aside after Satan For he had just before given them leave or rather advised them to Marry lest they should give occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully c. that is as Theophylact explains it Give the Devil occasion to make a mock of them by drawing them into Adultery through the unstedfastness of Youth And for this very reason he thinks the Apostle endeavoured to bring them under the yoke of Marriage as his Phrase is lest being left loose they should run into the aforesaid mischiefs By this the Reader may be convinced with what Honesty this man quotes the Fathers and reproaches those that Marry after they have unadvisedly devoted themselves to single life as God's Adulterers when they say the Apostle directs them to Marry that they may not be such Adulterers In all the other Scriptures which he would have us see there is not one that speaks of the Vow of Chastity But of Vow of Offering Sacrifice or of being Nazarites which was in some cases but for a time or such like things as any one may satisfy himself that will read the places We and the Fathers do not differ in this point as I have already said and therefore I will not swell this Book by an unnecessary account of what they say in the places he mentions XLV That Fasting and Abstinence from certain Meats is not grounded on Holy Scripture nor causeth any Spiritual Good Answer FAsting that is Abstinence from all Meat and Drink is grounded on Scripture and doth much good But Fasting or Abstinence from certain Meats only is not Fasting and hath no ground in Scripture nor do we see any Spiritual Good in it but rather much hurt because it cheats men into a belief that they Fast when they Feast XXXV Jer. 5. The Prophet XXXV Jer. 5. doth not speak of fasting from any Meat whatsoever but of a total forbearance of all Wine and from dwelling in Houses or having any Land c. And all this not out of Religion but for a Civil Reason as the very Text tells us v. 7. Which laid no Obligation upon other People so to do no not upon the Israelites much less upon us Christians being an Injunction to one Family only by the Father of it Are not these men rare Interpreters of Scripture who expound it at this rate and apply it to any purpose for this very case just before was brought to prove the Obligation of Vows The next place I. Luke 15. is alledged as sillily For it proves too much an Abstinence which no man thinks himself bound unto from all Wine and Strong Drink as long as he lives Which John Baptist