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
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
Doctrine There are no Papists but confess that the most excellent parts even of the visible Church in this world are invisible or hidden For none but God who searches the heart can know certainly who are truly good men and not hypocrites And there are no Protestants who maintain that they who profess the Christian Religion who are the Church have ever been hidden and invisible But this they say that this Church hath not been always visible free from corruption and that it hath not been at all times alike visible but sometimes more sometimes less conspicuous Now these men by the Visibility of the Church mean such an illustrious state as by its glory splendor and pomp all men may be led to it This is it and no more which Protestants deny And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely but only this degree of it For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible when they met under ground and in obscure places There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes contrary to this much less expresly contrary V. Mat. 14 15. The first of them V. Mat. 14 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office that they might gather a Church to Christ So the before-named Menochius interprets those words Ye are the light of the world who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example You ought not to be hid no more than a City can be which is seated on a hill Men do not light a candle much less God to put it under a Bushel Our Saviour saith he exhorts his Disciples by this similitude that they should diligently shine both in their words and in their example and not be sparing of their pains or of themselves by withdrawing themselves from the work but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine which they could not always neither Preach in publick but some times only in private houses Christians were forced to meet together in some places and times very secretly not being able always to hold such publick visible Assemblies that all men beheld them and what they did The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err XVIII Matth. 17. and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid and this not expresly but by a consequence and that a very sensless one For whoever said or thought that no body can see a Church when it is not visible to every body It 's members no doubt see it even when it is invisible to others Any man may be seen by his Friends when he lies hid from his Enemies And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted and by them that belong to it though strangers perhaps take no notice of it especially those that are at a distance from it In the third place we have mention of the Gospel but not a word of the Church 2 Cor. IV. 3 4. which he puts in such is his honesty contrary to the express words of ours and of all Bibles Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid but expresly supposes it 2 Cor. IV. 3. that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world who shut their eyes against the clearest light even the light of the knowledg of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ One would think this man besides himself when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid when his words are a plain supposition that it was hid to some people Not indeed because they could not for it was visible enough in it self but because they would not see it And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ II. Isa 2. Which was very visible in its beginning when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and by them the Law that is the Christian Doctrine went out of Sion and the word of the Lord that is the Gospel from Jerusalem But did not always continue so when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these which say there shall be an Apostacy from the Faith and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness 2 Thess II. 3. XII Revel 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ particularly VII Dan. 14. VII Dan. 14. they point at a state of his Church which is not yet come and when it doth come will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church Whose present state will be utterly overturned to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished X. Revel 7. XI 15. and that cannot be till Babylon that is Rome be thrown down XVIII Revel 2. XIX 1 2 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was of Christian Truth Righteousness Charity and Peace among men He bids us as his manner is see more in other places But if they had more in them than these we should have had them at length And his Fathers also some light touches of which he gives us just as he found them in a cluster altogether word for word in a Book called The Rule of Faith and the Marks of the Church which was answered above LXXX years ago by Dr. J. White who observes * VVay to the True Church Sect. 23. that when Origen whom upon other occasions they call an Heretick saith The Church is full of VVitnesses from the East to the VVest he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof but of the truth professed therein Which though clear to the World when he said so yet doth not prove it shall be always so for a Cloud of Apostacy might and did afterward obscure it St. Chrysostome doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkned but not so as to be extinguished no more than the Sun can be put out For he could not be so sensless as not to know that it had been for a time eclipsed When St. Austin saith They are blind who see not so great a mountain He speaks against the Donatists who confined the Church to themselves as the Papists now do And he justly calls them blind who
could not see the Church all Africk over it being at that time as plain as a Mountain or a lighted Candle as our Church now is at this day But his words do not imply that the Church shall always be so manifest and never hid Mountains themselves being sometimes hidden in a mist For he saith in other places The Church shall sometimes be obscured and the Cloud of Offences may shadow it Epist 48. It shall not appear by reason of the unmeasurable Rage of Vngodly Persecutors Epist 80. It is like the Moon and may be hid in XIX Psalm Yea so obscured that the Members of it may not know one another as he speaks in his sixth Book of Baptism against the Donatists C. 4. What St. Cyprian saith is not contrary to this V. We maintain he saith That the Church was not always to remain Catholick or Vniversal and that the Church of Rome is not such a Church Answer WE maintain the quite contrary to the first Part of his Proposition asserting that the Church is always to remain Catholick or Vniversal not confined to one Country as the Jewish was but spread all the World over The second Part indeed we do maintain That the Church of Rome is not such a Church that is which is the thing they contend for is not the Universal Church but hath its limits and was anciently bounded within certain Regions beyond which it did not extend The first Scripture he alledges against us is a promise to Christ which we believe hath been fulfilled in part II. Psalm 8. and will be more and more fulfilled before the end of the World but hath nothing in it peculiar to the Church of Rome which at the best is but a piece of his Inheritance The second speaks expresly not of the Vniversality of Christ's Kingdom I. Luke 33. but of its Perpetuity and is as much verified in other Churches as in the Roman which is so far from being the only Universal Church that in this sense it is not Universal at all The third is directly against him For it shows that the Faith of the Gospel unto which he now skips I. Colos 3 c. when he should have said the Church of which he was speaking was planted at Coloss which was never under the Jurisdiction of Rome and there fructified and grew as much as in other places Nor will the next place help him where St. Paul doth not call the Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans but only saith I. Rom. 8. their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world I. Rom. 8. that is the fame of it was spread all the world over as Menochius one of their own honestly interprets it For what was done at Rome could not be concealed from the rest of the World saith Theodoret because the Roman Emperors having their Palace there from whence all sort of Officers were sent and whither all People resorted who had any boon to beg by whom it was signified every where That the City of Rome had received the Faith of Christ Thus he which shows the Gospel was spread in the World before it came to the City of Rome it not coming from thence but from Jerusalem and not coming thither till many other places had received it who were not beholden to Rome for it With what face then against such a clear sense of the words could this Man say that St. Paul in express terms calls The Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans or the Church of Rome When the words rather import that he calls the Faith of the Romans the Faith received in the whole World But he saith neither the one nor the other tho if he had it would prove nothing but that there was one and the same Faith then at Rome which was in other places The truly Catholick Faith from whence Churches were named Catholick not from their extending all the World over which was impossible and Jerusalem and other Churches were as much so as Rome it self and were so before there was a Church at Rome In short a Catholick Church signified no more than an Orthodox Church It is a matter of serious Lamentation that men should go about to pervert such plain and easy Truths as this and should heap up Scriptures to prove mere Nonsence For all the Scriptures which he bids us further look into he saith are not to be understood That the whole World should be Catholick at one and the same time Let the Reader consider what it is for the whole World to be Catholick as he hath explained it but for the whole World to be the whole World And he will have an hard task to make Sense of the next words that the whole World being converted unto Christ at sundry times it shall comprehend a greater part of the World than any Sect of Hereticks shall ever do I thought the whole World would certainly comprehended the whole World and not only the greater part of the World It is impossible by such Jargon as this to understand the true Sense of being Catholick or Vniversal Which the Church is either with respect to Faith because there is the same Faith in all parts of the true Church or with respect to Place because no Country is excluded from it which will receive this Faith or with respect to Time because it continues throughout all Ages tho not always in such an extent as to be actually in all Nations For those Countries which were once Parts of the Catholick Church are not so now And if those that are now so should lose the Faith still the Church might be Catholick if others embraced it as Bellarmine * L. IV. De Ecclesâ— c. 7. himself confesses If only one Province should retain the true Faith the Church might truly and properly be called Catholick as long as it might be clearly shown that it was one and the same with that which had been at sometime or in divers throughout the World According to his former Method he carries us now to the Fathers and mâ—kâ—s them guilty of as much Nonsense as himself For he makes St. Cyprian confess that part is the whole But the comfort is he either did not understand or else misrepresents St. Cyprian who speaks not there of the Authority but of the Example of the Roman Church and especially of Cornelius their Bishop who remaining constant in time of Tryal made all his Brethren every where rejoyce particularly Cyprian himself who in that very place stiles Cornelius and others his Fellow-Priests or Bishops For what Priest saith he can chuse but rejoyce in the praises of his Fellow-Priests as if they were his own It is not to be expressed with what Joy and Exultation he heard of his Fortitude whereby he made himself a Captain and Leader of Confession unto the Brethren c. And then follows While there is among you i. e. Cornelius and his Brethren one Mind
himself represents their Doctrine which hath as many friends and favourers in the Roman Church as it hath in ours Where no more than this is commonly taught That being assured of the truth of the Divine promises which cannot deceive us we are so far assured of attaining them as we are certain that we faithfully perform our duty which is the condition upon which the attaining of them depends But this is a very strange Man for because every Man ought not to be assured of his Salvation he will allow no Man to be assured no not St. Paul Expresly against the Doctrine of his own Church which looks upon him as a man particularly elected by God not only to the Apostleship but to Salvation Nor doth he contradict this in 1 Cor. XIX 27. 1 Cor. XIX 27. but rather tells us how he secured his Salvation by keeping under his Body By which means we also may be secured for if we continue in his Goodness as the next Scripture speaks XI Rom. 20 XI Rom. 20 21. 21. we ought not to doubt he will continue it unto us to the end And we teach no other assurance of Salvation but by constant Fidelity unto Christ which as long as we maintain we ought to be certain of the other The only fear is lest we should not be stedfast and therefore we are well admonished in the next Scripture 2 Philip. 12. II. Philip. 12. to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling But so doing we shall undoubtedly be saved No Church in the World more beats down vain security than this of ours nor doth any more incourage it than the Church of Rome where men are secured of their Salvation if they can be so vain as to believe it by confessing to a Priest and receiving his Absolution at the last Gasp The other Scriptures which he hath shovelled together are of no different import from these and therefore need not be examined Nor his Fathers neither which they have now made a shift to scrape together tho they had none in the first Edition of this Book For they that read Bellarmine could not but know what a great number of Testimonies are brought out of the Fathers to confirm their Opinion who hold men may be so certain they are in a state of Grace that they may be assured of their Salvation Particularly out of St. Austin in a great number of places more especially in XXII Tract upon St. John where he argues thus Our Saviour hath told me He that hears my words and believes on him that sent me hath eternal life and shall not come into condemnation Now I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed when I was an Infidel I was made a faithful man and therefore as he tells me I have passed from Death unto Life and shall not come into Condemnation not by my presumption but by his own promise Which words are so convincing that Bellarmine * L. III. de Justif C. X. himself acknowledges every one may conclude from this promise of Christ he is passed from Death unto Life c. The only question is with what certainty this can be gathered which St. Austin saith he doth not explain But it is plain to every understanding that there is the same certainty of the Conclusion that there is of the Premises A man may be as certain of his Salvation as he is that he sincerely believes Christ's words and is obedient to them Nor doth the place which this man quotes out of St. Austin contradict this but rather confirm it if the following words be added which this man fraudulently conceals They are these * In Psalm XLI There is no stability nor hope in my self My soul is troubled within me Wilt thou not be troubled do not remain in thy self but say To thee O Lord have I lift up my Soul Hear this more plainly Do not hope from thy self but from God For if thy hope be from thy self thy Soul will be troubled because it hath not yet found whence it may be secure of thy self Which shows St. Austin thought men might attain to security but not in or from themselves but in God alone before whom every one ought to humble himself that he may exalt him It is to no purpose to examine the rest XXVI That every Man hath not an Angel-Guardian or Keeper Answer MEN may believe either that every one hath or hath not and yet not contradict our Church which hath determined nothing about it nor hath it been resolved in any Church but every one left to think as he pleases For all that Suarez and Vasquez other kind of men than this durst say in this case is this that tho this Assertion be not exprest in Scripture nor defined by the Church mind that yet it hath been received with such an universal consent and hath such great foundation in Scripture as understood by the Fathers that it cannot be denied without great rashness and almost Error See here how cautiously these Learned men speak and and how ingenuously they confess the Church hath determined nothing in this Point but it is a kind of popular opinion As for Scripture in direct contradiction to this man they tell us it is not expresly delivered therein And whatsoever foundations they think are there laid for this Opinion it seems to me upon serious consideration that the Scriptures rather suppose that every man no not the good hath not a particular guardian Angel that constantly attends him But God sends either one or more Angels as there is occasion and as he thinks fit to do what he appoints Who after they have dispatch'd that business depart from them till he thinks fit again to employ those or some other Heavenly Messengers for their good This seems very manifest to me in that which is reported concerning Abraham Daniel St. Peter St. John and the Blessed Virgin her self in the I. of St. Luke Let him or any one else show such proofs if he can out of Scripture That the Angels do constantly remain with those whom they sometimes attend and are fixed in their Office of Guardianship to them XVIII Matth. 10. XVIII Matth. 10. Speaks not of One Angel but of more and doth not say they Guard Christs little ones but that they alway behold the face of his Father in heaven that is wait to receive his Commands as Servants who stand before their Master which they are ready to execute This confirms the other Opinion I now mentioned that Angels are only sent as God Orders and are not fixed in their Attendance Neither doth this Text speak of every man as this Scribler idly talks but of Christians and particularly the weaker sort called little ones who most needed their Ministry Mr. Calvin also in that very place which this man mentions restrains his question to the faithful who he dare not say have every one of them a particular Angel to minister to them
Nay his own Sixtus Senensis saith upon the like place though Noah Daniel and Job stood before me that the Prophet speaks upon a supposition that if such men as they were in this sinful World they should deliver none c. God would not hear them for such a wicked People It is of no consequence what Baruch saith being never reputed a Canonical Book and according to his own Rule in his Preface ought to pass for nothing unless he had prov'd the same that Baruch saith by places of Canonical Writ Besides III. Baruc 4. dead Israelites may mean no more but those now dead who when they were alive prayed as their Posterity now did And so Nich. Lyra understands by dead Israelies the holy Patriarchs and Prophets who when they were alive prayed for the good Estate of their Posterity Or dead may signify those whose condition was so low that they could do nothing for themselves as he describes all Israel v. 10. that they were accounted with them that go down into the grave that is dead men This I will stand to it is an Interpretation they cannot confute Theodoret doth say that these words clearly prove the immortality of the Soul and that 's all I see no reason why II. Rev. 26 27. may not be interpreted of the preferment Christ promised in this world to those who should keep his words i. e. fulfil his Commands to the end of that present persecution But if it relate to the other World Menochius a better Interpreter than he expresly saith that Christ speaks of the power which the Saints shall exercise in the day of judgment over all Nations which did not obey Christ judging them with Christ and delivering them to the punishment of eternal death Agreeable to what we read III. Wisd 8. They shall judge the Nations and have dominion over the people St. Austin hath not a word of this matter upon the second Psalm but only says these words ruling with a Rod of iron is as much as with inflexible Justice We see what thâ—se men would bring things to it they be let alone The Saints may be looked upon now as Rulers of this World by a power imparted unto them from Christ who hath thus established them this man saith over the Nations He should have shewn us where he reads this for we cannot find it here But this leads him into reasoning again finding so little help in his express Scriptures and that is as weak as all the rest For it is out of a Parabolical Scripture before-named from which all acknowledge Arguments ought not to be drawn And besides it is not a Prayer to Abraham but such a request as we make one to another here when we want relief What St. Austin saith on this place is not worth the searching after for it will prove no more than what he quotes out of his XVth Sermon de verb. Apostol he should have said the XVIIth where he distinguisheth between the Commemoration that was made of the Martyrs at the Altar and of other Faithful persons For the lâ—tter they prayed but this would have been an injury he thinks to the Martyrs by whose Prayers we rather should be recommended to God But this signifies no more than a general recommendation of the Church to God's Mercy His next Father St. Hâ—lary speaks only of what Angels do not of Saints And I gave an account of that before but for want of company he brings him in again He concludes with Damascen a Father that lived almost Eight hundred years after Christ and was so credulous as to vouch it for a Truth That Trajan's Soul was delivered out of H ll by Gregory 's Prayers and saith The whole world witnesseth it Which all the world now even their own Church believes to be a fable And yet this Damascen sâ—ith no more but that they are to be honoured as those that make Intercession to God for us that is for the Church XXXIII That we ought not to beseech God to grant our Prayers in favour of the Saints or their merits nor do we reeeive any benefit thereby Answer IT is no small favour that we can get so much truth out of him as to confess That this is one way of their Praying by the Mediation of Saints to beseech God to grant their desires in favour of them and their merits For some of his brethren mince the matter and say they only desire the Saints to pray for them But their Missals and Breviaries confute such men as notorious dissemblers for there are abundance of Prayers like this That * Decemb. VI. by the Merits and Prayers of St. Nicholas God would deliver them from the fire of Hell Which if it be an allowable way of Praying I do not see but the Saints are Mediators of Redemption as well as of Intercession as they are wont to distinguish for by their merits is a great deal more than by their Intercession And if they intercede by their merits wherein do they fall short of Christ who by his Merits redeemed us and in virture of the same Merits intercedes for us But let us hear his Scriptures which the Reader may take notice are every one of them out of the Old Testament during which according to the common Doctrine of their Church the Souls of pious men were held in a Limbus remote from God in the borders of Hell and therefore could not be Intercessors with God much less plead their merits This is enough to overthrow his whole Discourse in this Chapter yet to shew his folly a little more fully I am content to consider them particularly The first is XXXII Exod. 13. which he hath the confidence to say XXXII Exod. 13. is against us in express words when there is no mention of merit and the sense is evidently declared in the Text it self which speaks of the Oath of God to those great men Abraham Isaac and Jacob shewing that Moses his Prayer was grounded not upon their merit but upon God's gracious Covenant with them confirmed by his Oath XXVI Gen. 3. Which is the sense of Theodoret also whom this man most shamefully belies in the place by him quoted Moses mentions the name of the Patriarchs instead of supplication and remembers the Oaths made to them and begs that the Covenants wherein he was engaged to them might stand firm Who would trust such a man as this who makes Theodoret say that Moses added the intercession of the holy Patriarchs thinking himself insufficient when he only saith he mentioned their name as men i. e. in covenant with God instead of supplication And thus he deals with St. Austin or rather worse who in the place he mentions saith not a word of Abraham Isaac and Jacob but only of Moses whose merits were so great with God as his most faithful Servant that God saith Let me alone c. upon which Passage he makes this reflection We are admonished hereby that when our
but all to Abraham who is desired to send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger c. And yet this man was so intoxicated with some thing or other that he thinks the rich man called upon Lazarus also to have Mercy on him For shame let them throw this Book away and not give it about any more For all that can be gathered from this story is that such was the torment of the rich man that if he could have seen Abraham and Lazarus in his Bosom and have spoken to him he would have expressed in some such words as these his intollerable pain It is to no end to look what St. Austin saith I know not where when he declares himself so positively * L. XXII de Civ Dei c. 10. That tho they named the Martyrs at the Altar yet they were not invoked by the Priest that sacrificed The next place of Scripture I have considered before V. Job 1. and both given the meaning and answered his Cavils when he brought it to prove praying to Angels as now so indigent and beggarly they are it is pressed for praying to Saints He will lose his labour that looks into the other places which he barely names or into his Fathers Some of which are forged as Dionysius Areop Athanasius de Annunc St. Chrysostom Hom. 66. ad Pop. for there 's but one and twenty in the Ancient Greek MS. as Posevine acknowledges Maximus Taurin whose Sermon upon Saint Agnes is by others ascribed to St. Ambrose but Bellarmin confesses it contradicts St. Ambrose in another place and therefore cannot be his nor any one's else on whom we can rely And others of his Fathers are falsely alledged as St. Basil who only says that People run to their Memories or Monuments viz. there to pray to God not to them St. Bernard is a Father that lived above 1150. years after Christ who should have learnt of his Elders particularly Epiphanius * Her LXXXIX that Mary is to be honoured but God the Father Son and Holy Ghost alone to be worshipped I could name a vast number of the Fathers who expresly condemn this Worship of Saints and none more than Saint Chrysostom St. Hierom doth not pray to Paula but speaking to her in an Oration as if she were present saith Farewel Paula and help thy honourer that is him that honoured her when she was alive with thy Prayers From hence one may plainly conclude he never intended to pray to her for he takes his leave of her and bids her adieu and is one of those Fathers who believed the Saints do not know what we do here as appears by another Epitaph he made upon Nepotian as this upon Paula where he saith Nepotian was happy in that he neither saw nor heard the Calamities which were then upon the Church XXXV That the Bones or Relicks of Saints are not to be kept or reserved no vertue proceeding from them after they be once dead Answer HEre he saith some truth We do beliâ—ve they ought not to be kept or reserved that is to be worshipped but to be decently buried as we read in the most ancient Letter of the Church of Smyrna the Reliques of Polycarp were His first Text 2 King XIII 21. 2 King XIII 21. saith not a word much less speaks expresly of their taking the Bones of Elisha out of the Sepulchre but for any thing that appears they let them lie there still Nor doth it say any vertue proceeded out of them but that upon the touching of them the dead man revived and stood upon his feet that is was raised by the power of God Who thereby testified to the truth of Elisha's Prophecy and confirmed the Israelites in the belief of what he had said a little before he died concerning their Victories over the Syrians Acts V. 14 15. The next place V. Act. 14 15. is alledged so senselesly that it may tempt one to be a little pleasant upon it For is not a shadow cast from a man's Body a pretty Relick Who caught it How did they keep it Who can shew us this Relique or where shall we find it reserved And what proof is there that vertue proceeded out of Peter's shadow and cured sick People we believe it went forth from our Lord as Peter passed by and cast his shadow upon them The Sermon he quotes of Saint Austin is a Bastard lewdly fathered on him And the gloss which this man makes upon this passage of it is very idle For it is most reasonable to take the sense of it to be this that if they received so much benefit by his shadow the fulness of his power could do more for them speaking not of what he can do now in Heaven but what at that time they might have received when his very shadow coming upon them they were healed of their Infirmities So he says the words are in their Bible but he undertook to confute us out of our own And if this passage was in ours as it would have been now if it had been found in the most ancient Copies it would have signified no more then the rest of the words do without it Which give us sufficiently to understand that the sick were cured when Peter's shadow overshadowed them XIX Acts II. 12. says not a syllable of those Aprons and Handcherchiefs being kept as Relicks much less of their working any Cures when the Apostles were dead or after that time when they were immediately brought from St. Paul's Body unto the Sick St. Chrysostom might well argue the Divinity of our Saviour from the power that wrought in his Servants nay accompanied their very Shadows and Napkins But doth this prove that these Napkins were kept as Reliques Shadows we are sure could not and that this vertue proceeded from them was inherent and continued in them when the Apostles were gone For this the Reader may go look if he know where Hitherto we have not heard one word to the purpose and if we will see more we shall find nothing but that they carried Joseph's Bones with them when they went out of Egypt XIII Exod. 19. XIII Exod 19. because he charged them so to do as an argument God would bring them into Canaan where he desired his Bones might be laid in the Grave of his Father not kept as Relicks for People to kiss and worship We read also that Elijah's Mantle fell down from him when he was carried to Heaven with which Elisha smote the waters 2 Kings II. 2 King II. 8.14 8.14 but what became of this Mantle we do not read it is most likely he wore it out I can find nothing of the reverend esteem St. John Baptist had of our Saviour's Shoe-latchet much less of his keeping it for a Relick I. Joh. 27. I. John 27. He only expresses his reverent esteem of our Saviour whom he was not worthy to serve in the meanest Ministry as the Woman did her high opinion
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
declared their Belief that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ who was made a curse for us and that through his Death and Passion of which the Cross was a Memorial they expected all manner of Blessings from God But all this was of Humane Institution for which we find no directions in Scripture None of the places he alledgeth say a syllable of it much less expresly mention this sign Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII VII Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads With what mark we are not told In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him and of blessing his Disciples but nothing of signing either with the Cross or any thing else which therefore is not founded in these or indeed in any other Scriptures The Fathers we know speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions but do they say it was founded in Scripture Not a word of that which is the only point And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now as many other Rites have been which were no less in use in Ancient times than that was particularly the Custom of Praying Standing not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day between Easter and Whitsuntide Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice and as it had been in use before and not then introduced but only confirmed so continued in the Church for 800 years and yet is now quite disused I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue as well as Bodily Protection which they in the Roman Church now expect from the Sign of the Cross for which there is not either Scripture or other Ancient Authority LII That the Publick Service of the Church ought not to be said but in a Language that all the People may understand Answer IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly This is our Doctrine which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible that unless the Bible contradict it self nothing can be found there to the contrary I Luke 8. St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spake when he ministred in the Sanctuary Nor do we find in the Bible the least mention of Publick Prayers he made there but only of burning Incense which the People well understood represented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance which they made without while he burnt Incense within Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer the meaning of which was as well understood by the People as what they themselves spake The Angel indeed tells him v. 13. thy Prayer is heard but this doth not prove he spake any words but rather lifted up his mind to God when the Incense ascended towards Heaven For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words But suppose he did how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times the Language of the Country Tho it is not material whether he did or no for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice And therefore this place if it prove any thing proves too much that the Publick Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People where they can neither hear nor see the Priest The XVI Levit. 17. XVI Lev. 17. is most absurdly alledged to serve this purpose because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven by virtue of his most precious Blood wherewith he entred in thither Besides the High-Priest of old said not one word while he staid there and therefore this can be no argument the People need not understand the Publick Prayers of the Church which are made not in such a Secret Place as that was but openly in the hearing of all the People Who by this reasoning may be shut out of the Church as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers and the Priest left there to a silent Service by himself Here Fathers being wanting for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue he pretends he hath no need of them tho he needlesly heapt them up where he could find a word that seemed to look that way he would have it But he supplies this want with a bold untruth That the practice of the whole Christian World for these many hundred years hath been against us who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand Which can be salved by nothing but by another proud falsity that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World For no Church uses Latin Service but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome all others use the Language of their several Countries Nay there are some who have acknowledged his Authority that would still have the Publick Service in their own Language which the People understood For shame let these men leave off Writing and betake themselves to their Prayers that God would forgive them their abominable Falshoods wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause particularly in this point about Publick Service in a Language the People do not understand Which they are sensible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul in 1 Cor. XIV and therefore this man thinks himself concern'd to attempt an Answer unto what we alledge from hence At first he distinguishes between Publick Prayer and Private which here is very idle for it is evident the Apostle speaks of Publick Prayers in the Church verse 19. When the whole Church came together in one place verse 23. Secondly He saith this place is against us because it proves the Common Service of the Church was not then in a Tongue which every man understood but in another Language not so common to all verse 16. Mark how he contradicts himself before he supposed or else he talk'd impertinently that the Apostle discourses of Private Prayers now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church of which he speaks but shews it was not in the Common Language What a brow have these men who can thus out-face the clearest truth That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons and condemns as utterly inconsistent with the very end of Speech as well as with the Edification of the Church this man makes to have been common allowed Practice Was there ever such Prevarication A man had better have no use of Reason than Discourse on this fashion no Tongue at all than talk at this rate expresly against the Apostle's Injunction who requires him who could not deliver what he spake
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