unless St. Paul was mistaken when he said The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be So then they that are in the Flesh cannot please God Rom. 8.7 8. The next is Dan. 4.24 where the Prophet speaks thus to King Nebuchadnezzar Quamobrem Rex consilium meum placeat tibi peccata tua Elecmosynis redime Iniquitates tuas misericordiis Pauperum Which Text the present English Translation thus renders vitiously enough Wherefore O King break off thy Sins by righteousness and thine Iniquities by shewing Mercy to the Poor Whereas it ought to have been translated Redeem thy Sins by Alms-deeds and thine Iniquities by shewing Mercy to the Poor But suppose it should have been translated Redeem rather than Break off Where is the material Error Where is the tendency to Schism or liberty of the Flesh Surely if Righteousness and Alms-deeds will Redeem Sins they are not further from doing it by Breaking them off I should rather think that our Translation if we consider the difference presses the necessity of Universal Reformation something more than the other because it will not suffer a Man to fancy that he may keep some of his Sins now he knows how to redeem them viz. by Alms-deeds and shewing Mercy to the Poor but teaches him that he has no other way to escape but by breaking off his former sins and doing all the good things that are contrary to the evils he has done which doubtless was the meaning of Daniel's Exhortation And now after all it was pitifully done of you to Examine our Translation by your Vulgar Latin the Authority whereof in these Critical Disputes you know we deny And it was done according to your Wisdom too for the truth of the Matter is that our Translation is right and yours is wrong for though the Caldee †word signifies to Redeem when 't is applied to Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Psal 136.4 Thou hast redeemed us yet when Things are spoken of it signifies to divide or to break them off So it is taken Gen 27.40 Thou shalt break his yoke from of thy neck and Exod. 32.2 24. and elsewhere In a Word The Vulgar Interpreter was so far from shewing his Skill here that he blunder'd manifestly and it must be a very favourable Construction of his Translation that can secure it from the Charge of False Doctrine viz. That a Man can Redeem himself from the Justice of God. Again You say How are St. Paul's Words to the Corinthians mis-render'd 1 Cor. 7.9 Quod si non se continent nubant But if they cannot contain let them marry where this Word cannot not being found in the Greek was devised in Favour of the Flesh That is to say in Favour of Marriage Now this Objection does but shew your want of Skill and the little honesty of those that helped you to it for assure yourself that although there is not a distinct Word in the Greek for cannot yet the force of it is discernible enough to those that understand these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that one Greek †word of which our Translators made two English ones and were obliged so to do because we have not one that expresses it sufficiently It signifies to have the Command or Power over ones self which your * Se continere Latine does better express than if we had rendred your Latine word for word If they do not contain themselves For not to contain does in our Language and way of speaking fall short even of the Latin Phrase and much more of the Greek and therefore to make True Translation it was needful to say cannot contain And if the Force of the Word did not lead your Masters to this Construction yet at least the scope of the place might have done it For a very little consideration had been sufficient to have seen that the Apostle did not mean to give this counsel of Marrying to those only that had been guilty of actual Incontinence but to those also that could not due their own desires And that he speaks here of a Power that all have not is evident also from vers 7. For I would that all men were even as I my self but every one hath his proper Gift of God one after this manner and another after that The Truth is if there be a defect in any part of our Translation of these passages 't is in vers 5. where the Translators put Incontinency to answer the Greek word (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as Dr. Hammond has observed the English there does not reach the Original so well as the English cannot contain which you have learn't to Cavil at reaches it here But now Sir Why must this word cannot be said to be devised by us in favour of the Flesh For neither was it devised nor if it were does the sence which it gives the Place provide chiefly for Marriage but rather by that for the avoiding of heinous Sin as any one I think might see unless he believes Fornication to be more tolerable in sorce people than Matrimony The end of St. Paul's counsel in this place is visibly the same with that of his advice vers 5. for which he gives this Reason That Satan tempt you not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I would thus Paraphrase By the unruliness of your desires Get your Masters to do it better but mark what I say if this be well as I am reasonably assured it is it will be in vain any longer to cavil at the Translation of the place under debate And now let us go on Likewise the words of Christ Matth. 19.11 are corrupted in favour of the Flesh Non omnes capiunt verbum istud sed quibus datum est All men cannot receive this saying but such to whom it is given It ought to be All Men do not receive this saying But notwithstanding your vulgar Latin our Translation is already as it ought to be For the Greek word (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Capax sum does not only signifie to receive but as frequently to be capable of receiving And there is this reason for translating it so in this place because in the very next verse our Saviour speaking of the same Matter expresly says He that is able to receive it let him receive it Now I should think that this at least implies that some cannot receive it and yet as forward a Man as you are I suppose you will hardly say our Saviour put in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Able in favour of the Flesh Also the words of Job chap. 7. and many other Texts especially Exod. 20.4 in hatred of the Picture of our Saviour Non facies tibi sculptile which word sculptile is by the Seventy Interpreters Translated Idol as indeed it ought to be because God did not forbid Images but Idols As for Job 7.1 it is rendred
That Scripture is the old Song of Hereticks and Secretaries c. I know not whether it betrays more ignorance or profaneness The Scriptures if they must be so called were the Old Song of the Good Old Fathers of the Church and the Old Song of the Old Hereticks and Sectaries was Tradition Tradition unwritten Tradition the taking up of which Song is that that gives you some Title to Antiquity To your Second Interrogatiory I Answer That if by admitting various Interpretations you mean that the words of the Bible are not so plain as to exclude all possibility of various Interpretations and perveting them to a wrong sence 't is then a very idle Demand Whether the Bible does not admit of various Interpretations For I defie your Judge whom you speak of presently after be he Man or Men to put words so together that it shall be impossible to pervert them to a wrong meaning But if you mean that upon a fair Construction of the Words of the Bible they admit various Interpretations I Answer That in some places they do and in others they do not admit more than one which is therefore undoubtedly the true one But for you consequence that of necessity some Judge is to be assigned c. I beg your pardon that I do not see it unless of necessity Men must be either so wanton and quarrelsom as to wrangle to all eternity about the meaning of words which may be diversly expounded without any harm done or so perverse as to cavil at a Text which has but one plain meaning If you find yourselves given this way you indeed ought to have a Judge assigned for you and more than One. You should have one Judge assigned whose constant business it should be to determin the true Interpretation of all other Scriptures but those that speak of him to keep you from wrangling about them And you would need another Extraordinary Judge to assign the Ordinary Judge from those Texts that mention him and a Third to assign the Second and so on till you come to a Judge for whose Credit you must take his own Word that ye may not wrangle about a Judge to all Eternity Sect. 6 Quer. To these Queries I have often desired an Answer but never yet met with any Answ Why that was hard indeed but I must tell you that these Queries tho' they were Printed yet went abroad so privately as if they were more affraid than desirous to meet with an Answer Whether you ever met with an Answer I cannot say perhaps you have not and it may be you will never own that you have But let us go on Sect. 7 Quer. If you pretend as many do that Cranmer and his Associates derived their Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles by the Hands of Roman Catholick Bishops it follows inevitably that Roman Catholick Bishops did also receive their Orders from Christ and his Apostles and consequently are therefore to be heard By this Answer the Protestants seem to me to destroy their own Cause Answ If they destroy their own Cause you are to give them thanks for 't is more than their Enemies can do But I do not see how this Answer destroys it for if those whom you call Roman Catholick Bishops can give good Orders then were the Orders of Cranmer and his Associates good It is enough for us that they had their Orders from Bishops And as we contend that their Orders were never the better so we willingly grant that they were never the worse for being conferred by those whom you must needs style Roman Catholick Bishops Well but you say If we pretend to derive our Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles by the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops it follows inevitably that these also did receive their Orders from Christ and his Apostles So that though our Orders are never the worse from coming through their hands yet the Roman Catholick Bishops themselves are in a better case for our granting it since their Orders must therefore by our Confession be from Christ and his Apostles Very well and if your Doctrine be true it will I think be found that Judas received his Orders from Christ too when Christ said to him and to the rest Hoc Facite Perhaps you will say that those were not Bishops Orders To go on with you therefore What follows from Roman Catholick Bishops having received their Orders from Christ Why therefore they are true Bishops and to be heard Undoubtedly But what then Therefore Protestants seem to destroy their own Cause This is so much out of the Common Rode of Reasoning that surely you have some Logick by yourself which the World yet never saw and therefore you would do very well to let us have it if ever it should come into your head to Query again Not to have heard you had been unreasonable I confess and this whether your Bishops were True or not But we have heard them over and over and this although they have said the same thing over and over again You may also perceive that I have read which may serve instead of hearing yourself too whom I fancy to be no Bishop and this I assure you not without some tryal of my own Patience to read such rambling and unedifying things as you have here brought together Sect. 8 Quer. But you will say perhaps that Roman Catholick Bishops did receive their Orders not their Doctrine from Christ and his Apostles Very good I would fain know then by whose Authority the First Reformers rose up against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Unty this Knot or Confess that Cranmer Luther Calvin Socinis c. made themselves Judges Witnesses and Accusers Answ Here again we are at a loss for want of your private Logick for why Judges Witnesses and Accusers should come in here no Man alive it may be knows but yourself and perhaps not you neither To so much as I understand I am content to Answer True Bishops then may Preach False Doctrine and against your Bishops we have terrible Evidence that those Doctrins of theirs which we reject are so far from being received from Christ that many of them are contrary to what we have received from him Now every Christian not only may but ought to reject such Doctrins and that by the same Authority which requires every one to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good And much more may Bishops and other Spiritual Guids rise up against them Nay by their Orders and Station in the Church they have not only Authority so to do but it will be severely required of them if they do it not I know not what ayl'd you to tye an invisible Knot and then to bid us unty it As for Socinus we are no more bound to Answer for his or any other Mans Errors because he holds many Truths with us against you than we are bound to answer for yours because we hold some Truths with you
Body think himself Infallible when once they depended upon his Holiness no longer When you design a witty Query take care whilst you live that there be some Sence and a little Truth at the bottom and in one Word that it be not like this which is a meer Bubble and turns to nothing Sect. 27 Quer. By whose Authority did he Divorce his Virtuous Wife Queen Catharine His own or a Foreign If by his own why may not other Kings also put away their Wives at their pleasure If Mary his Daughter by Queen Catharine was Legimate Heiress of the Kingdom then Elizabeth was not because it was not lawful for King Henry to have two Wives at once Answ I doubt not but Queen Catharine was a Vertuous Wife but under favour since you will needs be medling with these Matters you should have put your Question either with more honesty or with more skill and instead of asking By whose Authority he divorced his Virtuous Wife you should have asked by what Authority he divorced his Brothers Wife For there lay the point and here I must tell you that after that Question whether the Pope had Power to dispense with that Marriage had been debated and determined in the Negative by the most famous Universities of Europe for you an unskilful Querist to ask by what Authority the King did as he did shews that you have spent your time to little purpose and are to be admonished to bestow it better for the future As for your other difficulty how Mary and Elizabeth could be both Legitimate I Answer that the Legitimacy of Elizabeth is plain supposing the Marriage of Queen Catharine to King Henry to be void but yet Mary the Child of that Marriage was not Illegitimate because the Marriage was made without Fraud But if one or other of them must necessarily be Illegitimate pray look you to the consequence who I suppose apprehend some great Matter to depend upon this Dispute For my own part these kind of Queries seem to be very impertinent for if Queen Mary was Illegitimate our Religion is not one jot the truer for it and if she was Legitimate neither is it the worse But there is a time to answer Questions that are none of the wisest Sect. 28 Quer. If that Religion be Sacred that is established by Law why did Queen Elizabeth destroy the Catholick Religion Established by so many Acts of Parliament Answ It seems then that what you call the Catholick Religion may be destroyed And yet these Queries are publish'd with Allowance Your Superiors surely can instruct you that to destroy the Legal Establishment of a Religion is one thing and to destroy the Religion is another But they saw that if you had expressed the former the Query had looked so ridiculously that it had been a shame to let it go For all the Sacredness that Human Law can give to a Religion is a legal Sacredness and no more or if you please a legal Establishment And so this is the English of your Quaere If that Religion has a legal Establishment that 's established by Law why did the Queen destroy the legal Establishment of the Catholick Religion which was of estalibshed by so many Laws In my opinion it had been much better to Query thus like a plain man If the Catholick Religion was established by so many Laws why did Queen Elizabeth unestablish it by Law again And now having brought your Query to this Form I Answer that yours is not the Catholick Religion and it was pity that it should have that Sacredness which the Law gave it because it had no Sacredness of its own to deserve it and therefore it was a very good Law that took away the other Sacredness from it If you think this Answer not to be full enough you may pick out somerhing more in Answ to Sect. 20. whither I refer you Sect. 29 Quer. Queen Elizabeth expelled fourteen Catholick Bishops from their Sees for refusing the Oath of Supremacy But how could they swear her to be Head or Supreme Governor of the Church when they could not swear she was Head of this Kingdom Answ I think truly Fourteen Bishops were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and that for not taking the Oath of Supremacy But take this along with you too that most of these Bishops if not All had taken the very same Oath before and some of 'em assisted at the framing of it So that one would think that their refusing to take the same Oath under Elizabeth was as much as to deny her to be Head of the Kingdom as you say which all modest Men must grant to have been a sufficient cause for their Deprivation But yet as tender as Princes are of their Titles it is to be remembred to her immortal Credit that she did not serve them as her Predecessor did Cranmer Latimer Ridley and Hooper but used them in all other respects with great gentleness What their true reasons were for refusing the Oath of Supremacy I shall not go about to Divine But as for you who will needs have it to be this in part at least that they could not swear she was Head of the Kingdom Thus far you are to be commended that you have chosen a more modest expression of your Malice than that impudent Writer did who told us the other day that she was a known Bastard But in the Calumny I perceive you are both agreed And heark ye Gentlemen I do in behalf of the dead Queen and of that Age which universally acknowledge her Title defie you both to make good your teproach and fix the Title of Calumniators upon you both if you neither can justifie it nor will publickly retract it Sect. 30 Quer. Did not Cranmer and his Reforming Associates steal their Liturgy out of the Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary Answ Or rather did not you steal this Query from the Dissenters Sure I am that hitherto it has been theirs saving only the rudeness of the expression which you have added to it Go to them and they can furnish you with an abundant Answer to this terrible Objection But if something must be said here our Liturgy if it must be stolen looks as if it were stolen not out of your Roman but the Old Gallican Missal which once was ours and therefore it was not stolen but now every Body has his own again But if we had taken your Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary only and compiled our Liturgy out of them yet we took nothing of your peculiar Goods from them but only what every part of the Catholick Church has as much right to as your selves and as for that which is peculiarly and properly your own there we have left it entirely to you and much good may it do you Sect. 31 Quer. Are not Protestants bound by their Dath de Supremacy to obey the King as Supreme Governor as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal