Scriptures are hard to be understood but that there are some things therein hard to be understood and those things in St. Paul's Epistles The rest of the Scripture notwithstanding this may be easy and the hard places he doth not say are wrested by every body but only by such as are unlearned and unstable Let us but learn and be stedfastly fixed in the Principles of Religion and practice accordingly then we shall not be in that danger but may read the Revelation it self without hazarding our Salvation Nothing will be in danger of Destruction by reading the Scriptures humbly and piously as they themselves teach us to do but only Men's Vices and the Roman Church which it is easy to see in that hard Book The Revelation is doomed in due time unto Destruction For without understanding every particular Passage one may easily see in general with a little help that Rome is there intended and not Pagan Rome but Christian which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State The following Text is like to this which doth not say VIII Acts 30. That the Eunuch could understand nothing in the Scriptures for then he would not have troubled himself to read them but that he could not understand that place of the Prophet which he was reading when Philip met with him Which was obscure to him only in part not in the whole before he was converted to Christianity but is not so to us who enjoy the glorious Light of the Gospel In which there are some things we cannot understand neither with a Guide nor without But other things as I said are so plain that we cannot mistake them unless we do it wilfully Against which there in no help tho we had the most Infallible Guide that ever was The next place speaks not one word of the difficulty of the Scriptures but rather supposes them to be easy enough even in those matters of which Christ was speaking XXIV Luke 25. XXIV Luke 25. if the Apostles had not been then fools and slow of heart Which Names they had not deserved if the Scriptures had been so hard that it was not their fault they could not understand them before he expounded them The things they read there were not in themselves difficult but the Disciples did not at that time sufficiently attend to what was written For if they could not as this Man affirms have understood them I do not see how they could be justly blamed by our Saviour much less so severely reprehended Besides it is to be observed both of this place and the former that they speak of the Prophetical Writings in which there are greater Obscurities than in other Parts of Scriptures and yet even these if they had not been Fools might have been understood without putting our Saviour to the pains of expounding them One would be tempted to think the Man distracted when he set down the next place V. Rev. 1. V. Revel 1. to prove his Position For the sealed Book which the Angel said no man could read was not the Bible but the ensuing Prophecy which our Saviour presently after opened and hath in some measure let us into its meaning I beseech the Reader to mark what a dolt this Man is who makes the Book of Scripture to be shut with so many Seals that even in St. John 's and the Apostles times none could be found either in Heaven or Earth able to open the same or look therein For what is the consequence of this if it be true but that the Bible must be quite thrown away and neither Priest nor Bishop nor Pope nor Council look therein For they cannot be more able than St. John and the rest of the Apostles O that all People would see by what sottish Guides they are led on in darkness If he had thought that heap of Texts which follow would have done him any Service we should have had their words no doubt and not merely the Chapter and Verse but they are set down only for show and the V. Revelat. is reckoned again to make up the Tale. The Holy Fathers are mentioned for no other end their words being so full and so numerous on our side that it would fill a bigger Book than this if I should muster them up Particularly those very Fathers whom he quotes and in the very Books he mentions are of our minds But it is sufficient for the ordinary Reader to observe that at this Man's rate of proving no Body must read the Scriptures no not such as St. Ambrose if the Scriptures be such a Sea as he speaks of a depth of Prophetical Riddles But the truth is St. Ambrose doth not say what this Man makes him speak Not that it is a depth c. but that it hath in it profound Senses and a depth of Prophetical Riddles It hath so and it hath also plain places in it which are not so deep but they may be fathomed by ordinary even by shallow Capacities St. Austin saith nothing contrary to this but must be supposed to know enough tho much less than what he did not know And so must the rest of the Fathers be understood or else the Scripture is good for nothing if even such Men as Dionysius Gregory the Great c. could understand little or nothing of it If what they say be to his purpose it is concerning themselves and not others and therefore they ought to have refrained from reading the Scripture as well as the Vulgar What then will become of the Common People if their greatest Guides could know so little of the Mind of God His last Author he took upon trust or else is an egregious Falsifier For there is nothing to that purpose in the Chapter he quotes L. VII cap. 20. There are words to that effect in the 25th Chapter where Irenaeus writing against those who denied the Revelation of St. John to be a Divine Book saith Tho I do not understand it yet I suppose there is a deeper sense in the Words and not measuring those things nor judging of them by my reasonings but giving more to Faith I esteem them to be higher than to be comprehended by me but I do not reject that which I cannot understand but admire it the more because I am not able to understand it Now with what face could this Man apply that to the whole Scripture which is spoken only of the Book of the Revelation Let the Reader judg by this what honestly he is to expect in other Quotations IV. He makes us say next That Apostolical Traditions and Ancient Customs of the Church not found in the Written Word are not to be received nor do oblige us Answer THIS is a downright Calumny for we have ever owned that Apostolical Traditions if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible are to be received and followed if delivered by them as of necessary Obligation But we do likewise say That we know no such
Traditions for those which have been called so have been rejected even by the Roman Church it self or having received them they have laid them aside again In short they sometimes pretend to Traditions where there are none and where there are they have forsaken them and in several Cases they pervert them and turn them into another thing As they have done for instance with Purgatory-fire which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgment and not till then but they have kindled already and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein As for ancient Customs sometimes called also Traditions they have not been always alike nor in all places one and the same But the Church of England declares That whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions i. e Customs and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly c. They are the very words of our XXXIVth Article of Religion Which teaches withal That every particular or National Church hath Authority to change and abolish such Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority c. And now what hath this Babbler to alledge out of our Bible against this Truly Nothing at all but only the word Tradition which he is very ignorant if he do not know that we own For we affirm That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions And of such the Apostle speaks in 2 Thess II. 15. 2 Thess II. 15. which is thus expounded by Theodoret Keep the Rule of Doctrine the words delivered to you by us which we both Preached when we were present with you and wrote when we were absent So that the things which were spoken were not different from those which were written but the very same He spoke when he was with them what he wrote when he was gone from them Whence it is clear indeed That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth were of equal Authority with what was written as this man gravely saith for they were the same And it is also certain as he adds That before the New Testament was written all was delivered by word of mouth But what then Therefore Apostolical Traditions are to be received Yes because what was delivered by word of mouth was the very same which afterwards was written But here is no shadow of proof that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written Nor is there more in the next place 2 Thess III. 6. 2 Thess III. 6. but much less for there is not a syllable of word of mouth and Theodoret expresly says That by Tradition here the Apostle means not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Words but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Works that is he bids them follow his Example as St. Chrysostom also understands it which he proves to be the meaning by what follows where he saith the Apostle teaches what he had delivered by his Example For your selves know how ye ought to follow us for we behaved not our selves disorderly among you c. v. 7 8. Wherefore as I may better say than this man doth in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let all good men withdraw ftom them who thus falsly pretend to Tradition when they dare not stand to the Interpretations of the best of the Ancient Fathers and walk disorderly by breaking their own Rule which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous consent Counc of Trent Sess IV. From hence he runs back like a distracted man who catches at any thing at random to the First Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 2. which one would have expected in the Front But perhaps he was sensible it had nothing in it but the bare word Tradition to his purpose and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader 's mind would be possessed with a false Notion which would make any thing go down with him And the truth is there is nothing here for his turn For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apostle be about matters of Order and Decency as one would think by what follows concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered they themselves acknowledge such Traditions do not oblige in all places and times If the Apostle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine how doth it appear that now they are not written As that about the Holy Communion is which the Apostle speaks of in the latter part of that Chapter v. 23 c. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition I mean shamefully forsaken it by leaving off the ministration of the Cup to the people which according to what the Apostle saith he received from the Lord and delivered unto them ought to be given as much as the Bread Consider then I beseech you with what Conscience or Sense this man could say That we reject all Traditions when we receive this for instance more fully than themselves And how he abuses St. Paul in making him as schismatically uncharitable as himself by representing him as disowning us for his Brethren which St. Austin durst not do by the Donatists who are so far from forgetting him in all things that we remember him and his words better than they do and keep to his Traditions as I said just as he hath delivered them unto us Poor man he thinks he hath made a fine speech for St. Paul and made him say to us quite contrary to that he says to the Corinthians Whereas according to Theodoret another kind of Interpreter than he the Apostle dispraises the Corinthians as much as he makes him dispraise us For these words saith he do not contain true Praise but he speaks ironically and in truth reprehends them as not having kept the Orders which he had set them As if he had said You have full well observed the Traditions which I left with you when there is such unbecoming behaviour among you in the time of Divine Service Which no body need be told unless he be such an Ideot as this is not a form of Commendation but of Reproof Lastly He comes from express Scripture to none at all for he betakes himself to Reasoning and asks a very doughty question If nothing be to be believed but only what is left us written wherein should the Church have exercised her self from Adam to Moses the space of Two thousand six hundred years Let me ask him another How doth he prove nothing was written all this time Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him if not out of Ancient Records It is more likely there were Writings before his than that there were not However our saying There were can no more be confuted than his saying There were not can be proved If the Reader be not satisfied with this he bids him see more Scriptures and names near a dozen places in
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
never a one of which there is any mention much less express mention of Tradition And in the last the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver are expresly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes XV. Acts 28. For it is said v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude and delivered the EPISTLE What an unlucky man is this to confute himself after this fashion As for his Fathers he durst not quote the words of any but two only St. Basil and St. Chrysostome The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil * De Spiritu Sancto c. 27. into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition which as it belongs not at all to his subject so it contradicts his sense in another place Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith where he saith It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance either to reject what is written or to add any thing that is not written But admit those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil's they are manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that sense wherein he takes them For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them For instance the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing the Consecration of him that is baptized standing in Prayer on the first day of the week and all the time between Easter and Whitsontide And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty such as Praying towards the East and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture Nay he proceeds so far as to say in the words following that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel or rather contract it into a bare Name A saying so senseless or rather impious that if these men had but a grain of common honesty they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world by such spurious stuff as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is As for St. Chrysostome it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church And unless they be confirmed by Scripture he contradicts himself in saying Traditions not written are worthy of belief For upon Psal 95. he saith expresly If any thing unwritten be spoken the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. understanding of the auditors halts and wavers sometimes inclining sometimes haesitating sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying and again receiving it as probable but when the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit Sav. written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth it confirms and establishes both the words of the speaker and the minds of the hearers V. Next he makes us affirm That a man by his own understanding or private spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture Answer THere is no such crude saying as this among us But that which we affirm is That a man may in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed rightly understand the Holy Scripture so far as is necessary for his Salvation Who should understand or judge for him but his own understanding we can no more understand than who should see for him but his own eyes if he have any and be not blind And what is there to be found in our Bibles expresly against this The first place is far from express for the gift of Prophecying doth not to every one expresly signifie the interpreting of Scripture 1 Cor. XII 8. it having manifestly another signification in some places viz. Inditing Hymns Besides if this place were pertinent forbidding all to interpret Scripture but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy their Church must not meddle with that work for they have not that Gift no more than those that follow discerning of Spirits divers kinds of Tongues c. His second place is as impertinent 2 Pet. 1.20 21. for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture but of the Prophetical Scripture it self Which was not of private interpretation that is the proper invention of them that Prophecied for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth not at the will and pleasure of man but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things or foretold future were acted by the Spirit of God and spake those things which were suggested by Him These are the words of Menochius which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this mans Glosses who babbles here about a company of men and those very holy who are to do he knows not what which private and prophane men cannot do As if all private men were prophane and all companies of men were holy The Lord help them who follow such Guides as these The third place 1 Joh. IV. 1. if it say any thing to this purpose is expresly against him For it is a direction to every Christian not to be of too hasty belief But to try the Spirits that is Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God Now how should Christians try or examine them but by using their own understandings to discern between pretended inspirations and true If they must let others judge for them they cross the Apostle's Doctrine for they do not try but trust To tell us that their Church is infallible and therefore ought to judg for us is a pretence that must also be tried above all things else and in which every man 's particular judgment must be satisfied or else he cannot with reason believe it And to believe it without reason is to be a fool Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits but lays down these two in the following words 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh he was a deceiver v. 2. And 2ly if any man rejected the Apostles and would not hear â—hem he was not to be received himself v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error This makes it plain the Apostle did not leave them then without means of judging aright as he hath not left us now who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church which cannot be tried by particular men is past my understanding and I believe he did not understand it himself but used it as a big phrase to amuse
Imprimatur Apr. 14. 1692. JO. CANT AN ANSWER To a BOOK Spread abroad by the Romish Priests INTITULED THE Touchstone OF THE Reformed Gospel WHEREIN The True DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND and many Texts of the HOLY SCRIPTURE are faithfully Explained By the Right Reverend Father in God SYMON Lord Bishop of ELY LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE READER I Must let the Reader understand that the Book which I answer first appeared in the latter end of the Reign of King James I. under the Name of A Gagg for the New Gospel When it was immediately so exposed to the Scorn of all Men by Mr. R. Mountague afterward Bishop of Chichester and at last of Norwich that for many Years it sculkt and durst not show its head till they imagined that Baffle was forgot and then out it came again in the Reign of King Charles II. as if it had never been seen before with this New Title The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospel And the better to disguise the Cheat they begin the Book with a New Chapter or Section and have quite left out that which was formerly the Last Chapter transposing also the order of some of the rest making Amendments as they imagine in several places and adding several whole Chapters For there were but XLVII Points one of which as I said they now have wholly omitted which they charged upon us and undertook to confute in the First Edition But now they are improved to Two and Fifty and set out as formerly with a long Preface of the very same Stamp with the Book full that is of broad-fac'd Vntruths Of which it may be expected I should here give some account But my Answer to the Book it self is grown so much bigger than I designed that it must be omitted For the great Reason which was urged by those who had power to persuade me to undertake a New Answer to it was because Bishop Mountagu's was so large that few could purchase it And therefore they thought it needful there should be a more Compendious Confutation of the Book though now it be inlarged especially since they found it in every Parish of this great City and in the very Prisons where the Romish-Priests could meet with any entertainment For which Reason the same Persons have persuaded me that what I composed at their desire in the latter end of the late Reign ought now to be published because the Priests of that Church they assure me are still very busie and make account this little Book which I answer will do their business For they put it into the hands of all those whom they hope to make their Proselites and desire them to read it as an unanswerable Piece Let the Reader judge of that when he hath seriously considered what I have said to discover both the weakness and the dishonesty of its Author Who understood neither the Scriptures nor Fathers he quotes or hath so perverted them that as it cost me more time so I have been forced to use more Words than I intended to employ to represent his unskilful or false dealing But I hope I shall neither tire the Reader nor entertain him unprofitably but increase his Knowledge by a right understanding of a considerable part of the Bible and of the Christian Doctrine Especially if he will be pleased to turn to the Texts of Scripture which I have explained but not quoted at length for fear of swelling this Answer into too great a Bulk Febr. 22. 1690. AN ANSWER TO THE TOUCHSTONE OF The Reformed Gospel I. The Protestants he saith affirm That there is not in the Church One and that an Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scriptures and conserving Vnity in matters of Faith Answer THIS Proposition is drawn up deceitfully For neither we maintain this nor they maintain the contrary universally and without limitation No Papist dare say there is one and that an Infallible Rule for understanding all the Holy Scripture For then why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible Why do their Doctors disagree in the interpretation of a thousand places He ought therefore to have said that we hold There is not in the Church one and that an infallible Rule for understanding as much as is necessary to Salvation c. And then he belies us For we believe the Scripture it self gives us infallible Directions for the understanding of its sense in all things necessary which if all would follow there would be Unity in matters of necessary belief But God will not force men to follow those Directions They may err and they may quarrel when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both The Scriptures therefore whereby he proves what he charges upon us must needs be impertinent But it is something strange that in the very first of them he should be so sensless as to give himself the lye For he pretends to refute our errors as his words are by the express words of our own Bibles and immediately puts in a word of his own instead of that in our Bibles which say quite another thing For instead of according to the proportion of faith which are the words of our Translation XII Rom. 6. He says according to the rule of faith What is this but that chopping and changing which he falsly charges us withall in the end of his Preface And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible which he promised to quote expresly but of the sense of that Scripture as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors particularly St. Chrysostom and his Followers XII Rom. 6. who by proportion understand the same with Measure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius one of their own Interpreters and a Jesuit secundum proportionem mensuram Fidei i. e. according to the measure of Vnderstanding and Wisdom which God hath bestowed Now what can you expect from a man who falsifies in this manner at the very first dash In the next Scripture indeed he finds the word Rule III. Philip. 16. III. Phil. 16. and presently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly c. Whereas it is manifest to all who are not blinded with Prejudice that the Apostle supposes in the words before v. 15. they were not all of a mind in some things for there were those among them that believed in Christ who thought the observation of Moses's Law to be necessary also to Salvation which was a dangerous error to mix Legal and Evangelical things together as Theodoret here expounds it but might possibly be cured if Christian Communion were not broken on either side by reason of this difference but every one both the perfect who understood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law and the imperfect who fancied it still lay upon them walked by the same rule c. that is preserved Christian Communion one with another
in the bond of Peace For he speaks here saith Theodoret of concord and the Rule is the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine by which if we walk't it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this that they have broken all Communion by their Tyrannical impositions and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine VI. Gal. 16. The next place evidently speaks of the self-same thing that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith we are sure of the Divine Favour In short the Rule here spoken of is that of the New Creature mentioned in the foregoing words v. 15. But the 4th Text 2 Cor. X. 15. more fully shews this man to be a meer Trifler with words without their sense For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule or line of Faith as he dreams but only of the bounds and limits of those Countrys in which the Apostle had preach'd the Gospel as Menochius himself interprets it This he might have learnt if he had pleased by the very next words where the Apostle saith he did not boast in another man's line or rule of things made ready to his hand i. e. those Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles glorying as Menochius well glosses in other mens Labours as if they had been his own Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures by the Regions in which the Apostles preached An excellent proof that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture because St. Paul had his own Rule and others had their Rule that is not one and the same for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line i. e. in those places where others had done it already Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits when they write on this fashion Either they have no understanding of what they write or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers who understand nothing else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff 1 Cor. XI 16. From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians Chap. XI 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second could he have found the Word Rule there which was all he sought for not regarding the Sense But alas he could find only the Word Custome in that place which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule And what is this Rule as he will needs have it of which the Apostle is there speaking Is it about any matter of Faith No only about Womens praying bare-faced without a covering over them which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church So the same Menochius whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church because he saith in his Preface he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers And what Church doth St. Paul here mean only one Church or all that he had planted He himself answers We have no such custom nor other Churches of God neither therefore you not only cross us but the whole Church as Theophylact expounds the words And to the same effect Theodoret he shows that these things did not seem so to him only but to all the Churches of God Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this of all the Churches for any thing wherein we differ and see whether we will be contentious Tho' I must tell them that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times tho' never so many hundreds and the Authority of those few Pastors as this man calls them which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves infallible men and other Apostolical persons who were guided by their directions And now he comes to tell us by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture instead of telling us by what names the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called For the good man when he had gone thus far had forgotten what he was about The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no service For it is Rom. VI. 17. saith Theophylact to live aright and with an excellent Conversation Or that Form of Doctrine saith Menochius which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching Unto which is there opposed not disunion and disorder c. as this Scribler pretends but their serving sin But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alledges else he would not have had the impudence if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it to mention the next place of Scripture 2 Corinth X. 16. A thing made ready to hand 2 Cor. X. 16. He should have said things made ready if he would have stood to his promise of quoting express words of our Bible For so it is both in our Translation and in the Original and even in the Latin Translation it self By which is meant as the same Menochius judiciously observes Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit And so Theodoret he reproves those saith he who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers c. Let the Reader here again look about and see if he can spy a word about disunion discord disobedience c. in this place of which this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges 1 Tim. VI. 20. In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling and opposition of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust not the Churches trust as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text. And what is this depositum or trust but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel unto which he opposes the new Phrases and the new Doctrines which the School of Simon Magus had brought in as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret whose words are these They that had their Original from Simon were called Gnosticks as much as to say men endued with Knowledge For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent they said God had revealed to them This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge From whence I think it clearly follows that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures Which is the Doctrine he saith let the Romanists mind this which all that have the dignity of Priesthood ought carefully to keep and propose to themselves as a certain Rule and by this square all that they say all that they do In short Tertullian de Prescript C. 25. understands by the thing committed unto him that Doctrine
which the Apostle delivered in this Epistle To which Theodoret adds the grace of the Holy Ghost which he received at his Ordination That is his Office committed unto him and all the Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on him to qualifie him for this Office He bids us see more in several other places of Scripture whose words he is not pleased to recite and therefore I shall pass them by Because if there had been any thing to be seen in them to his purpose he would have set them forth at large And there is as little to be seen in the Fathers whom he mentions to confirm his pretended Catholick Doctrine And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus and Tertullian without alledging their words But he adventures to set down some words out of Vincentius Lirinensis tho he doth not tell us where to find them We need not go far indeed to seek for them they being in the beginning of his Book where he that is able to read it may find a full confutation of the Romish Pretences For having said that the way to preserve our Faith found is first by the Authority of the Divine Law Secondly by the Tradition of the Catholick Church He raises this Objection which shows how much the first of these is above the other Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect and abundantly sufficient unto it self for all purposes mark this which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cause what need is there to joyn unto this the Authority of the Catholick Sense To which he answers that the Scriptures being a great depth are not understood by all in the same Sense But Novatian understands them one way Photinus another Sabellius Donatus Arrius c. another And therefore because of the windings and turnings of Error the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation should be directed according to the Rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense Thus he ends his Book as he begins it We have not recourse to Ecclesiastical Tradition because the Scripture is not sufficient to it self for all things but because of various Interpretations But then he immediately subjoins in the entrance of his Book what that Catholick Sense is Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where and always and by all Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide our selves and from which the Church of Rome hath departed For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron where he expresly owns this Rule p. 22. Edit Lond. 1612. And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himself which this Writer should have been so honest as to have confessed For in conclusion Cap. XXXIX he saith that the ancient Consent of Fathers is to be studiously sought and followed not in all the little Questions of the Divine Law or Scripture for alas there is no Consent but only or chiefly in the Rule of Faith That is in those Questions as he explains it Cap. XLI on which the Foundations of the whole Catholick Faith rely And further he observes That all Heresies cannot always be confuted this way but only those which are newly invented as soon as they arise before they have falsified the Rules of the Ancient Faith and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients by the spreading of their poison For inveterate Heresies and such as have spread themselves must not be impugned this way but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture or at least-wise by the Universal Councils of Catholick Priests wherein they have been convinced and condemned I have been the longer in this because he is a most worthy Witness as this man calls him by whom we are willing to be tried And so we are by Tertullian some of whose words he also at last adventures to alledge out of two Chapters of his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks But as he jumbles together words far distant one from another so he durst not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX which would have explained the reason why sometimes they disputed not with Hereticks out of the Scripture because that Heresy of which he there treats did not receive some Scripture and if it did receive some Cap. XVII it did not receive them intire but perverted them by additions and detractions as served its purpose c. In short they would not acknowledg these things that is the Scriptures by which they should bave been convinced To what purpose then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures No let them believe saith he Cap. XXIII without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scripture just as the present Romanists now do From whence it is that he calls Hereticks Lucifugae Scripturarum men that fly from the light of the Scriptures L. d. Resur Carn C. XLVII Insomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the same Book Cap. III. Take from Hereticks those things which they have learnt from the Heathen that they may state their questions out of the Scripture alone and they cannot stand Unto which Rule if the Papists will yield their Cause is gone Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture and we desire no more Unto which it is manifest Tertullian appeals in other places so plainly that there is no way to evade it particularly in his Book of the Flesh of Christ Cap. VI. Let them prove the Angels took Flesh from the Stars if they cannot prove it because it is not written then Christ's Flesh was not from thence c. And again in the same Chapter there is no evidence of this because the Scripture doth not say it And plainest of all in the next Chapter I do not receive what thou inferrest of thy own without Scripture Let these men blush if they can who thus shamelesly pervert all things to a wrong sense as they do these two words Rule and Form of Faith Which this man hath the Confidence to say is the knowledge of Tradition But how we should know any Tradition to be true which is not contained in the Scripture is the Question Especially since there have been so many false Traditions as is confess'd by all sides Besides it is so far from being true that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith or put it before the Scripture that Vincentius expresly puts the Divine Scripture in the first place as our Guide and then the Ecclesiastical sense as a means in some cases to find the sense of Scriptures Cap. XIII And Tertullian as expresly in that very Book which he quotes and in the Chapter preceding makes the Apostles Creed the Rule of Faith Which is all contained in the Scripture and needs the help of no Tradition but that to prove it But after all I must ask what 's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this
Doctrine There are no Papists but confess that the most excellent parts even of the visible Church in this world are invisible or hidden For none but God who searches the heart can know certainly who are truly good men and not hypocrites And there are no Protestants who maintain that they who profess the Christian Religion who are the Church have ever been hidden and invisible But this they say that this Church hath not been always visible free from corruption and that it hath not been at all times alike visible but sometimes more sometimes less conspicuous Now these men by the Visibility of the Church mean such an illustrious state as by its glory splendor and pomp all men may be led to it This is it and no more which Protestants deny And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely but only this degree of it For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible when they met under ground and in obscure places There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes contrary to this much less expresly contrary V. Mat. 14 15. The first of them V. Mat. 14 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office that they might gather a Church to Christ So the before-named Menochius interprets those words Ye are the light of the world who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example You ought not to be hid no more than a City can be which is seated on a hill Men do not light a candle much less God to put it under a Bushel Our Saviour saith he exhorts his Disciples by this similitude that they should diligently shine both in their words and in their example and not be sparing of their pains or of themselves by withdrawing themselves from the work but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine which they could not always neither Preach in publick but some times only in private houses Christians were forced to meet together in some places and times very secretly not being able always to hold such publick visible Assemblies that all men beheld them and what they did The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err XVIII Matth. 17. and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid and this not expresly but by a consequence and that a very sensless one For whoever said or thought that no body can see a Church when it is not visible to every body It 's members no doubt see it even when it is invisible to others Any man may be seen by his Friends when he lies hid from his Enemies And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted and by them that belong to it though strangers perhaps take no notice of it especially those that are at a distance from it In the third place we have mention of the Gospel but not a word of the Church 2 Cor. IV. 3 4. which he puts in such is his honesty contrary to the express words of ours and of all Bibles Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid but expresly supposes it 2 Cor. IV. 3. that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world who shut their eyes against the clearest light even the light of the knowledg of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ One would think this man besides himself when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid when his words are a plain supposition that it was hid to some people Not indeed because they could not for it was visible enough in it self but because they would not see it And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ II. Isa 2. Which was very visible in its beginning when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and by them the Law that is the Christian Doctrine went out of Sion and the word of the Lord that is the Gospel from Jerusalem But did not always continue so when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these which say there shall be an Apostacy from the Faith and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness 2 Thess II. 3. XII Revel 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ particularly VII Dan. 14. VII Dan. 14. they point at a state of his Church which is not yet come and when it doth come will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church Whose present state will be utterly overturned to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished X. Revel 7. XI 15. and that cannot be till Babylon that is Rome be thrown down XVIII Revel 2. XIX 1 2 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was of Christian Truth Righteousness Charity and Peace among men He bids us as his manner is see more in other places But if they had more in them than these we should have had them at length And his Fathers also some light touches of which he gives us just as he found them in a cluster altogether word for word in a Book called The Rule of Faith and the Marks of the Church which was answered above LXXX years ago by Dr. J. White who observes * VVay to the True Church Sect. 23. that when Origen whom upon other occasions they call an Heretick saith The Church is full of VVitnesses from the East to the VVest he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof but of the truth professed therein Which though clear to the World when he said so yet doth not prove it shall be always so for a Cloud of Apostacy might and did afterward obscure it St. Chrysostome doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkned but not so as to be extinguished no more than the Sun can be put out For he could not be so sensless as not to know that it had been for a time eclipsed When St. Austin saith They are blind who see not so great a mountain He speaks against the Donatists who confined the Church to themselves as the Papists now do And he justly calls them blind who
Epist LX. Edit Oxon. and one Voice all the Roman Church hath confessed that is their Faith which the Apostle praised was be come famous as it follows in the next words and while they were thus Unanimous thus Valiant they gave great Examples of Vnanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est They were all stedfast in their Faith which this poor man construes as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholick Church By translating those words thus The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Which he vehemently denied ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons That every mans Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed and commanded those to return home who had appealed to Rome which he shows was most just and reasonable unless the Authority of the Bishops in Africk seem less than the Authority of other Bishops to a few desperate and profligate persons who had already been judged and condemned by them Epist LIX This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius to which I could add a great deal more if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush if they have any shame left who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church St. Austin of whom I must say something lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him and the whole Church of Africk in a Council of Two hundred Bishops made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church and therefore could mean no such thing as this man would have in his Book of the Vnity of the Church Where he saith in the 3d Chapter That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings but out of the Divine Oracles and if the Holy Scriptures have design'd it in Africa alone c. whatsoever other Writings may say the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause and none be the Church but they But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise designing the Church to be spread throughout the World And then he goes on to say Chap. 4. that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head but yet do so dissent those are his words which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously from his Body which is the Church that their Communion is not with the whole Body wheresoever it is diffused but is found in some part separated it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church than of any other part of the Catholick Church and in truth makes them like the Donatists since their Communion is not with the whole Body which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion but they are found in a part of it seperated by themselves The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin I assure the Reader is as much besides the matter and therefore I will not trouble him with it And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom in his Apology against Ruffinus But this I find L 3. the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle viz. I. Rom. 8. admits not such deceit and delusion into it c. Where it is to be noted That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle is one thing and the Roman Church another And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time was certainly most pure but who shall secure us it is so now If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so we should not believe it because it is not what they then believed nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time but much altered in many Points And suppose St. Hierom had told us It is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholick Faith it must be meant of the then Roman Faith and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith No nor more than is said for thus Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople writes in an Epistle * Council of Ephes p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome We also have obtained the name of New Rome and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith the Prophets and Apostles mark that he doth not say on the Roman Church whâ—re Christ our Saviour and God is the Corner-stone are in the matter of faith nothing behind the elder Romans For in the Church of God there is none to be reckoned or numbred before the rest †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also c. i. e. if he were alive Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City as he had theirs at Old Rome for we as well as they following his Doctrine and Institutions wherein we are rooted are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith wherein we stand and rejoice c. X. The Reformers he saith hold That the Church's Vnity is not necessary in all points of Faith Answer THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes where he saith IV. Ephes 5. there is One Faith Which we believe is necessary to make One Church every part of which blessed be God at this very day is baptized into that one and the same Faith and no other contained in the common Creed of Christians called the Apostles Creed Therefore so far Church Vnity is still preserved But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith Nor should the Differences which may be among Christians about such matters break Unity of Communion And if they do those Churches which are thus broken and divided by not having external communion one with another may notwithstanding still remain both of them Members of the same one Catholick Church because they still retain the same one Catholick Faith Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time and the African and Roman in Stephen's time differed in external Communion and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ This is more than I need have said in answer to him but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies not our Opinions We believe as the Apostle teaches us IV. Ephes 5. IV. Ephes 5. and from thence conclude That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith truly so called that is all things necessary to be believed Nor do we differ in any such things and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church II. Jam. 10. The second
this was become his name as much as Simon before this time for at their first meeting Christ gave him this name of Peter I. John 43. 1 Cor. III. 4.22 From that which follows 1 Cor. III. 4 22. there is a wonderful fetch For as before he argues Peter's Supremacy from his being named first so now he argues it from his being named last whereas in his first observation it was an argument of Judas being the unworthiest because named last When he thinks again perhaps he will prove his Supremacy because in II. Gal. 9. he is named neither first nor last but in the middle between James and John And according to his wise note That the Apostle ascends from those he would have esteemed lesser to those whom he would have esteemed greater we must look upon Apollos as greater than Paul because he ascends here from Paul to him and so to Peter Whither will not the Folly of these men lead them XXII Luke 31 32. His Reasoning for we are not to expect Express Texts whatsoever he vainly bâ—ags upon the next place XXII Luke 31 32. is still more strange For who ever heard that to strengthen or confirm his brethren can be nothing but to practice and exercise his greatness over them This Greatness of his runs so in their heads that they fancy they see it every where even where there is not a shadow of it For none before him sure ever thought that to strengthen others is an exercise of Greatness but rather of Goodness It implies indeed that he who establishes another is in that greater than he but it doth not follow he is so in any thing else nor doth it imply any thing of Jurisdiction over others Tho if it did they are not the Apostles who are here intended to be strengthned for they were as strong as himself but the Converted Jews who might be in the same danger wherein he had been And therefore our Lord bids him learn to pity their weakness by the remembrance of his own and to establish them in that Faith which he had denied From hence he leads us back to v. 26. XXII Luke 26. of the same Chapter and from the vain ambition which was in the Apostles who strove which of them should be accounted the greatest v. 24. concludes That really some of them was greater than others viz. in Power and Authority over the rest or else he concludes nothing But this vanity our Saviour checks and therefore it is far from truth that one of them was accounted greater than another even by Christ himself No such matter he only shows them that if in any quality one excelled another it should make him more humble and subservient to his Brethren not swell him and make him perk up above them And thus Theophylact understands it not of any Superiority in Power but in other things For the occasion of their contention Who should be esteemed greatest he thinks was this That there being an enquiry among them which of them should be so wicked as to betray their Master v. 23. and one perhaps saying Thou art likely to be the man and another No it will be thy self They proceed from hence to say I am better than you and I am greater and such like things Which our Saviour expresses in the following words The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. but it shall not be so among you c Which is a pretty plain denial of any Authority they were to have one over another And indeed when he comes to speak of Power in the following Verses v. 29 30. he saith indifferently to them all I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me c. It was divided among them and none had an higher Throne given him than his fellows We are at last come to the main prop of this Cause which is as weak as all the rest XXI Joh. 15 16 17. XXI John 15 16 17. For who told him that the word used the second time by our Saviour which we Translate Feed †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must interpret the other two which are used at first and last Why may not they being used twice rather interpret that which is used but once And how doth he prove that it signifies to govern and rule rather than feed Or if it do signifie Government what 's this to his governing the Apostles who had as much Power to Feed and Rule both Lambs and Sheep as himself And thus the Ancients understood this to be spoken unto all the Apostles as well as unto him and even his own Companions who have more Wit and less Impudence by Lambs and Sheep understand not the Apostles but weaker and stronger Christians I will mention only Menochius whose words are these in his Notes upon this place By Lambs he signifies as the very name shâ—ws those that were newly converted to the Faith and were weaker in the Faith whose number was very great when the Apostles began to preach and therefore needed greater care for which cause Christ repeats this twice FEED MY LAMBS and but once FEED MY SHEEP who are those that are stronger in the Faith and therefore needed less pains to preserve them This is spoken like a man of sound sense And with the like Judgment and Integrity he interprets the rest directly contrary to the silly Reasonings of this Trifler who says Peter loved Christ more than the rest and therefore it follows necessarily he received more Power to feed than all the rest did This is more than Peter himself durst say That he loved Christ more than the rest No says Menochius He dares not answer that he loved more than others but only that he loved for his fall had made him more modest He had preferred himself to others when he said XXVI Matth. 33. Though all be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended and after this he fell more fouly than others therefore now he speaks of himself what he thinks to be true but he doth not prefer himself before others whose hearts he did not see Now I thought we had done when like a man out of his wits or rather possessed he flies to the Devil to help him at a dead lift and thus argues for express Scriptures have failed him long ago from XII XII Matt. 24. Matth. 24. Satan therefore hath a kingdom whereof he is chief And what then One would think he should have concluded Therefore so hath our Lord Christ But he was afraid of that for he saw it would not do his business but ours rather who own Christ for the only Head of the Church He tells us therefore as if he had found it in the Text There is but one visible Head even in Hell as there is one visible Head of the Church Triumphant in Heaven and therefore why not a visible Head on earth He might as well have ask'd Why not one
who lived in the Eighth Century and yet is set before Theodoret who lived in the Fifth and St. Chrysostome who lived in the Fourth nay and before his Ignatius who lived in the time of the Apostles whose words import no more but that all must obey their Bishop as their Pastor which agrees well enough with the Bishop's obeying the Emperor as his Prince What John Damascen says I cannot find nor is there any thing of that nature in the place he quotes out of Theodoret. But Valens was an Arian who commanded things contrary to the Christian Religion and so was not to be obeyed It is mere tittle-tatle about St. Chrysostom's calling the Bishop a Prince as well as a King for a greater than he Constantine the Great in like manner calls himself a Bishop as to all External Government XIII That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man and that the Pope is Antichrist Answer THIS Proposition hath two Parts neither of which are the setled Doctrine of our Church or of any other Protestants but the Common Opinion of all some few excepted Especially the first Part That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man but a Succession of Men which may be evidently proved from the Confession of the ablest Men in the Roman Church For it is the Opinion of almost all their Interpreters that the last Head mentioned by St. John XVII Rev. 11. and called after a signal manner by the Name of THE BEAST is no other than Antichrist Now all the forgoing Heads do not signify so many single Persons only but all Expositors saith their Ribera * In XVII Revel have understood that in every one of those Heads there are a great many comprehended And never hath any man but Victorinus taken them only for Seven single Persons whose Opinion ALL do deservedly gainsay To the very same purpose also Alcasar another famous Roman Expositor writes upon the same place And let this man or any one else tell me if they can why the last Head i. e. Antichrist as he is commonly called should not comprehend a Succession of single Persons of the same sort as it is is manifest the Beasts in Daniel signify The Ram for instance doth not signify Darius only but the Ruling Power of Persia during that Kingdom And the He-goat not Alexander alone but him and his Successors VIII Daniel 4 5. Now from this ground it may be plainly proved which is the Second thing that the Ruling Power at this time in the Roman Church is The Beast that is Antichrist For the Beast and Babylon are all one in this Vision and by Babylon is certainly meant Rome as their great Cardinal Bellarmine and Baronius the best of their Authors not only confess but contend And not Rome Pagan but Rome Christian because she is called the Great Whore XVII Rev. 1. which always signifies a People apostatized from true Religion to Idolatry and because it is the same Babylon which St. John saith must be burnt with fire Ver. 16. XVIII 18. From whence Malvenda another of their Authors confesses it probable that Rome Christian will be an Idolatrous Harlot in the time of Antichrist because it is to be laid desolate it is manifest for some Crime against the Church of Christ Now that this Antichristian Power ruling in that Church is not to be adjourned to the end of the World as they would fain have it but is at this present appears from hence that the Sixth HEAD being that Power which reigned when St. John saw this Vision XVII Rev. 10. there was but one Ruling Power more and that to continue but a short space to come between the end of the Sixth HEAD and this last HEAD or Power called in an eminent sense THE BEAST v. 11. Now that Imperial Power which reigned at Rome in time of St. John it is evident ended at the fall of the Western Empire with Augustulus when another setled Authority was received by the City of Rome it self instead of that former Imperial Government Which new Authority lasting but a short space as the Vision tells us it is plain THE BEAST that is Antichrist is long ago in the Throne of the Roman Church Let this Man and all his Friends try if they can answer this Argument and see how they will free the Papacy from being that Antichristian Power which St. John foretold should arise and make it self drunk with the Blood of the Saints I am sure this is a stronger and clearer Explication of that Scripture than any he hath attempted And now let us examine whether there be any thing in our Bible contrary to this The first place he produces 2 Thess II. 3 2 Thess II. 3. c. most evidently overthrows both parts of his Proposition as I shall demonstrate For the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition v. 3. is no more to be restrained to a single Person than he who now letteth v. 7. is to be restrained to a single Emperor Now St. Chrysostome in plain terms saith that the Apostle by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. that which withholdeth this Man of Sin from appearing was the Roman Empire And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7 he who now letteth the very same Roman Power that is the Roman Emperors not one particular Emperor but the whole Succession of them who as long as they lasted would keep back the Man of Sin And this is not only his Sense in his Comment upon the place but the general Sense of the Ancient Fathers Tertullian Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem St. Ambrose St. Hierom and St. Austin and a great number of School-men in the Roman Church that upon the fall of the Roman Empire Antichrist shall come Which may satisfy any unprejudiced Man both that Antichrist is come and that he is not a particular Man but a Succession of Men who altogether make up one Person called the Man of Sin who can be none else but the Papacy For what particular Man is there to whom this can be applied after the fall of the Empire His next place of Scripture as he quotes it is neither out of our Bible XIII Rev 18. nor out of theirs so little is his honesty For thus the words run in both Let him that hath understanding count the number not of a Man as he falsly translates it but of the Beast for it is the number of a Man Now I have proved the Beast doth not signify a particular Man and therefore this Number whatsoever it is ought not to be sought only in one Man's name Which is not the meaning of the Number of a Man as this Man would have it but signifies as a better Interpreter than he viz. Arethas out of Andreas Caesariensis A number or counting usual and well known to Men. And if we will believe Irenaeus who in all probability was not the Inventor of it but had it from the foregoing Doctors of the Church it is to be
to the Master that Priests bind and loose because they declare Men to be hound and loosed In short the Doctrine of the Church is that God absolves by his Ministers who cannot see into mens hearts and therefore can only pronounce that he absolves them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost upon supposal of their unfeigned Repentance But it is apparent the Church always believed it is God who properly absolves and forgives Sins not the Priest For all the Ancient Rituals show that the Absolution was given by Prayer to God for the Penitent there being no other Form of Absolution in them but Prayers which being made in behalf of the Penitent they believed did obtain from God the pardon of those Sins which he had with all humility publickly confessed And therefore the present form I absolve thee which was never used but in the Latin Church and not there neither till the middle of the XIIIth Century must be understood to be only a very solemn declaration That God forgives the person upon his sincere Contrition and Repentance This is the meaning of our Saviour XX. John 21. XX. John 21. when he made the Apostles his Delegates saying As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Which supposes a sâ—perior Power to theirs in whose Name they acted only as Ministers And therefore when he adds in the next words Ibid. v. 22 23. v. 22 23. Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Menochius expounds it thus That though the Holy Ghost was not given till the day of Pentceost yet on the first day of the Resurrection they received the Grace of it by which they might remit sins and baptize and make children of God and give the Spirit of Adoption to them that believed c. Now let any man tell me whether it were they that for instance gave the Spirit of Adoption or God himself they that healed and wrought Miracles as they did after the day of Pentecost or God by their Ministry In like manner it was not they who conferred Forgiveness of Sins but God properly bestowed it as he did the other Blessings they only serving as Ministers by whom he conveyed it to the Penitent In the next place of Scripture he makes bold to add words which are neither in our Bible nor theirs IX Matth. 8. When the multitude saw it i. e. the man take up his bed and walk they marvelled and glorified God which had given such power unto men he adds as to forgive sins Whereas the Evangelist speaks of the power of healing a sick man which they saw plainly and which our Saviour alledges as an Argument that he could forgive sins which the multitude could see no other way but in this miraculous demonstration of it But suppose the multitude had admired at his Power to forgive sins will it follow that any body else hath that Power which Christ had No Christ could as man forgive sins yet not as any sort of man saith Menochius * Non ut qualiscunque homo sed ut homo Deus himself but as God-man which no Priest whatsoever is He bids us after his usual form see more in several Texts which he sets down without the words and we are very willing to obey him if there were any thing to be seen to this purpose But the two first of them are only a promise of what our Saviour afterward bestowed and we have heard what that was from XX. John 23. The two next speak not of forgiving sins nor merely of retaining them but of delivering men up to Satan which no body now can do 2 Cor. II. 10. The next 2 Cor. II. 10. proves too much if it prove any thing to this purpose for it speaks of the whole Church giving Pardon to an Offender viz. by receiving him again by the Apostles order into their Communion V. 19. The next 2 Cor. V. 19. relates to the Apostles reconciling men by preaching the Word of God as Menochius expounds it or if by Word of Reconciliation we understand saith he the thing that is Reconciliation it self then the Apostle speaks of the whole Power and Ministry of reconciling men to God The last place out of V. Numb 6. is as impertinent as the quotations that follow out of the Fathers which they have a little mended since Bishop Mountague lash'd this Author severely for his childish and careless Transcriptions of them out of Father Bellarmine You may judge of them all by the last save one which was the first heretofore out of Irenaeus L. V. c. 13. who proving that we have a Specimen of the Resurrection in those whom Christ raised from the dead instances in Lazarus unto whom he said come forth and the dead man came forth bound hand and foot c. A Symbol saith he or Type of that man who is tyed and bound in sins and with respect to this the Lord said Loose him and let him go But what good would their loosing him have done if Christ had not first raised him from the dead unto whose power not theirs all that followed is to be ascribed And to whom did Christ speak when he bad them loose Lazarus but to the Jews who were present As Maldonate one of their own good Writers expounds it and saith It is the opinion of all good Authors except Austin Gregory and Bede and adds That to found the Doctrine of Confession or Absolution upon this place is no better than to build upon sand But if it be supposed that he here speaks to his Apostles and bids them loose him still it can figure no more but a declaration of Pardon of Sins granted already by the Mercy of the Almighty What St. Austin therefore saith in the place which this man mentions first is to no purpose for it is the very same with this of Irenaeus For having said in the beginning of that Tractate * Tract XLIX in John that the works of our Lord were not only facta but signa and showed how the three persons raised by him from the dead signifie the raising up three degrees of sinners out of their sins When he comes to this passage in the story of Lazarus's Resurrection Loose him and let him go he saith What is loose him c. but what ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And let it be so that our Lord's words fitly represent this yet still it was God that properly loosed men from their sins the Apostles were but Ministers in this business who declared what God had granted As God raised up Lazarus from the dead they only untied him after he had really made him alive and raised him out of his Grave All the rest out of the Fathers is no better than this and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it but pass to the next Where he makes us say XV. That we ought not to confess
would make his Reader believe that Irenaeus understood this place as he doth when he speaks not one word of this matter in the place he mentions but only saith There is therefore an Altar in the Heavens for thither our Prayers and our Oblations are directed and to the Temple there as John in the Revelation saith and there was opened the Temple of God and the Tabâ—â—â—acle for behold saith he the Tabernacle of God in which he will dwell with men In which words he hath no respect to this place but to XI Rev. 19. and XXI 3. Once more take notice of the wretched performance of this man who took upon him to prove That Angels not only pray for us but know our thoughts and desires upon earth about which there is not the least touch in any one of these places which are all he quotes at large And as for those the Chapters and Verses of which follow they only tell us what Angels knew of the mind of God which they brought in messages to men but nothing of their knowing the minds of men Let the Reader if he think good peruse them and he will see I say true What heart then can one have to look into his Fathers when he deals thus insincerely with the Holy Scriptures But to show that nothing else can be expected from such men I will briefly note That St. Hilary expresly speaks of such a Ministerial Intercession as many Protestants grant that is of their bringing mens Prayers to God as he speaks Whose words are a gloss upon the Apostle's I. Heb. For they are ministring spirits sent forth for to minister to them who are heirs of salvation Whereupon follows the words he quotes Therefore the nature of God doth not need their intercession but our infirmity for they are sent forth for those who shall be heirs of salvation What can be plainer than that he speaks only of a Ministerial for they are sent forth to Minister not of a Powerful Intercession XXVIII That we may not Pray to them Answer HERE he speaks some Truth again and a great many of his own Church ingenuously confess That there is no command in Scripture nor so much as an example of Praying to them The Text they have most in their mouths who assert we may Pray to them is this which he first quotes XLVIII Gen. 16. XLVIII Gen. 16. But by this Angel a great number of the Fathers understand Christ himself St. Cyril for instance to whose Authority I told you they dare not always stand thus expounds it L. 3. Thesaur C. 1. And so doth Novatianus in his Book of the Trinity C. 15. St. Athanasius also against the Arians Orat. 4. And St. Chrysostome upon the place Hom. 66. in Gen. and divers others Therefore this is no sorry shift as this ignorant man presumes to call it having such very great Patrons to maintain it And what if St. Chrysostom in another place understands this of an Angel which attends not every man as this Writer pretends but every Believer as his words are expresly and St. Basil's it is no more than some Protestants do even Mr. Calvin himself is content with this Exposition in his Institutions tho in his Commentaries on Genesis he saith it is meant of Christ but they of the Church of Rome gain nothing at all from this concession For Jacob's words are no direct formal Invocation or Compellation of the Angel for he doth not say O Angel of God bless the lâ—ds but only an earnest desire that they might have the Angelical Protection for which he prays to God That he would send the Angel to preserve them as he had done him Tobit himself meant no more in the place which he next alledges V. Tob. 16. That God who dwells in Heaven would prosper their Journey by sending his Angel to keep them company For it is certain that the Jews never prayed to Angels and it is as certain that they constantly define Prayer by a direct and express relation to God and none else And therefore it is not to be thought that any good man among them ever joyned Prayer to God and an Angel together in the same breath as he makes Tobit do in this place No this is contrary to the sense of the greatest Divines in his own Church XII Hosea 4. Before he ventured to alledge the next place XII Hos 4. he should have been sure that the Prophet speaks of a Created Angel and not of the Son of God who in the Opinion of Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Hilary and many more Fathers appeared to Jacob and blessed him Whence it is that he called the place Peniel having there seen the face of God And to this sense the next verse inclines where he is called the Lord God of Hosts who found Jacob in Bethel Which the Fathers in the Council of Sirmium thought so certain that they denounce a Curse against those that maintain'd it was the unbegotten Father not the Son for God they concluded he was that wrestled with Jacob. But suppose it was an Angel the Hâ—brews are so far from thinking that Jacob mâ—de supplication to him that they conceive many of them the Angel made supplication to Jacob for he prayed him to let him go Take it otherwise it signifies no more but that he desired him to give him his blessing which we desire of men here upon Earth to whom we do not properly pray From hence he passes to satisfy Scruples which he saith some have who say they would pray to them if they could be assured that they hear us c. Who they are that say thus I know not they are none of us For we do not think it lawful to pray to them though they could hear us But how doth he prove that they can hear us Why he brings the common place XV. Luke 10. which saith there is joy in their presence that is in heaven as it is v. 7. over one sinner that repenteth Which shews they know when there is joy in Heaven and what that joy is for because they are in Heaven but it doth not prove they know all things that pass upon earth but only those things of which notice is given in Heaven At this rate we may prove that good men know all that is done on Earth because they rejoice at the Conversion of of a Sinner that is when they hear of it and the Angels rejoice no other ways They that like his Performances upon these Texts may look into the rest and see how to fill up the number he alledges the same over again XII Hos 4. and now also quotes XIX Gen. 18 c. to prove we may pray to Angels which in the foregoing Section he brought to prove that they pray for us Nay sends us to the Song of the three Children where I can find nothing of praying to the Angels no more than of praying to the Sun and Moon and Stars His quotation out
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
of him when she stooped to touch the hem of his Garment His Fathers help him not at all For Eusebius only saith the Chair of St. James first Bishop of Jerusalem was preserved but not a word of its having any vertue in it or of its being kept to be worshipped as they now do Relicks Athanasius * In Vita S. Anton. speaks of an old Cloak and another Garment which St. Anthony desired might be given to him who had bestow'd it on him new when he died as we are wont to bequeath something or other in remembrance of us But that he laid it up and delivered it to posterity as a sacred Relick we are yet to learn And how far he was from desiring to have his Garments preserved as Relicks appears from the Charge he gives in the same place about his own Body which he would not have them carry into Egypt lest it should be reserved in some of their Houses * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mind this but bury it in some unknown place And so they did none knowing where they interred it but only two Servants to whom that care was committed His Friends indeed he saith kept those Garments as some great thing but mark what follows as the Reason For he that saw them thought be saw Anthony and he that wore them was as if he carried about with him joyfully his Precepts They were not laid up then as Relicks but used still as Garments which put them in mind of him and of his words St. Basil doth speak of wonderful things at the touch of the Bones of a Martyr whom God was pleased to honour at that time to convince Unbelievers of the truth of that Religion which Martyrs sealed with their Blood But there is no reason to expect such things now nor have their Bones been preserved to this Age. Saint Chrysostom's words are falsly alledged by Bellarmin from whom this man hath all these Fathers when he makes him say Let us visit them often let us adore their Tombs when in truth the very Latin Interpreter hath it let us adorn their Tombs and this not according to the Greek where it is let us touch their Coffin St. Ambrose his honouring the Ashes of Martyrs is nothing to the worshipping of them If we knew of any true Relicks of their Bodies we should not fail to honour them And we think the greatest honour would be to give them a decent burial XXXVI That creatures cannot be sanctified or made more holy than they are already of their own nature Answer NO not so much as to make them become Sacramental things which have a power in them to purge away venial sins cure diseases drive away devils preserve from all dangers and produce other such-like supernatural effects which they ascribe to Holy Water and many other blessed things But that creatures may be set apart to holy uses we own by our practice and withal acknowledg That by Prayer and Thanksgiving to God they may be blessed to us in the use of them more than otherwise they would be It is only the forementioned Sanctification of them which we believe to be superstitious and magical for we can find nothing in God's Word to warrant such consecrations of creatures to those supernatural effects St. Paul in 1 Tim. IV. 4. 1 Tim. IV. 4. speaks only of a general sanctification of the things we eat and drink which may be performed by any good Christian not of such a special one as this man intends made by the Bishop For doth any creature that we receive tho sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer cure diseases lay storms and tempests preserve from Thunder and Lightning and such-like mischiefs The Apostle plainly disputes against those who condemned the use of certain meats as not only the Jews but the Followers of Simon Magus Ebion and others did which he proves from the words of Moses as Theodoret observes are all good in their kind And if they be received with Thanksgiving in remembrance of God who hath made these things and by his Word given us allowance to eat them they become more than good saith the same Theodoret being sanctified by that holy action which makes the use of them well-pleasing to God That 's the most that can be meant by Sanctified And so Emanuel Sa one of his own Interpreters expounds it It is sanct fiâ—d that is made fit for food Which Claud. Guillandus like a man of learning thus further explains It is sanctified by the word of God ' by which we believe that nothing is any longer common or unclean and by Prayer whereby we request that such things may be given us and for which being given we return thanks to God But the Popish Sanctification of Creatures supposes that they are not only unclean but that the Devil is in them or that they are under his power the very opinion of the old Hereticks which is the reason of their Exorcisms that they may cast the Devil out of them Whereas should we grant they are any way unclean as Theophylact and Menochius think the Apostle speaks by way of Concession it is quite taken away and purged that 's all they understand by Sanctification if we take this to be the sense by God's word which allows the use of them and by Prayer and Benediction when we sit down to eat our meat We need not be told That in ancient time they sent sometimes part of the Consecrated Bread unto their neighbours in token of mutual love and fellowship in the same Faith But this was forbidden by the Council of Laodicea and when afterwards they sent only Bread Blessed not Consecrated unto those who were not yet baptized but in the number of Learners under instruction that had the like meaning to put them in hope they should at last be taken into Church Communion But what is this to the Blessing of Water and Oyl and Wax c. for such purposes as Agnus Dei's are Consecrated in the Roman Church Which may be seen in several of our Authors out of the Ceremoniale His Texts out of XXIII Matth. 17 19. prove no such Sanctification either of the Altar or Gift but only the separation of them from profane uses which doth not amount to the making them powerful against sin the Devil and all manner of evil He bids us see more in 2 Kings II. where we find Elisha cast salt in the waters and thereby made them wholsome to drink but did not infuse into them such a vertue as they pretend to give to the water mixed with salt which the Priest exorcises in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Crosses at the name of every one of them that it may become an exorcised water to drive away all the power of the enemy and to root out the Enemy himself with all his apostate Angels as their Church speaks in the Office for this purpose Why he mentions Raphel's using the Liver
to be raised out of his Grave XXII Luke 18. That which follows also in XXII Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine c. plainly belongs to the Paschal Feast as they stand in St. Luke who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Institution of the Sacrament and speaks of the Cup that is there administred as different from the Cup he had before mentioned If this Man had understood his business he should rather have alledged XXVI Matth. 29. where immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament he adds these words But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine c. which St. Luke puts before the Institution But it is a wonderful stupidity to conclude from hence as this Man doth That Christ will drink his own Blood in Heaven or else he concludes nothing because there is no material Bread and Drink in use there Menochius to name no others might have taught him better who thus expounds this passage Our Saviour speaks after the manner of men who being to depart from their Friends for a long time are wont to say We shall Eat and Drink together no more As I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day c. when I shall drink ANOTHER New and Coelestial Wine with you in the Banquet of Eternal Glory And he might have known that we from hence with a wonderful force to use his own phrase conclude That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration because our Saviour calls that which he said before was the New Testament in his Blood the fruit of the Vine that is Wine And so not only we but Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin Hierom Epiphanius Bede Euthymius and Theophylact refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Christ before mentioned as Maldonate himself acknowledges and could not produce so much as one Father to the contrary He might have known also that a great many of his own Church VI. John 51. do not think St. John VI. 51. and other verses of that Chapter speaks of Sacramental Bread as for other reasons so for this that if he did then such as Judas who eat the Sacramental Bread must have Eternal Life Which we find our Lord promises v. 40 47. to those who believe on him and this we take to be the eating he here speaks of as appears by the whole scope of the Chapter For if any such Conversion as they fancy in the Sacrament and call Transubstantiation could be proved out of this Text it would prove the Flesh of Christ is turned into Bread rather than the Bread into his Flesh because he saith The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh To make this good literally it is manifest his Flesh must be made Bread See into what Absurdities these men draw themselves by their perverse Interpretations It is not worth considering what he saith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verse there being those of his own Church as well as he that by living Bread understand Bread that gives Life which is must suitable to the words preceding and unto v. 33. We have noted often enough our Saviours words both in XXVI Matth. 26. and XXII Luke 19. And therefore do not say as he slanders us That Christ gave and the Apostles received nothing else but bare Bread for it was the Sacrament of Christ's Body as Druthmarus and a great many more Ancient than he expound those words This is my Body We believe also and thankfully acknowledge that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ But those are St. Paul's words 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviours which spoils this man's Observation that our Lord calls it his Body both before and at the very giving of it Which if he had done tho these as I said are St. Paul's words who only calls it the Communion of his Body c. it would prove nothing but that the Bread is his Body which we believe and they are so absurd as to deny Tho we have bidden them note how St. Paul in that very place he next mentions 1 Cor. XI often calls that which he saith is the Lord's Body by the name of Bread v. 26 27 28. But they shut their Eyes and will not take any notice of it Why should we then regard his frivolous Argument to which he at last betakes himself against our true and real receiving of Christ by Faith Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a sufficient Answer in his Notes upon this Chapter We receive him after a Spiritual manner By Faith on our behalf and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ So there is no need either of our going up to Heaven or Christ's coming down to us as he sillily argues His Ancient Fathers have been so often viewed and shown to be against them by our Writers and that lately particularly the two first he mentions that I will not go about a needless labour to give an account of them XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds and that one alone sufficeth not Answer VEry true for so Christ appointed so the Apostles both received and gave it so the Church of Christ for above 1000 years practised and wo be to them who alter Christ's Institution Which cannot be justified by such fallacious Arguments as this man here uses instead of giving us express Scripture for it That he promised but alas could find none and therefore makes little trifling reasonings his refuge First from VI. John 51. VI. John 51 53. which I have shewn doth not speak of Sacramental eating but if it did the next Verse but one he could not but see told him that it is as necessary to drink Christ's blood as to eat his flesh To which the Answer is not so easy as he fancies for we have only Dr. Kellison's word for it that the conjunction and is used for or Men may put off any thing by such shifts and it is as sufficient and as learned for us to say it is expresly and in our Bible and not or and you do nothing if you confute us not as you undertook by the express words of our own Bible How strangely do men forget what they promise and what they are about Besides the Fathers from these very words prove the necessity * See late Treatise against Communion in one Kind Ch. 3. of giving both the body and blood of Christ and attribute a distinct effect to each of them Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose in I. Cor. XI The flesh of Christ was delivered for the salvation of the body and the blood was poured out for our souls He should have proved not barely affirmed that Christ gave the Sacrament to the Disciples at Emaus XXIV Luke 30 35. XXIV Luke 30 35. We say he did not though
if he had it is to be supposed there was Wine as well as bread else it will prove it is lawful for their Church to consecrate as well as to give the Communion in one kind alone Nor are there any of the ancient Interpreters who thus expound it St. Austin and Theophylact only apply it allegorically and mystically to the Sacrament as Jansenius ingenuously acknowledges the vertue of which may be here insinuated as Theophylact phrases it not expresly declared to enlighten the eyes of men The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew is thus to be understood or else we must make St. Paul's breaking bread in the Ship among the Soldiers and Mariners Acts XXVIII to be giving the Sacrament for that Writer joins this together with the other The later Scholastick Writers all expound it of common breaking of bread such as Albertus Magnus Bonaventure Dionys Cathusianus nay Tho. Aquinas himself whatsoever this man is pleased to say as any one may be satisfied who can look into him in Tertull. Dist XXI Q. 55. It is more impudence to quote II. Act. 42. to prove one kind to be sufficient when all acknowledge this Action was performed in the Apostolical Assemblies by giving the Wine as well as the Bread Therefore breaking of bread is used as a short form of Speech to signify they had Communion one with another at the same holy Feast He durst not here quote so much as one single Father as hitherto he hath done every where else because they are all manifestly against him As not only Cassander and such as he acknowledge but Cardinal Bonel * Rer. Liturg l. 2. c. 18. himself saith that Always and every where from the beginning of the Church to the Twelfth Century the faithful communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine XLI That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice and that the Mass is not a Sacrifice Answer HE began to speak some truth in this Proposition but could not hold out till he came to the end Falshood is so natural to them that it will not let them declare the whole truth when that which they said already would directly lead them to it For having said we do not believe there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church why did he not conclude that we deny the Mass to be a proper Sacrifice This had been honest for it is the very thing we have constantly said because proper sacrificing is a destructive Act by which that which is offered to God is plainly destroyed That is so changed that it ceases to be what before it was This they themselves confess and it is from this principle among others that we conclude there is no proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament Malachy I. 11. It is manifest Mal. I. 17. from the current Consent of the Ancient Interpreters speaks of an improper Sacrifice viz. prayer and thanksgiving represented by the Incense So Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Chrysostome and divers others His reasoning upon this place therefore is very childish for the Offering here spoken of is neither Christ sacrificed on the Cross nor Christ in the Sacrament for he cannot be often sacrificed But if we will apply it to the Sacrament it is the Commemorative Sacrifice which is there made of the Sacrifice of Christ with the sacrifice of Prayer Praises Thangsgivings and the oblation of our selves Souls and Bodies to him Such a Sacrifice we acknowledge is offered in the Holy Communion The Psalmist in CX Psam 4. Psal CX 4. speaks of the Priesthood of Christ which endures for ever in Heaven not of any Sacrificing Priest here on Earth where he presents himself to God in the most holy place not made with hands Nothing can be more contrary to the Scripture than to say Melchisedeck sacrificed Bread and Wine unless we will make his offering them to Abraham unto whom he brought them forth as several of the Fathers consent to be a proper Sacrifice But what dare not such men say when he affirms that Christ exercises an eternal Priesthood upon Earth tho the Apostle expresly tells us the contrary VIII Heb. 4 Some of the Fathers indeed make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and that which Melchisedeck brought forth but this is against the Popish Notion who will not have Bread and Wine to be sacrificed in the Eucharist though the Fathers expresly say they are His Argument from XXII Luke 19. is very idle For when Christ saith This is my Body which is given for you the meaning is which I have offered to be a Sacrifice to God X. John 17. and am about actually to give in Sacrifice for you And so their own Vulgar Interpreter understood it and translates this word 1 Cor. XI 24. tradetur not which was then given but was to be given viz. to die And so he constantly interprets the other part not is shed but shall be shed And if he spake here in the next words XXII Luke 20. of what was given to the Apostles in the Sacrament it would prove that the Blood of Christ is shed in the Sacrament which is directy contrary to their own Doctrine which makes it an unbloody Sacrifice All the other Scriptures speak of the Priesthood of Christ which none can exercise but Christ himself See them who will he will find this true Not one of his Fathers have a word of a proper Sacrifice much less of a Propitiatory but of a reasonable unbloody mystical heavenly Sacristce which proves the contrary to what they would have As the Fathers do also when they say it is a Sacrifice and then immediately correct themselves in some such words as these or rather a Commemoration of a Sacrifice viz. of Christ on the Cross a Memorial instead of a Sacrifice And thus Aquinas himself understood it XLII That Sacramental Vnction is not to be used to the Sick Answer THERE are many things Sacramental which are not Sacraments and others called Sacraments by the Ancients which are not properly so as the Sign of the Cross the Bread given to Catechumens washing of the Saints Feet c. because they were Signs and Symbols of some sacred thing So was Vnction but not appointed by our Saviour to be a Sacrament of the New Testament This he should have proved if he could have perform'd any thing and that it confers grace from the work done or hath a power by Divine Institution to cause holiness and righteousness in us as the Roman Catechism defines a Sacrament But it was impossible and therefore he uses these dubious words Sacramental Vnction which we see no reason to use unless we could hope for such miraculous Cures as were performed therewith by the Apostles V. Jam. 4. His first Text V. Jam. 4. hath not a word of Sacrament or Sacramental in it and plainly speaks not of their Extream Vnction which is for the health of the Soul when a man is a
dying but of anointing for the health of the Body and the restoring a man to life Therefore he might have spared his Discourse about the matter and form c. of a Sacrament for their Sacrament is not here described but an holy Rite for a purpose as much different from theirs as the Soul is from the Body and Life from Death VI. Mark 13. Mark VI. 13. His own best Writers confess belongs not to this matter containing only an adumbration and a figure of the Sacrament but was not the Sacrament it self as Menochius expounds the place according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent which saith this Sacrament as they call it was insinuated in VI. Mark Now that is said to be insinuated which is not expresly propounded mark that but adumbrated and obscurely indicated See how ignorant this man is in his own Religion XVI Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing but only of laying on of hands and yet this man hath the face to ask as if the Cause were to be carried by impudence if they are not sick in their wits who oppose so plain Scriptures When nothing is plainer than that these places speak of Miraculous Cures as they themselves would confess If they would speak the truth to use his words and shame the Devil For Cardinal Cajetan a man of no small learning expresly declares neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned speak of Sacramental Vnction Particularly upon those words of St. James which is the only place the best of them dare rely upon he thus writes It doth not appear that he speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction either from the words or from the effect but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed in the Gospel for the cure of the Sick For the Text doth not say Is any man sick unto death but absolutely is any man sick And the effect was the relief of the sick man on whom forgiveness of sins was bestowed only conditionally Whereas Extream Vnction is not given but when a man is at the point of death and directly tends as its form sheweth to remission of sins Besides St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the sick man to pray and anoint him which is disagreeing to the Rite of Extream Vnction Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him for he was no Friend to Protestants but would not lie for the Service of his Cause And before him such Great men as Hugo de S. Victori Bonaventure Alex. Halensis Altisiodor all taught that Extream Vnction was not instituted by Christ His Fathers say not a word of this Extream Unction Both Origen and Bede as Estius acknowledges accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous sort of sins to the remission of which there is need of the Ministry of the Keys and so they refer it to another Sacrament as they now call it viz. that of Absolution See the Faith of this man who thus endeavours to impose upon his Readers as he doth also in the citing of St. Chrysostome who saith the same with the other two and of St. Austin who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo without adding any words of his own to signify the sense As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his Next to this he makes us say XLIII That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders And that Ordinary Vocation and Mission of Pastors is not necessary in the Church Answer HERE are Two Parts of this Proposition in both of which he notoriously slanders us and in the first of them dissembles their own Opinion For we do not say That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders but that this is not a Sacrament properly so called conferring sanctifying Grace and that the outward Sign among them is not Imposition of Hands but delivering of the Patin and Chalice concerning which the Scripture speaks not a syllable Nor is any man admitted to be a Pastor among us but by a Solemn Ordination wherein the Person to be ordained Priest professes he thinks himself truly called according to the Will of our Lord c. unto that Order and Ministry and the Bishop when he lays hands on him saith in so many words Receive the Holy Ghost c. which is the conferring that Grace which they themselves call gratis data and which the Apostle intends in the Scriptures he mentions 1 Tim. IV. 14. In the first of which 1 Tim. IV. 14. there is no express mention of Grace which he promis'd to show us in our Bible but of a Gift By which Menochius himself understands The Office and Order of a Bishop the Authority and Charge of Teaching And so several of the Ancient Interpreters such as Theodoret St. Chrysostom understands it As others take it to signify extraordinary Gifts such as those of Tongues Healing c. none think it speaks of sanctifying Grace So that I may say alluding to his own words See how plain it is that this Man doth not understand the Scripture And hath made a mere Rope of Sand in his following reasoning for there is this Mission among us of which the Apostle speaks viz. A Designation unto a special Office with Authority and Power to perform it The Apostle speaks of the same thing in 2 Tim. I. 6. 2 Tim. I. 6. where there is no mention of Grace at all but only of the Gift of God which was in him Which if we will call a Grace a word we dislike not it was not a Grace to sanctify but to inable him to perform all the Offices belonging to that Order ex gr strenuously to Preach the Gospel and to propagate the Faith c. They are the words of the same Menochius from whence I may take occasion again to say See how plain the Scripture is against him And how fouly he belies us in saying that we affirm Laying on of Hands not to be needful to them who have already in them the Spirit of God For after the Bishop hath askt the question to one to be ordained Deacon whether he trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that Office and Ministration c. And he hath answer'd I trust so then the Bishop after other Questions and Answers layeth hands on him Which is not to sanctify him for that is supposed but to impower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God The Apostles words V. Hebr. 4. are alledged after his manner to prove what none of us deny That no man may take this Office upon him unless he be called to it They who have a mind to see more may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures some of which are the same again prove nothing but a Mission by laying on of Hands which we practice