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 [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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 Ʋnderstanding 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 [Page 4] 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.

[Page 5]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, [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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: [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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, [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] Scripture in the first place as our Guide; and then the Ecclesiastical sense, as a means, in some cases, to find the sense of Scriptures.Cap. XIII. And Tertullian as expresly in that very Book which he quotes, and in the Chapter preceding, makes the Apo­stles Creed, the Rule of Faith: Which is all contained in the Scripture, and needs the help of no Tradition but that, to prove it.

But after all, I must ask, what's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this Chapter, to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning? That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture? Which, if he would have spo­ken sense, he should have shown is Tradi­tion: But not a syllable of this: He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words. He knew, if he understood any thing, there is no Traditive Interpreta­tion of Scripture: For if there be, Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it? Nay, Why do they reject Ancient Inter­pretations of Scripture, for which there is some Tradition? As Maldonate, a fa­mous Jesuite doth upon XIX. Matt. 11. Where he confesses,XIX. Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words, as if the sense of them was, [Page 16] 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.

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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 Ʋrban; 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.

Answer.

THIS is neither our Position, nor is the contrary theirs. For no Prote­stant will say, That all Scriptures are easy to be understood. Nor will any Papist say, They are all hard to be understood. Some are easy; as much, that is, as is necessary to our Salvation. Which is the express af­firmation of St. Chrysostome in many places, [...]. All things necessary are manifest, Hom. 3. in 2 Thess.

Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible. First, St. Pe­ter doth not say,2 Pet. III. 16. That the Scriptures are hard to be understood; but that there are some things therein hard to be understood; and those things in St. Paul's Epistles. The rest of the Scripture, notwithstanding this, may be easy; and the hard places, he doth not say are wrested by every bo­dy, [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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; [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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.

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; [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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) [Page 30] 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, [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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?

[Page 33]Let me ask him another, How doth he prove nothing was written all this time? Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him, if not out of An­cient Records? It is more likely there were Writings before his, than that there were not. However, our saying, There were, can no more be confuted, than his saying, There were not, can be proved.

If the Reader be not satisfied with this, he bids him see more Scriptures, and names near a dozen places; in never a one of which there is any mention, much less express mention of Tradition: And in the last, the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver, are expresly written al­so in that very Chapter and place which he quotes, XV. Acts 28. For it is said, v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner, &c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude, and delivered the EPISTLE. What an unlucky man is this, to confute himself after this fashion?

As for his Fathers, he durst not quote the words of any, but two only; St. Basil and St. Chrysostome. The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil De Spiri­tu Sancto, c. 27.; into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition, which as it belongs not at all to his subject, so it [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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.

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 [Page 37] 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, [Page 38] 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 [...]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.

[Page 39]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 poor people withal. Who may easily understand that St. John speaks of particular persons, or of the Doctrines ven­ted by certain persons, who pretended to be inspired; whom every particular Chri­stian was bound to examine and try by this mark, whether they contradicted what the Apostles taught; which was sufficient, if they did, to discover them to be Impostors.

His Fathers he only names, and there­for they signifie nothing to common Rea­ders; for whose sake I write this confu­tation of his folly. Which makes him bring in Luther, as saying the same that he doth; that is, giving him the lye; who accuses Protestants of affirming that, which the very chief of them (according to him) denies. But whether Luther say as he makes him, or in what sense, I am not able to affirm, for I cannot find the words.

Answer.

THere needs no more to make him confess the truth of this, than only to ask him, whether St. Peter did not de­ny his Master; which our Saviour suppo­ses in the words immediately following those he quotes,Luk. XXII. 32. Luk. 22.32. When thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren. He was therefore out of the way for a time; which is all we mean when any of us say, Peter's Faith hath failed. Not finally, but for that present. He fell, though he reco­vered himself. So that this is an Equivocal Proposition, Peter's Faith hath failed, which is true; and so is the contrary, his faith hath not failed. Both are true in different respects: It did fail, and that notoriously, when he denied his Master over and over: But it was more stedfast afterward, even by his fall; which our Saviour foreseeing, prayed particularly for him, that he might not utterly miscarry. Which is no Prero­gative, as this man fancies it, that Christ [Page 41] prayed principally for him, but rather tended to his disparagement, as denoting him to be weaker than the rest; and in­deed so much the weaker, because in his own opinion he was the strongest.

The second Text Mat. 16.18.XVI. Mat. 18. as he ma­nages it, is expresly to another purpose. For he lays the weight of his Discourse (it appears by the consequence he draws) upon those words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against: What? the Text saith expresly against it, that is the Church, not against thee, that is, Peter. They that are wiser, argue from the foregoing words, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, &c. If this be to his purpose, the faith of St. Pe­ter must be the Rock upon which the Church is built (which they do not love to hear of) and if it be the Rock, was thrown down, and the gates of hell pre­vailed against it, at the time before men­tion'd, when he denied his Master. Which made a great man Dr. Jacks. L. 3. c. 7. say, Doubtless that Religion which hath no better ground of Infal­libility than Peter's faith, which was not se­cured from a threefold denial of Christ, was first planted by the spirit of error and Anti­christ.

The third Text we had before in the second Chapter, where I have answered [Page 42] his question,XXIII. Matth. 2, 3 how Christ might command the people and his Disciples also, to do whatsoever they that sat in Moses his chair bad them, and yet those Doctors might err. But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail, he asserts the Scribes and Pharisees, when they sat in Moses his Chair, could not err; which is to justifie their putting our Lord Christ to death. Whither will not the folly of such men as this, carry them? who mind not when they over­throw the Christian Religion, to establish their own conceits. Nay, this man doth not mind, when he ruins even his own conceits. For if the truth of Christian Religion hath been no better preserved by the Romanists in the Chair of St. Peter, than the truth of the Jewish Religion was preserved by the Scribes and Phari­sees in the Chair of Moses, the Roman Church is certainly become Anti­christian.

He hath pickt up a fourth Text, which hath nothing in it of Peter, XI. Joh. 49, 51. no more than the former, but only tells us, that the Jewish High Priest Prophe­cied, XI. Joh. 49, 51. Yet this is an ex­press Text, forsooth, to prove that Pe­ter's faith could not fail. It is not easie to have patience enough, so much as [Page 43] to read such wretched, nay wicked stuff, as this. Which still proves, if it be to the purpose, that the High Priest speaking forth of his Chair, could not but determine truly; and, consequent­ly, gave a right judgment when he condemned Christ to be put to death. For he sat in the same Chair, when he passed sentence on Christ, and when he thus Prophecied; both were in a Council, which was assembled on pur­pose to resolve what to do with him, XI. Joh. 47. XXVI. Mat. 57.

Here the good man is in great want of Fathers, and contents himself, be­cause he cannot help it, with Leo; whose words he doth not rightly tran­slate. For Leo doth not say, If the Head were invincible, but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered. Worsted it was for the present, though not quite overcome. For he lost the con­fession of Faith with his mouth, saith Theophylact, though he kept the Faith (or the seeds of faith, as he speaks) in his heart. But unless a man do confess with his mouth, as well as believe in his heart, he cannot be saved. Both are necessary, unless St. Paul cross St. Peter, X. Rom. 9, 10.

[Page 44]But what is all this to the purpose? suppose St. Peter's faith did not fail, what then? Must we conclude from thence, the Pope's faith cannot fail? Stay there. One of his own Communion, a great manLaunoy Part V. Epist. ad Jac. Bevil­laq. indeed, hath shown, that there being four Interpretations of this place (XXII. Luk. 32.) the greatest number of Ecclesiasti­cal Writers (he reckons up XLIV. and a­mong the rest this Pope Leo) expound it of the Faith of Peter alone, which Christ prayed might not be lost in that time of Temptation which was a coming. But next to this, they are most numerous who think Christ prayed for the Ʋniversal Church, that it may never fail in the faith. In which number is Thomas Aquinas, one of their Saints; who expresly proves from this place, that the Universal Church cannot err, because he who was always heard by God, said to Peter, upon whose confession the Church is founded, I have pray­ed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Where it is evident, he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter separately from the rest of the Church; but for the whole Church, whose person Peter sustained, as St. Austin is wont to speak: Or, as Gregory the Great's words are, of which Church he was the first Member.

[Page 45]But this belongs to the next Head; where he saith we affirm,

Answer.

WE maintain the quite contrary to the first Part of his Proposition; asserting that the Church is always to remain Catholick, or Ʋniversal; not confined to one Country as the Jewish was, but spread all the World over. The second Part in­deed [Page 58] we do maintain, That the Church of Rome is not such a Church; that is (which is the thing they contend for) is not the Universal Church, but hath its limits, and was anciently bounded within cer­tain Regions, beyond which it did not ex­tend.

The first Scripture he alledges against us, is a promise to Christ, which we be­lieve hath been fulfilled in part,II. Psalm 8. and will be more and more fulfilled before the end of the World; but hath nothing in it pe­culiar to the Church of Rome; which at the best, is but a piece of his Inheri­tance.

The second speaks expresly, not of the Ʋniversality of Christ's Kingdom,I. Luke 33. but of its Perpetuity; and is as much verified in other Churches, as in the Roman; which is so far from being the only Universal Church, that in this sense, it is not Uni­versal at all.

The third is directly against him. For it shows that the Faith of the Gospel (unto which he now skips,I. Colos. 3, &c. when he should have said the Church, of which he was speaking) was planted at Coloss, (which was never under the Jurisdiction of Rome) and there fructified and grew, as much as in other places.

[Page 59]Nor will the next place help him; where St. Paul doth not call the Faith of the whole World, the Faith of the Ro­mans, but only saith,I. Rom. 8. their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, I. Rom. 8. that is, the fame of it was spread all the world over; as Menochius, one of their own, ho­nestly interprets it. For what was done at Rome, could not be concealed from the rest of the World, saith Theodoret, because the Roman Emperors having their Palace there, from whence all sort of Officers were sent, and whither all People resort­ed who had any boon to beg; by whom it was signified every where, That the City of Rome had received the Faith of Christ. Thus he; which shows the Gospel was spread in the World, before it came to the City of Rome; it not coming from thence, but from Jerusalem; and not com­ing thither till many other places had re­ceived it, who were not beholden to Rome for it. With what face then, against such a clear sense of the words, could this Man say that St. Paul in express terms, calls, The Faith of the whole World, the Faith of the Romans, or the Church of Rome? When the words rather import, that he calls the Faith of the Romans, the Faith received in the whole World. But [Page 60] he saith neither the one, nor the other; tho if he had, it would prove nothing, but that there was one and the same Faith then at Rome, which was in other places. The truly Catholick Faith, from whence Churches were named Catholick, (not from their extending all the World over, which was impossible) and Jerusalem, and other Churches were as much so, as Rome it self, and were so before there was a Church at Rome. In short, a Catholick Church signified no more than an Orthodox Church.

It is a matter of serious Lamentation, that men should go about to pervert such plain and easy Truths, as this; and should heap up Scriptures to prove mere Nonsence: For all the Scriptures which he bids us further look into, he saith, are not to be understood, That the whole World should be Catholick at one and the same time. Let the Reader consider what it is, for the whole World to be Catholick, as he hath ex­plained it, but for the whole World to be the whole World.

And he will have an hard task, to make Sense of the next words; that the whole World being converted unto Christ at sun­dry times, it shall comprehend a greater part of the World, than any Sect of He­reticks [Page 61] shall ever do. I thought the whole World would certainly comprehended the whole World, and not only the greater part of the World. It is impossible, by such Jargon as this, to understand the true Sense of being Catholick or Ʋniversal. Which the Church is, either with respect to Faith; because there is the same Faith in all parts of the true Church; or with respect to Place, because no Country is excluded from it, which will receive this Faith; or with respect to Time, because it continues throughout all Ages, tho not always in such an extent, as to be actu­ally in all Nations. For those Countries which were once Parts of the Catholick Church, are not so now: And if those that are now so, should lose the Faith, still the Church might be Catholick, if others embraced it, as Bellarmine L. IV. De Eccles [...] c. 7. himself con­fesses, If only one Province should retain the true Faith, the Church might truly and pro­perly be called Catholick; as long as it might be clearly shown, that it was one and the same with that, which had been at sometime, or in divers throughout the World.

According to his former Method, he carries us now to the Fathers, and m [...]k [...]s them guilty of as much Nonsense as him­self. [Page 62] For he makes St. Cyprian confess, that part is the whole. But the comfort is, he either did not understand, or else mis­represents St. Cyprian, who speaks not there of the Authority, but of the Example of the Roman Church, and especially of Cornelius their Bishop; who remaining constant in time of Tryal, made all his Brethren every where rejoyce; particu­larly Cyprian himself, who in that very place stiles Cornelius and others, his Fellow-Priests or Bishops. For what Priest, saith he, can chuse but rejoyce in the praises of his Fellow-Priests, as if they were his own? It is not to be expressed with what Joy and Exultation he heard of his Forti­tude, whereby he made himself a Cap­tain and Leader of Confession unto the Brethren, &c. And then follows, While there is among you (i. e. Cornelius and his Brethren) one Mind, Epist. LX. Edit. Oxon. and one Voice, all the Roman Church hath confessed, that is, their Faith which the Apostle praised, was be come famous, as it follows in the next words; and while they were thus Unanimous, thus Valiant, they gave great Examples of Ʋna­nimity 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, [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] have, in his Book of the Ʋnity 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.

[Page 65]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 EpistleCouncil of Ephes. p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome, We also have obtained the name of New Rome, [Page 66] 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) wh [...]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.

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 [Page 67] 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 Ʋnity 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 [Page 68] something useful to the Reader; who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies, not our Opinions. We believe as the Apostle teaches us,IV. Ephes. 5. IV. Ephes. 5. and from thence conclude, That Unity is ne­cessary in all points of Faith, truly so cal­led; that is, all things necessary to be be­lieved. Nor do we differ in any such things; and therefore have the Unity re­quisite to one Church.

II. Jam. 10.The second Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith, therefore, instead of express words, this man tells us, by a likeness of reason, it is the same in Faith, that it is in Sin: he who denies one Ar­ticle, denies all. We deny none; but only their New Articles, which are no part of the Ancient Apostolick Catholick Faith.

IV. Act. 32.The next, IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians. And that which follows,1 Cor. I. 10. 1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was, but what ought to be in the Church: For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions, as ap­pears by that very Chapter. Therefore he is still beside the Book; and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us, as an Argument we are not [Page 69] the true Believers the Apostle speaks of: when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived: nor is the Church of Rome, or any other Church, at such unity, but there are va­rious Sects among them.

He hath little to do, who will trouble himself, upon the account of such a Scrib­ler as this, to consider that heap of Texts which he hath hudled together, without any order, or any regard to his Point he was to prove. What St. Austin also, and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity, doth not at all concern us: who preserve that Unity which they have broken, by preserving that One Faith, from which they of the Church of Rome have depart­ed. For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did; but they have ano­ther Faith of their own devising. This is that wherein we cannot unite with them. And all the Unity they brag of, is, in truth, no better than that of the Jews, Hereticks and Pagans: who, as St. Austin De Verbis Domini Serm. VI. speaks, maintain an Ʋnity a­gainst Ʋnity. In this they combine toge­ther to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered, as insufficient to Salvation. Which is a conspiracy in Error, rather than unity in the Truth.

Answer.

WE are now come to the great Point, which is the support of the whole Roman Cause. But he neither knows our Opinion about it, nor their own: or else dares not own what it is. We believe Peter was the first Apostle, and that he was a Chief, though not the chief Apostle. For there were others who were eminent (that is, Chiefs) upon some ac­count or other, as well as himself, 2 Cor. XI. 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief, neither we, nor those of his own Religion know, unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles, one over another. This is strange language, which none under­stands. Peter was first in Order, Place, Pre­cedence, but not in Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction; in these, none was greater [Page 71] or lesser than another. Which is not con­trary to any Text in the Bible, but most agreeable thereunto.

For so the Text saith, X. Matth. 2.X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Observation to inform us, That all the Evangelists, when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose, put Peter first: Which doth not signifie he was the worthiest of them all; that no way appears; but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called, we expresly read, and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two. But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness, it doth not prove his Authority over the rest, (as he is plea­sed to improve this Observation, in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place) for tho he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others, they gave him no Superiority in Power; but in that, every one of them was his equal. What follows upon this Text, is so frivolous and childish a reasoning, it ought to be despised.

Next he betakes himself to the Rock, XVI. Matth. 18. mentioned XVI. Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again, (but they harden their hearts against it), is not spoken of Peter, as this man most im­pudently, contrary to his own Bible, [Page 72] makes the words sound, but of the Faith which Peter confessed; as the general cur­rent of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it. But if we should by the Rock understand Peter, it insinuates no Supremacy, much less clearly insinuates it. For none but such a man as this, to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks, would have thought of that, at the reading of the word Rock; but rather of Firmness, Stability, or Soli­dity; which the Word plainly enough imports, but nothing of Authority. Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone, with respect to his being the Soveraign and Absolute Pastor of his Church, but because of the firm Founda­tion he gives to our Hope in God. Next to those who by Rock understand, as I said, the Faith which Peter confessed, the great­est number of Ancient Expositors under­stand thereby Christ himself. Unto whom this man hath the face to say, these words do not agree, because he speaks of the time to come, I will build; as if Christ were not always, what he ever was, being the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. It is a burning shame, as we speak, that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors, and to write Books, which have nothing in them but trifling obser­vations, [Page 73] and false allegations For after all, should we grant Peter to be the Rock, it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so, as much as he; for the Church was built upon them all, on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, II. Ephes. 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him, not One alone, but Twelve Founda­tions of the Wall of the New Jerusalem, i. e. the Church of Christ; which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord, XXI. Rev. 14.

The next place XVIII. Matth. 18.XVIII. Matth. 18. is so plain a promise to all the Apostles, that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter, or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest; especially if it be ob­served, that when this Promise was fulfil­led, they were all equally partakers of it; when our Saviour breathed on them, and said unto them, (mark that, he breathed on them all, and said not to Peter alone, but them, i. e. the Apostles), Receive ye the Holy Ghost; Whose soever sins ye retain, XX. John 22, 23. they are retain­ed, &c. XX. John 22, 23.

Now he falls a Reasoning again (for, alas express Texts fail him) but it amounts to no more than this, That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned [Page 74] place, but gave him another name. I am sorry for his ignorance, that he did not know, or for his dishonesty, that he would not consider; 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 b [...]ags) upon the next place, XXII. Luke. [Page 75] 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. [Page 76] 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 [Page 77] 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 sh [...]ws, those that were newly converted to the Faith, and [Page 78] 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; [Page 79] 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 Ʋniversal M [...]narch over all the Earth? Which is as reasonable from these Principles, as one visible Head of the Church. But to answer his question plainly; There is no one visible Head here, because Christ the Head of the Church, both Triumphant and Militant, hath ordered it otherwise. Having placed, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. XII. 28. in the Church, first Apostles; not Peter, or any one alone over the rest, but the Apo­postles were left by Christ, the Supreme Power in the Church.

Here I cannot but conclude, as that great and good Man Dr. Jackson L. III Chap [...] doth, upon such an occasion: Reader, Consult with [Page 80] thy own heart, and give sentence, as in the sight of God; and judge of the whole Frame of their Religion by the Foundation; and of the Foun­dation (which is this Supremacy of Peter) by the wretched Arguments whereby they sup­port it.

For from the other Scriptures which follow in this Writer, their Arguments stand thus; David was made Head of the Heathen (XVIII. Psal. 43.) therefore Pe­ter was made Head of the Church. Instead of the Fathers shall be thy Children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands (XLV. Psal. 16.) therefore Peter ruled over all the rest as a Prince. Simon he sirnamed Peter (III. Mark 16.) therefore he had authority over all, because named first. The same is gathered from I. Act 13 merely from the order of pre­cedence, which must be granted to one or other, in a Body where all are equal. Fi­nally, Christ's kingdom shall have no end (I. Luke 33.) therefore St. Peter must reign for ever in his Successors. St. Paul was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles, (2 Corinth. XI. 5.) therefore what? common Reason would have concluded, therefore there were more chief Apostles besides Peter; and St. Paul was not inferior to the greatest of them, not to Peter himself. These are [Page 81] his Scripture-Arguments for their Supre­macy.

And his Fathers affirm nothing at all of Peter, which is not said of other Apostles. Particularly St. Chrysostom (who says no such thing of Peter, as he makes him, in his 55th Hom. upon Matthew) expresly says, St. Paul governed the whole World as one Ship, Hom. 25. upon 2 Corinth. and frequently calls him, as well as Peter, Prince of the Apo­stles: and calls them all the Pastors and Re­ctors of the whole World, in his 2d Hom. upon Titus. And, to be short, the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew (com­monly ascribed to St. Chrysost.) calls all Bi­shops the Vicars of Christ. Hom 17. Finally, there is no Title so great, which is not gi­ven to others as well as Peter, by ancient Writers; even the Title of Bishop of Bishops, the name of Pope, Holiness, Blessed, and such like.

Answer.

NOne of us ever called Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church: unless, as it signifies Supream Governour. And that in­deed we assert she was, and all our Kings are, of all persons whatsoever, in all Causes. But because some leud People perverted the meaning of this, our Church took care to explain it in one of the Articles of Religion; that no man might mistake in the matter, unless he would wilfully, as this Writer doth; who could not but understand, that it is expresly declared, Article XXXVII. that when we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government, we do not give to our Princes the ministring either of God's Word, or the Sacraments, &c. but that only Prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all [Page 83] godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself. That is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal; and restrain with the Civil Sword, the stub­born and evil doers. This is our avowed Do­ctrine.

Now, what do our Bibles say against this? Nothing, but a woman may not teach, 1 Tim. II. 12. &c. 1 Tim. II. 12. And do not we say the same, that our Princes may not minister the Word, or Sacraments? What a shameless sort of People have we to deal withal; who face us down that we affirm what we flatly deny? And when he pretends faith­fully to recite the words of our Bible, after the New Translation (as he doth in his Pre­face) here he gives us another Translation in the second Text he alledges, 1 Cor. XIV. 34. But take it as it is, it proves nothing but his folly and impudence; unless he could shew that Queen Elizabeth preached publickly in any of our Churches. But see the Childishness of this Writer, in alledging these Texts against the Queen, which make nothing against our Kings; who are not Women sure: And we ascribe the same power to them, which we did to her; and no more to her than belongs to them.

[Page 84]From Scripture he betakes himself to Reasoning; which proceeds upon the same wilful, Mistake we cannot call it, but, Ca­lumny, (against our express Declaration to the contrary) That we give our Kings such an Headship, or Supream Power, as makes them capable to minister the Word and Sa­craments. From whence he draws this new Slander, That many hundreds of them have been hang'd, drawn and quarter'd, for denying this Power. VVhereas every one knows the Oath of Supremacy is nothing else but a solemn declaration of our belief, that our Kings are the Supream Governors of these Realms, in all Spiritual things or Causes, as well as Temporal: and that no Foreign Prince or Prelate hath any Juris­diction, Superiority, Preheminence, or Au­thority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, in these Realms, &c.

Now what can he find in his Fathers to oppose this? There were none of them, for above 800 years, who did not believe this; that Emperors and Kings are next to God, and the Pope himself ought to be subject to them. L. II. 1. The words of Optatus speak the sense of them all; There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor. And [Page 85] none can deny the Ancient Custom to have been, that the Clergy and People of Rome having chosen the Pope, the Emperor con­firmed or invalidated the Election as he pleased. Adrian indeed would fain have changed this Custom, (Anno 811.) but still it continued a long time, that the Election was not accounted valid, till the Emperor's Confirmation. And he cannot but know, (if he have read his own Authors) that af­ter Adrian's attempt, above forty Popes, from John IX. to Leo IX. were all created by the Emperors, who frequently also de­posed Popes. And Popes were so far from having any such Authority over the Empe­rors, that when Pope Gregory VII. adven­tured upon it, it was esteemed a Novity, not to say an Heresy, (as Sigebert's words are, ad Anno 1088.) which had not sprung up in the World before.

But the Reader may here observe how well skill'd this Man is in the Fathers, who places John Damascen in the very front of them, 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 [Page 86] 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.

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 [Page 87] 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.

[Page 88]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 [Page 89] 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. [Page 90] 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?

[Page 91]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 found in the word [...], i. e.L. V. cap. 30. La­tin, for saith he, They are Latins who now Reign; but we will not Glory in this. For it being the Common Opinion of the Church, the Latin, i. e. Roman Empire was that which hindred the appearance of An­tichrist; Irenaeus might thence conclude, that Antichrist should reign in the Seat of that Latine Empire, when it was faln. And Antichrist not being, as I have proved, a [Page 92] particular Man, this Number must be com­mon unto all that make up that Antichri­stian Rule in the Roman Church. In which the Popes are all Latins; and they are di­stinguished from the Greeks by the Name of the Latin Church, and they have their Ser­vice still in the Latin Tongue; as if they affected to make good this Observation, that in them is found this number of the Beast. But I lay no great weight upon this Opinion of Irenaeus, tho it will be very hard for them to confute it.

1 John II. 22.As to the 1 John II. 22. we do not say the Pope is the Antichrist there meant; and yet for all that, he may be the Great Antichrist. For it is to be observed, That St. John saith there, v. 18. that there were many Anti­christs in his time; and this Antichrist who denied Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh, or that Jesus was the Christ, was one of them; yet not a single Person, but a Body of Men; there being several Sects of them, under Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and the rest who belonged to this Antichrist. All which Hereticks their own Church acknowledges, were the foreruners of the Great Antichrist, whom we are seeking after, and can find no where but in the Papacy.

[Page 93]From hence he runs back again to the 2 Thess. II. 4. where those very Characters,2 Thess. II. 4, &c. which he saith do not agree to the Pope, are those whereby we are led to take him for the Man of Sin. He being manifestly, [...]. That wicked One; we translate it, who will be subject to no Laws; and sits in, or upon the Temple of God, that is, the Chri­stian Church; where he exalts himself over all that is called God, that is, all Power on Earth; whom he makes subject to his de­crees, which he would have received as the Oracles of God, and that by a blind Obe­dience against Mens reason; which is more than God himself requires of us. The Original of his Greatness was out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire. His coming was with lying Wonders; and (whatsoever this Man fancies) our Lord Jesus Christ, tho not yet come, will come and certain­ly destroy him: When the kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever, XI. Rev. 15.

The last place upon which he adventures to discourse, is V. John 43.V. John 43. where we have only his word for it, that when our Savi­our saith, If another shall come in his own Name, he means, especially the wicked Anti­christ. [Page 94] Why him especially? Or him at all? And not rather any one, who should pre­tend to be the Christ? As several did (ac­cording to our Saviours Prediction, XXIV. Matth. 5.) such as Theudas, Barchozba, mentioned by Josephus, and another of the same Name in the time of the Emperor Adrian. And indeed there are such clear Demonstrations (which I have not room to mention) that this word another ought not to be restrained to one Single Person (such as they make the Great Antichrist) but signifies any body indifferently, who pre­tended to be the Christ; that we may well conclude those to be blinded, who make Christ have respect to the Great Antichrist, and from thence conclude the Pope not to be that Antichrist, because the Jews do not fol­low him. Alas! they see as little concern­ing Antichrist, as the Jews do of Christ (as was truly observed by an Eminent Divine of our own long ago). For as the Jews still expect the Messiah, who is already come, and was Crucified by their Fore-fathers; so they of the Roman Church look for an Antichrist, who hath been a long time re­vealed, and is reverenced by them as a God upon Earth. Thus Dr. Jackson Book III. On the Creed, Ch. 8., who ventures to say further, That he who [Page 95] will not acknowledge the Papacy to be the King­dom of Antichrist, hath great reason to suspect his heart, that if he had lived with our Savi­our, he would scarce have taken him for his Mes­sias Ib. Chap. XXII. p. 452..

They that have a mind to see more of this Man's folly, may look into the other Scrip­tures, he barely mentions, where they will soon discover, how much they make against him.

What the Fathers say about this matter, I have already acquainted the Reader; which is so positive and unanimous, that it is sufficient to overthrow what some of them say conje­cturally. Particularly, upon the place last mentioned, V. John 43. concerning which they speak with no certainty, as they do of the rise of Antichrist after the Roman Empire was removed out of the way, which gave the greatest advantage to the Bishop of Rome to advance himself unto that un­limited Power, which he hath usurped over the Church of God. In short, this Man hath stoln all his Authorities about this matter, out of Feuardentius's Notes upon Irenaeus Lib. V. C. 25., where he makes this alius, ano­ther, to be Antichrist; because he is alienus à Domino; an alien from the Lord; which is not the right Character of Antichrist, whom [Page 96] St. Paul makes to be no less than [...], an Adversary, who opposeth our blessed Savi­our. And to shew that this is a meer Ac­commodation, he adds in the next words, that he is the unjust Judge, whom Christ speaks of, that feared not God, nor regarded Man. It any one can think the Fathers intended to expound the Scripture, and to give us the express sense of it in such Speeches as these, he hath a very strange understand­ing.

Answer.

THE strength of these Men lies only in their deceit and fraud. They dare not represent either their own Doctrine, or ours truly. For this Proposition, is both true and false, in divers regards. It is true, that none but God can absolutely and sovereignly forgive Sin: But it is false, that no Man can forgive Sins Ministerially and Conditionally. For by Authority from God, [Page 97] Men appointed thereunto do forgive Sins, as his Ministers, by Baptism, by the Holy Communion, by Preaching, and by Absolution. The only Qustion is, Whether their Abso­lution be only declarative, or also operative? And in this, if we be not all agreed, no more are they of the Roman Church. For P. Lombard did not believe that the Priest wrought any Absolution from Sins; but only declared the Party to be absolved. And the most Ancient Schoolmen follow him; such as Occam, who says, according 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, [Page 98] 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 s [...] ­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 [Page 99] 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 qualiscun (que) 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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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 [Page 102] 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,

Answer.

THis is a most impudent falshood; for we press this as a Duty in some cases, for the quieting of mens Consciences, when they are burdned with Guilt; particularly, before they receive the Communion, and when they are sick. But that which we af­firm in this matter, is, That God doth not require all Christians to make a particular Confession, privately to a Priest, of every sin he hath committed, tho only in thought, under pain of being damn'd, if he do not. Much less do we believe such Confession to be Meritorious, and Satisfactory for sin. Nor do the Scriptures which he quotes, prove a syllable of this doctrine.

The first he alledges, III. Matth. 5, 6.Matth. III. 5, 6. speaks of those who confessed their sins, before they received Baptism of John the Baptist. But what is this to Confession of sins after Baptism? And besides, there is not a word of their confessing them to [Page 104] John; nor of particular Confession of eve­ry sin: And therefore Maldonate tells such raw Divines as this, We ought not to rely upon this Testimony, for it is manifest it doth not treat of Sacramental Confession, which was not yet instituted. And Bellarmine, their great Ma­ster, durst venture no further, than to call this, which was done at John's Baptism, a figure of their Sacramental Confession. And this poor man himself concludes no more from hence, than this, That we may confess our sins, (who doubts of it?) not only to God, but also to man. But this is very short of what he undertook to prove by express Texts, That we ought to confess, &c.

Act. XIX. 18, 19.Nor dare he venture to conclude any more from the next place, but that we may con­fess our sins to men, XIX. Acts 18, 19. Where he bids us, Behold, Confession, but doth not tell us to whom: So we are never the wiser; because it might be to God, and that before all the Company, as the words seem to import. But he bids us also, Be­hold Satisfaction; because several people, (not the same he spake of before) brought forth their curious Books, which were worth a great deal of money, and burnt them before all men. A plain and publick demonstration indeed, that they detested [Page 105] those Magical Arts whereby they gave also satisfaction to all men, of their sincere re­nunciation of such wicked practices: But what proof is this of a Compensation made to God hereby for their Sins, which deserved of him an acquittance?

His Third Text is still more remote from the business, V. Numb. 6, 7.Numb. V. 6, 7. and therefore alledged by wiser heads than his, such as Bellarmine, only as a figure of Sacramental Confession; the least shadow of which doth not appear: For there is neither Con­fession of all sins here mentioned, but only of that particular for which the Sacrifice was offered; nor Confession of the sin to the Priest, but rather to the Lord, as the words more plainly signifie; If a man or w [...]an commit any sin that men commit, and do trespass against the LORD, and that person be guilty, then they shall confess their sin which they have done. An unbiassed Reader would hence conclude, they were bound to con­fess their sin to the LORD, against whom they had trespassed.

His other Scriptures, perhaps, he was sensible, were nothing to the purpose; and therefore he only sets down the Chapter and Verse, as his manner is, when he bids, See more, where nothing is to be seen: For [Page 106] the first is only the same we had out of St. Matthew. The next, V. James 16. speaks of one man's confessing his sins to his neigh­bour. The next we had before, under the former Head: And the last I am willing to think is mis-printed, or his mind was much amiss when he noted it, XVII. Matth. 14.

His Fathers also have only the word Con­fession, not saying, whether to God, or to man; and he thinks that enough: But it is a shameless thing to quote St. Chrysostom for this Doctrine; who in so many places exhorts his people only to confess their sins in private to God; that Sixtus Senensis is forced to expound him, as if he spake on­ly against the necessity of such Publick Con­fession, as was abolished at Constantinople. But Petavius (who proves there was no such Publick Confession) is fain to desire the Reader to be so kind, as not to take St. Chrysostom's words strictly, but spoken popularly, in a heat of declamation: And we are content to do so, if they would be so just as to do the same in other cases: But still we cannot think St. Chrysostom so very hot-headed, but that sometimes he would have been so cool, as to have spoken more cautiously, and not have so frequently over­lasht, as they make him.

[Page 107]That which he quotes out of Ambrose, he is told by Bellarmine, is Greg. Nyssen; so little doth this poor man know of their own Authors. As for his sitting to hear Con­fessions, (if his Author be worth any thing, which is much suspected by Learned men of his own Communion) it is meant of Publick Confession, such as was in use in his time.

Answer.

NOthing truer, by the Confession of their own Authors; particularly An­toninus Part I. Tit. X c. 3. in his Sums; Of these we have no­thing expresly, neither in the Scriptures, nor out of the sayings of the Ancient Doctors. The same is said by Durandus, and many others; who have been so honest as to confess, That such Indulgences and Pardons as are now in use, are but of late invention: There being no such thing heard of in the Ancient Church, as a Treasure of the Church, made [Page 108] up of the Satisfaction of Christ and of the Saints, out of which these Indulgences are now granted, for the profit of the dead, as well as of the li­ving. Whereas of old they were nothing but Relaxations of Canonical Penances, when long and severe Humiliations had been im­posed upon great Offenders; which some­times were thought fit to be remitted, up­on good considerations, either as to their severity, or as to their length. Now this, which was done by any Bishop, as well as he of Rome, we are not against. But such Indulgences are in these ages of no use, be­cause the Penitential Canons themselves are relaxed, or rather laid aside, and no such tedious and rigorous Penances are inflicted; which the Church of Rome hath exchanged for Auricular Confession, and a slight Penance soon finished

The first place he produces out of our Bible to countenance their Indulgences,2 Cor. II. 10. we had before to prove men may forgive sins, Sect. XIV. and others have alledged it to prove men may satisfie for their sins; now it is pressed for the service of Indulgences. What will not these men make the Scri­pture say, if they may have the handling of it? But after all, this will not serve their purpose; for the Pardon the Apostle [Page 109] here speaks of, was nothing but the resto­ring him again to Christian Communion, who had been thrown out of the Church. But is this the Indulgence they contend for in the Church of Rome? Will this serve their turn? Then every Church hath as much power as this comes to; and the whole body of the Church will have a share in this power of Indulgences: For St. Paul speaks to all the Corinthian Christi­ans in general, that they should forgive him.

And so he doth also in the next place here alledged, v. 6, 7.Ibid. v. 6.7. of the same Chap­ter; which speak of a Punishment inflicted ed by many; which he tells them ought not to be continued, but contrarywise, Ye ought to forgive him, and comfort him, &c. Upon which words hear what your Menochius says, This Punishment was publick Separation from the Church, out of which he was ejected by MANY, i. e. by you all, with detestation of his Wickedness, &c. The forgiveness of which, was taking him into the Church again, as Theodoret expounds the next words, v. 8. Ʋnite the member to the body; joyn the sheep together with the flock; and thereby show your ardent affection to him.

[Page 110]He bids us see more in two other places of Scripture, which we have examined before for other purposes, but he would have serve for all: A sign they have great scarcity of Scripture-proofs; and therefore he gives us a larger Catalogue of Fathers; which he packs together after such a fashion, as no Scholar ever did. For after Tertullian and Cyprian, who speak only of the forenamed Relaxation of Canonical Censures, he menti­ons the Council of Lateran, but doth not tell us which; though if he had, it would have been to no end: For the first Lateran Council was above Eleven hundred years after Christ: And Innocent III. who is his next Father, lived an hundred year later; holding the IVth. Lateran Council, 1215. After these he brings St. Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostome, who lived 800 years before, and knew of no Indulgences, but such as I have mention­ed. Lastly, He tells us, Urban the second granted a Plenary Indulgence; and when lived this holy Father, do you think? Al­most eleven hundred years after Christ, Anno 1086. A most excellent proof, that the Romish Indulgences were in use in the Apostles times. Can one think that such men as this, expect to be read by any but fools? who perhaps may imagine this Ʋr­ban [Page 111] was contemporary with the Apostles. It is some wonder he did not quote that holy Father Hildebrand, Greg. VII. who some­thing before this, granted Pardon of Sins to all those who would take up Arms against his Enemies. Poor man! he did not know this, else he would have mentioned him ra­ther than Ʋrban, who was but his Ape.

The Protestants hold (if you will believe him),

Answer.

A Most wicked Slander; for we look upon what they did and suffered, as glorious Testimonies to the Truth they be­lieved and preached, as strong incitements to us to follow their Examples, and as eminent Instances of the Power of God's Grace in them; for which we bless and praise him, and thankfully commemorate them.

[Page 112]But all this serves for nothing to the Church, that is, to the Church of Rome; unless men believe there is a Treasury which contains all the superfluous Satisfactions of the Saints, who suffered more than they were bound to endure. Of which vast Revenue that Church having possessed it self, it serves to bring abundance of Money into their Cof­fers; which must be paid by those who desire to be relieved out of these superabun­dant Satisfactions of the Saints, by having them applied to them, for the supply of their defects. This is the meaning of this very man, it appears, by the Scriptures he quotes for their belief.

I. Col. 24.The first is, I. Col. 24. which speaks of the Persecutions St. Paul endured, in Preach­ing the Gospel to the Colossians; which tho grievous to him, was so beneficial to them, that he rejoiced in his Sufferings, and resolved to endure more for the confir­mation of their Faith, and for the edificati­on of the Church of Christ. This he calls, filling up what was behind of the afflictions of Christ: Because Christ began to testifie to the Truth, by shedding of his Blood, and thence is called the Faithful Witness: But it remained still, that the Apostles should give their Testimony by the like Sufferings, [Page 113] because the Gospel was to be carried to the Gentile World; which could not be effect­ed without their enduring such hardships, as Christ had endured in Preaching to the Jews. Thus Theodoret expounds, That which was behind, or which remained of the Affliction of Christ. But here is not a word of Satisfaction; no, not by Christ's Suffer­ings, which were of such value, that there was nothing of this nature left to be done by others. This, better Men than this, of their own Church, ingenuously confess. Particularly, Justinianus, a Jesuit, whose words are these upon this very place, He saith he filled up what was wanting of the Passion of Christ, not to merit indeed, or make Satisfaction (for what can be wanting to that which is Infinite?) but as to the Power and Efficacy of bringing Men to the Faith; that his My­stical Body, which is the Church, may be perfected, &c. For he signifies in the latter end of the Verse, That he suffered for the enlarging or propa­gating of the Church, to confirm and establish its faith, that he might provoke others to his imitation.

I could add many more, to shew the Folly of this Man; who saith, From hence Ground hath always been taken for Indulgences. A notorious falshood; not always, for In­dulgences are late things; not by all Men [Page 114] in their Church, since it used them. For Estius in his Notes upon this place, abso­lutely disclaims it, and saith, Tho some Di­vines hence argue that the Passions of the Saints are profitable for the remission of sins, which is called Indulgence; yet he doth not think this to be solidly enough concluded from this place.

Which I have been the longer about, be­cause they are wont to make a great noise with it. The next place they curtail'd heretofore in this manner;Philip. II. 30. He was nigh un­to Death, not regarding his Life, to supply your lack (leaving out what follows, of service towards me) which made it sound some­thing like, as if their lack of Goodness had been supplied by his Merits, or rather Sa­tisfaction: for Merit will do no service in this case. But Bishop Montague bang'd them so terribly for this foul play, that now they have printed it right; tho, alas! no­thing to the purpose. And therefore this Man doth not venture to say so much as one word upon this Text; but barely recites the words, and leaves the Reader to make what he can of them. And all that Meno­chius, a truly Learned Expositor of their own, could make of them, is this, That St. Paul being in Prison, Epaphroditus per­forms [Page 115] him those good Offices, which the Philippians should have done, had they not been absent: But he so much neglected himself, while he was wholly intent upon serving the Apostle, that he fell danger­ously sick, and lay for a time without hope of Life.

Finding so little relief in these places of Scripture, he betakes himself to arguing from that Article of our Creed, The Com­munion of Saints. Which Bellarmine, L. 1. de In­dulg. c. 3. from whom he borrows these goodly proofs, manages on this manner, We are taught by this Article, that all the Faithful are Members of one another, being a kind of living Body. Now as living Members help one another, so the Faithful communicate good things among them­selves; especially when those which are superflu­ous to the one, are necessary or profitable to the other.

This is admirable Catholick Doctrine. The Saints have more than they need, and therefore they communicate it to us, for the supply of our wants. But this should have been proved, and not supposed, that the Saints have more than enough, some­thing to spare; and that their Passions were Satisfactions, and Superabundant Satis­factions. After which it would still remain [Page 116] a pretty undertaking to prove, that because one Member helps another when it suffers any thing; therefore the Sufferings of one Member will Cure another Member; the Pain, for instance, of the long Finger will free the little Finger from the pain which it it suffers. Thus the Actions and Passions of Saints are not imparted to us; as this Man presumes from the Relation we have one to another; and yet they serve for very good purposes to the Church, as I have already shown.

And one would imagine he distrust­ed this Argument after he had set it down, because he runs back again to the Scrip­tures. A great Company of which he heaps up, to no more purpose than if he had quoted so many Texts of Aristotle. I will give the Reader a taste of one or two: The first is, CXIX. Psalm 63. I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts. Thus the words run expresly in our Bible. Now let me beseech the Rea­der to consider what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant, for the Church Militant or Patient, or for both, he can find contain­ed in this Text, as he saith there is in all the Passages he quotes. Let him look into the next, and I will be his Bonds man, if [Page 117] he meet with a word of any Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant; but only mention of many Members, which make up but one Body, 1 Cor. XII. 12. And what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant, can one ga­ther out of St. Paul's care for all the Churches, 2 Cor. XI. 28. As for LIII. Isaiah, the Church always thought it a Prophecy of the Sufferings of Christ, and not of the Saints; and so the Apostles interpret it in many places. If he mean, LIII. Psalm 9. (as one Edition of his Book hath it) there are not so many Verses in it; and we should be as far to seek for any sense, if we should see more, and therefore I will look no fur­ther.

What the Fathers affirm, he bids us also see, but doth not tell us; and I cannot trust him so much, as to think it worth my pains to look into the places, to which he points us. St. Austin, I am sure (the first he names) is abused by him; who hath not a word of this matter in his Second Chapter of his Book, about the Care of the Dead; which is altogether concerning this Question, Whether the Dead suffer any thing for want of Burial? Upon the LXI. Psalm indeed (which he quotes at last) he mentions that place of St. Paul, 1 Coloss. 24. [Page 118] and discourses how Christ suffered not only in his own Person, but in his Members; every one of which suffers what comes to his share; and all of them together fill up what is wanting of the Sufferings of Christ. So that none hath Superabundant Sufferings; but he expresly saith, That we every one of us, Pro modulo nostro, according to our small measure, Pay what we owe, (mark that, not more than we are obliged unto, which is the Romish Doctrine, but what we are bound unto) and to the utmost of our Power we cast in, as it were, the stint or measure of Sufferings, which will not be filled up till the end of the World. Which is directly against what this Man, and his Church, would have: For they that bring in but their share, and nothing more than they owe, have no re­dundant Passions, out of which flow super­fluous Satisfaction.

Answer.

HOW should he? When no Man can Supererogate till he have first erogated. In plainer terms, no Man can have any thing to spare, to bestow upon others (for this they mean by Supererogating) till he hath done all that is bound to do for him­self. And therefore Bishop Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bellarmi­ni, p. 196. well calls these works of Supererogation, proud pretences of doing more than a man needs; when he hath not done all he ought. For these two things are necessary to make such Works, as they mean by this word. First, That a Man have done all that God's Law commands. Secondly, That he have done something which it commandeth not. But who is there that hath done all which God's Law requires? That is, who is without all Sin? Therefore, who can by doing some voluntary things, to which he is not bound, do above his Duty, when he falls so much below it, in things ex­presly [Page 120] commanded? There is another great flaw also in this Doctrine; for they suppose precepts to require a lower degree of Good­ness, and counsels a more high or excellent. Which is false, for Gods Precepts require the heigth of Virtue; and Councils only show the means whereby we may more ea­sily, in some circumstances, attain it. As for­saking all, keeping Virginity, are not perfe­ctions; but the Instruments of it, as they may be used.

The places which he brings to prove men may do such works, are first, XIX. Matth. 21.XIX. Mat. 21. Where there is not a word of doing any thing which might be bestowed upon others; but only of laying up treasure to himself in Heaven, by doing a thing extra­ordinary. We do not say, all things are commanded, but some are counselled; yet there are men of great Name in the Church (such as St. Chrysostome, and St. Hilary) who call this a Commandment which Christ gave the young man. And so it is, if he would come and follow Christ, that is, be one of his constant attendants, as the Apostles were, who had left all, that they might give up themselves wholly to his Service.

[Page 121]The next is no more to the purpose, 1 Cor. VII. 25.1 Cor. VII. 25. for no body thinks there is any command to live single; but it was a prudent Counsel of the Apostle at that time, when the Church was in great distress; which made it adviseable for People, if they could, to keep themselves single, whereby they would shift the better, and be freed from a great many Cares and Troubles of this Life. But he doth not say, that here­by they would lay up a Treasure of Satis­factions, which would serve more than them­selves, and might be bestowed upon o­thers. This is the meaning of the Roman Church.

The third, XIX. Matth. 12.XIX. Mat. 12. hath no more in it, than the two former. It is a Coun­sel, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. But they who received it, did not thereby make Satisfaction for defects in obedience to God's precepts; muchless, did they do so much as to have to distribute unto others. Let who will look into the other Scriptures, which he barely notes, he will find them as empty as these; especial­ly the first of them, X. Luke 25.X. Luke 25. which con­tains only a question propounded to our Sa­viour by a tempting Lawyer: Unless he means the Answer to it, which is a Com­mand [Page 122] for loving God with all the Heart, and all the Soul, &c. And it is not left at our liber­ty, I hope, whether we will thus love him or no.

Not one of his Fathers say what he would have them. The first of them, St. Ambrose, only says, He that obeys a Counsel (for in­stance, sells all his Goods to follow Christ) may say more than he that obeys only a Precept. For he may expect a reward, as the Apostles did, when they said, Behold, we have left all and followed thee; what there­fore shall we have? Whereas they that do what they are commanded, must say, We are unprofitable servants, and have but done our Duty. Now, what doth this Discourse prove? But that they shall have a greater reward themselves? but there is not a syl­lable of their supererogating for others. Nor in Origen, nor Eusebius, much less St. Chryso­stom [...], whose business it is to prove, that God's Commands are not impossible. What is this to Counsels? Of which Gregory the Great indeed (not Greg. Nyssen. who hath no such Work) speaks in his Morals; but is so far from main­taining works of Supererogation, that none can be more express than he for the Protestant Do­ctrine; Of the imperfection of all mens righte­ousness, and renouncing all confidence in our own Merits.

Answer.

THIS is another insufferable Slander in the first part of it; for if we had all lost our freedom of will, we should be no longer Men. We only say, we have not such a freedom of Will as we formerly had, and so all say. And he that says, (which is the second Part of this Proposition) It is in our power to chuse that which is Good, with­out the assistance of Grace, is a Pelagian, that is, an Heretick; as this Man is, by con­tradicting what we affirm, That it is not in our power (that is, our natural strength) to chuse Good, that is, Spiritual Good; of which, if he do not speak, he only babbles. For the will of Man (saith Bellarmine L. VI. de lib. ar­bitr. & gratia, c 4. him­self) in things appertaining to Piety and Sal­vation, can do nothing without the assistance of God's Grace; yea, without his special assistance. This is the Doctrine of the Gospel, and [Page 124] is our Doctrine in the Tenth Article of our Religion, unto which he hath nothing to oppose.

For not one of his places of Scripture prove, Man hath a Power of himself to will what is good, without God's Grace. His first Scripture,1 Cor. VII. 37. 1 Corinth. VII. 37. speaks of a thing that is neither Good or Evil in it self; but indifferent; for no man is bound to Marry, or not to Marry; but it may be as he pleases, either way. Yet it is manifest by the very Text, that the Apostle supposes some Men have not a power to contain; and so, in their case Marriage becomes ne­cessary.

As to what he intermixes with this, (which is very foreign to it) My Son, give me thy heart; let me demand of him, whe­ther any man can consent to this, unless God draw his heart to him, when he asks a man to give it? And he that is drawn, saith St. Hierom L. III. adv. Pe­lag., doth not run spontane­ously of himself, but he is brought to it, when he either draws back, or is slow, or unwilling. But I will not abuse the Reader's time in so much as mentioning the rest; since we say nothing in this matter, but what the Gospel, what the Ancient Fathers, particular­ly St. Austin, say, nay, what Bellarmine him­self [Page 125] confesses to be true; whose words in the conclusion of this Controversy, fully express our sense, and give an answer to all that this man foolishly as well as falsly charges us withal.

The Conversion of Man to God, L. VI. De Grat. & Lib. Arbit. c. 15. De­cima sent. as also every other good work, as it is a WORK (that is, an human act) is only from his free Will, yet not excluding God's general help; as it is PIOƲS, it is from Grace alone; as it is a PIOƲS WORK, it is both from our free Will, and from Grace. To this we sub­scribe.

Answer.

THIS is such a down-right Calumny, that I cannot but say with the Psalmist, What shall be done unto thee, O thou false Tongue? We most thankfully ac­knowledg the Power of the Divine Grace [Page 126] to be so great, that it is possible for us to keep God's Commandments, to such a de­gree as he requires and accepts; tho not with such an exact and strict obedience, as to stand in no need of his gracious Pardon of our de­fects.

Phil. IV.St. Paul means, no more, when he saith, he could do all things, that is, all before mentioned, and harder things yet, if occasion were, by the help of Christ, who administred strength to him, to do all those things, as Me­nochius interprets it. IV. Philip. 13.

I. Luke 5, 6.Nor doth St. Luke's Character of Zacha­ry and Elizabeth, amount to more than this, that they were sincerely good People; who were therefore Blameless, or Irrepre­hensible, (as Menochius translates it) be­cause, saith Theophylact, they acted out of pure respect to God, and not to please Men. For many walk in the Law of God, who are not irreprehensible, because they do all to be seen of men. But Zachary both did what God commanded, and did it irre­prehensibly; not performing such things that he might please men. Thus he, and St. Austin gives another reason of this, glos­sing upon the Virgins mention'd Revel. XIV. In whose mouth was found no guile, be­cause they were irreprehensible (as he renders [Page 127] the word, we (translate, without fault) before the Throne of God: They were, saith he, there­fore without reprehension, because they faithfully reprehended themselves; and therefore guile was not found in their mouth; because if they had said, they had no sin, they had deceived them­selves. It is plain by this, they did not look upon such persons as without all sin, but only sincere and intire in their obedience to Christ's Commands. Nay, it is evident Zachary himself, whom St. Luke so highly commends, was not thus blameless, as to be without all sin; for he was much to blame in not believing the Angel, who brought him a message from God, and was punish­ed for not believing it, by being struck dumb till the Angel's word was fulfilled.

All his other Scriptures therefore, and Fathers, proving that which none of us de­ny, are here alledged in vain.

He next of all saith, we maintain,

Answer.

WHat shall one do with a man that opposeth he knows not what? The first part of this Proposition is St. Paul's, who in effect saith the same, III. Rom. 28. II. Gal. 16. Therefore no man should be so bold as to contradict it, but rather explain it; which it is ea­sie to do; for when we say, Faith on­ly justifies, this Faith includes in it a sin­cere purpose of good living; without which, we believe it will not justifie. And therefore the second part of it is a new slan­der, That we affirm Good works are not ne­cessary to Salvation; the direct contrary to which, we heartily believe: For it is abso­lutely necessary to our Salvation, we all af­firm, that we act according to our Faith; tho by such Good works, we can merit no­thing, neither Justification, nor Salvation: But we are accounted righteous before God, only [Page 129] for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ; by Faith, not for our own works or deserving, as the words are in the XIth. Article of our Religion. So that when we say, by Faith, it is manifest we exclude not Good works, but only the merit of them. And thus Lu­ther himself shows (upon V. Gal.) That Faith alone will not suffice, tho Faith alone ju­stifies.

Therefore all his Scriptures might have been spared, especially the first of them,1 Cor. XIII. 2. 1 Cor. XIII. 2. which speaks of a miracu­lous Faith; and besides, doth not contra­dict us, who believe Faith without works will not avail to Salvation; though let us do never so much, we can never merit it by what we do.

The second Text, II. Jam. 24.James II. 24. is agree­able to what we say, That the Faith which justifies, includes in it a purpose of well-doing. Such an one as was in Abraham, whose Faith, in purposing to offer up Isaac, was imputed to him for Righteousness, tho he had not actually done as he purposed to do. In like manner, if any man sincerely pro­fess the Christian Faith, and be baptized, he is justified, tho he have not as yet brought forth the fruit of it in good works; (witness the Eunuch, VIII. Acts 37.) which [Page 130] if he should not produce afterward, he could not be saved. St. Austin in that very Book and Chapter which he quotes, expresly saith, Good Works follow him that is justified, they do not precede him that is to be justified. What doth he think of the Thief upon the Cross, who only believed, and was not so much as baptized?

II James 14. is not contrary to what we say, but according to it. Mr. Calvin him­self upon these very words, saith, Therefore we are saved by Faith, because it joins us to God; which is done no other way, but that living by his Spirit, we be governed by him. St. Paul and St. James agree very well; though the one say: We are not justified by Faith only, (which is St. James's Doctrine); and the other, St. Paul, in effect says, We are justified by Faith only, when he saith, We are justified by Faith, without Works. As he shows in Abraham's case; where he op­poses Justification by Faith, and Justificati­on by Works; and affirms Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith. St. James alledging the same case, and the very same words, proves he was justified by Works, and not by Faith only. Can any one think they make use of the same instance, for quite contrary ends? It is a wonder men [Page 131] do not learn this plain and easie truth from hence; That Faith alone (having in it a purpose of well-doing) enters us into the state of Justification, before we have done what we purpose; but Good Works are necessary to continue us in this state, and so may be said to justifie us; that is, conti­nue our Justification, which Faith only can­not do.

The last place, V. Gal. 6. we have no­ted so well, that we expresly declare in our XIIth. Article, That Good works cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgment, (these are the great things we deny) yet they do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith. And the Doctrine of St. Austin L. de F [...] ­de & Ope­rib. c. 14. is perfectly ours; which I will set down, because it explains all that I have said: A good life is inseparable from Faith; yea, in truth, Faith it self is a good life. And againLib. Quest. 83. q. 76. How can he that is justified by Faith, chuse but work Righteousness? But if any man, when he hath believed, presently depart this life, the Justification of Faith remains with him; no good work preceding, because he came to it, not by Merit, but by Grace; nor following, because he was not suffered to remain in this life. From whence it is manifest [Page 132] what the Apostle saith, We conclude a man is justified by Faith without works.

All his other Scriptures therefore serve only to shew his Ignorance, if not his Ma­lice, in charging us with the denial of that which we affirm, That good works are necessa­ry to Salvation. His Fathers he had better have kept to himself; for they frequently say, Faith only justifies. Even Origen In Cap. III., upon that very Book, the Epistle to the Romans, affirms, that Justification of Faith alone suffi­ces, tho a man hath not done any works. Which he proves by the example of the Thief upon the Cross; and the Woman in VII. Luke, to whom our Saviour said, Go in peace, thy Faith hath saved thee. But perhaps, saith he, some reading this, may think he may neglect to do well, since Faith alone suf­ficeth to Justification. To whom we say, That if any man doth wickedly after Ju­stification, without doubt he despiseth the Grace of Justification. Neither doth a man receive Forgiveness of sins for this, that he may think he hath a License given him to sin again; for a Pardon is given him, not for sins to come, but for sins that are past. And what he saith upon the next Chapter, (not the Vth. as this man quotes him, but the IVth.) doth not con­tradict [Page 133] this; Faith cannot be imputed to those who believe in Christ, but do not put off the old man with his unrighteous acts. Which very well agrees with what he said before, and we with him: Faith enters us into a state of acceptance with God; but we can­not go to Heaven, unless we bring forth the fruit of Faith in new Obedience. So he ex­plains himself most excellently, in that very place, a little before, in these words, which comprehend the whole business: I think that the first beginnings, and the very foundations of Salvation, is Faith; the progress and increase of the building, is hope; but the perfection and top of the whole work is Charity. I will not trouble the Reader with what the rest of his Fathers say, since they themselves are sensible their Cause is endangered by the Fa­thers. Which is so notorious, that they have taken care to have this passage expunged out of the very Index of St. Austin's worksPrinted 1543. apud Ambr. Gi­rau. upon the Psalms, Through Grace we are sa­ved by Faith; tho St. Paul affirms the same, II. Ephes. 8. And out of the very Text of St. Cyril upon Isaiah, these words are ordered to be expunged (by the Spa­nish Index of Gasp. Quiroga) the Grace of Faith is sufficient to the cleansing of sin; and Christ dwells in our heart by Faith. In I. Isa. & in 51. No won­der [Page 134] then they have dealt thus with later Au­thors of theirs own, who followed the Fa­thers Doctrine; particularly with Vatablus, out of whose Annotations upon VIII. Isa 32. they have ordered these words to be blotted out, They that beliive in the Lord, shall be saved; but they that do not, shall perish. And these upon VIII. Luk. Faith saveth.

Answer.

AT last he speaks some truth, tho very lamely. For if by meritorious were meant nothing, but that good works are highly valued by God, when performed out of love to him, and we deny our selves to serve him; which undoubtedly he will reward with a glorious Recompence, tho far transcending our services; there would be no quarrel about this matter. But by works meritorious, they mean such as are no ways defective, and have such an exact proportion to the Reward, that God is bound in strict Justice, to bestow, or rather [Page 135] pay it. Now this is it we deny, believing that Good works in the rigour of Justice, do not deserve eternal life as wages; and this is it which they presume, but can never prove.

His first Text,XVI. Mat. 17. XVI. Matth. 17. is so far from express, that quite contrary it saith, God will only reward every man according to his works, not for the merit of his works; which imports them to be an adequate cause; whereas according, signifies nothing of a cause, but only of a respect, or compa­rison between the work and the reward; so that they who have done evil shall be pu­nished, and they that have done good be blessed. And he belies St. Austin (ac­cording to the manner of their Catholick Sincerity) to justifie his Interpretation. For St. Austin speaks of the Punishment of Sinners,Serm. XXXV. de verbi. Apost. not of the Reward of the Righ­teous. I beseech you, brethren, attend dili­gently, and be ye afraid as well as I, for he doth not say He will render to every one according to his mercy, but according to their works, (he saith not a word of their Faith, which this man put in of his own head) for now he is merciful, but then just. Would to God they would take St. Austin's counsel, and so diligently attend to this, as to repent of their shameless Forgeries, that they may [Page 136] find Mercy with God, which hereafter will be denied.

The word for Reward in V. Matth. 12. is not to be interpreted, Wages, and Hire, due to the work. For the Labourers who came at the Eleventh Hour into the Vine­yard, as St. Hilary In Psal. 129. in fi­ne. observes, received Mercedem, their Reward, not of the work, but of Mercy: Which is exactly according to St. Paul, IV. Rom. 4. where he saith, there is a [...], (which this man would have translated, Wages), Reward of Grace, not of Debt. Which place St. Austin In Psal. XXXI. having occasion to mention, thus glosses; Now to him that worketh, that is, presumeth of his Works, and saith that for their me­rit the Grace of Faith was given, the Re­ward is not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt. What's this, but that our Reward is called Grace? If it be Grace, it is freely given. What's meant by freely given? It cost thee nothing. Thou didst no good, and Remission of sins is bestowed upon thee. I have quoted this at large, that if it be possible, such men as this may be put to the blush, if not confounded. As one would expect they should be, when they read St. Paul; who tho he say, Death is the wages of sin, yet saith, Eternal Life is the Gift of God: Which the Fathers take [Page 137] great notice of, particularly St. Hierom; he doth not say, the wages of Righteousness, as he had said the wages of sin; for eternal life is not earned by our labour, but graciously bestowed by God's gift.

The same Answer serves for the next place, X. Matth. 42. and all such Texts. And 2 Cor. V. 10. was answered before; that we shall receive according to what we have done in the body; they that have done well shall be rewarded above their de­serts; and they that have done evil, receive what they have deserved: Which is the highest encouragement unto well-doing; to believe, That God will do more abun­dantly for us, out of his infinite bounty, than we can ask or think; and not consider our merits (which are none at all) but his own incomprehensible Goodness and Mercy. They that teach otherways, de­rogate from the Grace of God, and proud­ly arrogate to themselves a worthiness, of which creatures are not capable.

I need not examine that heap of Scri­ptures, which he confusedly huddles toge­ther; for they have no more in them than these we have already considered. And as for the Fathers, it is a most insufferable im­pudence to say, as he doth, That they [Page 138] unanimously confirm the same. The quite con­trary hath been unanswerably proved by our Writers, That the Fathers from the first times, down to Venerable Bede, have taught as he doth, That no man ought to think his own merits will suffice him to sal­vation; but let him understand, That he must be saved by the sole Grace of God In Psal. 31..

It is frivolous to alledg the word Me­rit, so often used by the Fathers; for they mean no more thereby, but obtain­ing that which they are said to merit. So the word is used in innumerable pla­ces, and in many Authors: Insomuch, that in the Passion of St. Maximilian, it is said, his Mother, after he was killed, merited his Body of the Judge; that is, she obtained it by her Intreaties. Every No­vice in Learning knows this.

Answer.

IT was not possible for him to go on to speak some Truth; but he returns to his old way of Calumniating: For there [Page 139] is no such Position maintained among us, but expresly the contrary, in our XVIth. Article: After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace given (and Faith is a Grace and Gift of God) and fall into sin; and by the Grace of God we may rise again, &c. The only question is, Whether they that once have Saving Faith, may lose it totally and final­ly. In which there are various opinions, not only among us, but among themselves; some saying, it may be lost totally, but not finally; others, that it may be lost in both regards. But this is no matter of Faith, but only of Opinion; for which we do not break Communion.

All his Proofs therefore out of Scripture, are perfectly impertinent; for they prove what none of us deny, That men may lose their Faith, after they have received it. As for his Fathers, St. Austin in that very Book which he quotesDe cor­rep. & gra­tia, c. 12., asserts the direct con­trary to what is here pretended to be his sense, That there are some who cannot finally lose the Grace of God. For comparing the Grace which Adam had, with that which is now given to the Saints, he saith, To the first man (who had received a power not to sin, not to dye, not to desert the good estate in which he was created) was given the aid of [Page 140] Perseverance; not whereby he was made that he should persevere; but without which, he could not by his Free-will have persevered. But now to the Saints, who are predestinated by God's Grace to the Kingdom of God, there is not only given such an aid of Perseverance, but such an one, that Perseverance it self is given them; not only that without this gift they cannot persevere, but also that by this gift they cannot but perse­vere. For our Saviour saith to his Apostles, not only, without me ye can do nothing (XV. Joh. 5.) but withal, v. 16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should re­main. I have quoted this at large, that such Writers as I have to deal withal, may blush, if they can, at such shameless Untruths as they father upon St. Austin. And let a deeper blush colour this man's cheeks, who quotes the Council of Trent, which was but a little above a hundred years ago, among the An­cient Fathers. His next Charge is,

Answer.

AND who is he that dares maintain the contrary? When our Lord hath said in express terms, XVI. Mark 15, 16. Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth, and is bapti­zed, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. This is the eternal purpose of God in Christ, which the Apostles were commanded to publish every where, as his inevitable Decree concerning mankind, which cannot be avoided: That if they do not believe the Gospel which is preached to them, they shall perish; but if they sin­cerely believe it, and be baptized, they shall be saved.

This Babbler, I doubt not, would have said something else, but he had not the wit, viz. That we maintain, God hath for [Page 142] his own mere Will and Pleasure, without any respect to mens Faith or Unbelief, re­solved to damn some, and to save others. But this is not the Doctrine of our Church, as he might have seen in our XVIIth. Arti­cle. If any among us teach such Doctrine, it is no more than some of their own Do­ctors have taught. And it is a most sense­less thing to accuse us of that, which if it be a fault, they are as chargeable with it themselves.

His Scriptures prove nothing contrary to us; but we expresly teach according to the first of them,1 Tim. II. 3. 1. Tim. II. 3. That we ought to receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture. And therefore we must believe, That God would have all men to be saved; notwithstanding which, such Triflers as this man is, must be told, that God will have some men to be damn'd, (as I show'd before) and these two Pro­positions do not contradict one the other.

The next is of the same import, 2 Pet. III. 9.2 Pet. III. 9. God is not willing any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. And yet he is willing, nay resolved, that all those shall perish, who will not repent.

For want of other Scriptures, he runs to those that are Apochryphal, and quotes a [Page 143] passage out of the Book of Wisdom; which we believe to be Canonical enough in this point: And then he returns to Scripture; a great many Texts of which he jumbles together with some Apocrypha; but if any one will take the pains to consult them, he will find they do not contradict any thing that We or other Protestants affirm. Even they who believe the absolute and irrespective Decree, consent to what the Prophet Hosea saith, (XIII. 9. which is his first place), That every man's destruction is of himself. He beats the air therefore in alledging those places, and the sayings of the Fathers; to which we subscribe, and so do all other Pro­testants; whose true opinion this poor Ig­noramus did not understand, and therefore could not oppose. For those that say, the cause why some are reprobated, is God's Will and Pleasure, yet maintain the cause of their Damnation and Destruction, is their own sins. This, if he had question­ed, and ask'd them, Why God reprobates this man rather than another? they would have had St. Austin as ready at hand, as he hath, to answer for them. You seek to know the Causes of God's Will, when the Will of God is the very cause of all things that are For if the Will of God have a Cause, there [Page 144] is something which antecedes his Will, which it is impious to believe. If any man therefore ask, Why God made this? The Answer is, Because he would. If he go on to ask, Why would he? He searches for something greater than God's Will, when nothing greater can be found. Let human temerity therefore bridle it self, and not seek for that which is not, lest he do not find that which is, L. de Gen. contra Manich. C. 2.

Answer.

NO man in his wits, much less any Church, ever uttered such foolish words as these; which are inconsistent with the former Assertion, That God hath resolved to damn some men. How can they [Page 145] who say this, oblige every man to believe he shall be Saved? The most that any one hath said is, that (not every one, but) every true believer; every one that is justified, ought to be so assured. So Bellarmine him­self represents their Doctrine, which hath as many friends and favourers in the Ro­man Church, as it hath in ours. Where no more than this is commonly taught, That being assured of the truth of the Divine promises (which cannot deceive us) we are so far assured of attaining them, as we are certain, that we faithfully perform our duty; which is the condition upon which the attaining of them de­pends.

But this is a very strange Man; for be­cause every Man ought not to be assured of his Salvation, he will allow no Man to be assu­red; no, not St. Paul. Expresly against the Doctrine of his own Church, which looks upon him as a man particularly elected by God, not only to the Apostleship, but to Salvation. Nor doth he contradict this, in 1 Cor. XIX. 27.1 Cor. XIX. 27. but rather tells us how he secured his Salvation, by keeping under his Body. By which means, we also may be secured; for if we continue in his Goodness, as the next Scripture speaks, XI. Rom. 20,XI. Rom. 20, 21. 21. we ought not to doubt he will conti­nue [Page 146] it unto us to the end. And we teach no other assurance of Salvation, but by constant Fidelity unto Christ; which as long as we maintain, we ought to be certain of the other. The only fear is, lest we should not be stedfast; and therefore we are well admonished in the next Scripture,2 Philip. 12. II. Philip. 12. to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. But so doing, we shall undoubted­ly be saved.

No Church in the World more beats down vain security, than this of ours; nor doth any more incourage it, than the Church of Rome; where men are secured of their Salvation, if they can be so vain as to believe it, by confessing to a Priest, and receiving his Absolution at the last Gasp.

The other Scriptures which he hath shovelled together, are of no different im­port from these, and therefore need not be examined. Nor his Fathers neither, which they have now made a shift to scrape toge­ther, tho they had none in the first Edition of this Book. For they that read Bellarmine, could not but know what a great number of Testimonies are brought out of the Fa­thers, to confirm their Opinion, who hold men may be so certain they are in a state of [Page 147] Grace, that they may be assured of their Salvation. Particularly out of St. Austin, in a great number of places; more especi­ally in XXII. Tract. upon St. John, where he argues thus. Our Saviour hath told me, He that hears my words, and believes on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation. Now, I have heard the words of my Lord; I have believed; when I was an Infidel, I was made a faith­ful man; and therefore, as he tells me, I have passed from Death unto Life, and shall not come into Condemnation; not by my presumption, but by his own promise. Which words are so convincing, that Bel­larmine L. III. de Justif. C. X. himself acknowledges, every one may conclude from this promise of Christ, he is passed from Death unto Life, &c. The only question is, with what certainty this can be gathered, which St. Austin, saith he, doth not explain. But it is plain to every understanding, that there is the same cer­tainty of the Conclusion, that there is of the Premises. A man may be as certain of his Salvation, as he is, that he sincerely believes Christ's words, and is obedient to them. Nor doth the place, which this man quotes out of St. Austin, contradict this, but rather confirm it; if the follow­ing [Page 148] words be added, which this man frau­dulently conceals. They are these In Psalm XLI., There is no stability, nor hope in my self. My soul is troubled within me: Wilt thou not be troubled? do not remain in thy self; but say, To thee, O Lord, have I lift up my Soul. Hear this more plainly. Do not hope from thy self, but from God. For if thy hope be from thy self, thy Soul will be troubled; because it hath not yet found, whence it may be secure of thy self. Which shows St. Austin thought men might attain to security, but not in or from themselves; but in God alone, before whom every one ought to humble himself, that he may ex­alt him. It is to no purpose to examine the rest.

Answer.

MEN may believe, either that every one hath, or hath not, and yet not contradict our Church, which hath deter­mined nothing about it; nor hath it been [Page 149] resolved in any Church, but every one left to think as he pleases. For all that Suarez and Vasquez (other kind of men than this) durst say in this case, is this; that tho this Assertion be not exprest in Scripture, nor defined by the Church (mind that) yet it hath been received with such an universal con­sent, and hath such great foundation in Scripture, as understood by the Fathers, that it cannot be denied without great rashness, and almost Error. See here how cautiously these Learned men speak, and and how ingenuously they confess the Church hath determined nothing in this Point, but it is a kind of popular opinion. As for Scripture, in direct contradiction to this man, they tell us, it is not expresly delivered therein: And whatsoever founda­tions they think are there laid for this Opinion, it seems to me, upon serious con­sideration, that the Scriptures rather sup­pose, that every man (no, not the good) hath not a particular guardian Angel, that con­stantly attends him: But God sends either one or more Angels, as there is occasion, and as he thinks fit, to do what he ap­points: Who after they have dispatch'd that business, depart from them, till he thinks fit again to employ those, or some [Page 150] other Heavenly Messengers for their good. This seems very manifest to me, in that which is reported, concerning Abraham, Daniel, St. Peter, St. John, and the Blessed Virgin her self in the I. of St. Luke. Let him, or any one else, show such proofs, if he can, out of Scripture, That the Angels do constantly remain with those whom they sometimes attend, and are fixed in their Office of Guardianship to them.

XVIII. Matth. 10.XVIII. Matth. 10. Speaks not of One Angel, but of more: and doth not say, they Guard Christs little ones, but that they alway behold the face of his Father in heaven; that is, wait to receive his Commands (as Servants who stand before their Master) which they are ready to execute. This confirms the other Opinion, I now men­tioned, that Angels are only sent as God Orders, and are not fixed in their Attend­ance. Neither doth this Text speak of every man, as this Scribler idly talks; but of Christians, and particularly the weaker sort, called little ones, who most needed their Ministry. Mr. Calvin also in that very place, which this man mentions, re­strains his question to the faithful; who, he dare not say, have every one of them a particular Angel to minister to them, but [Page 151] rather inclines to the contrary Opinion.

The XCI. Psalm 11, 12.XCI. Psal. 11, 12. Proves the very same, That God gives his Angels charge of Good men. But it neither speaks of one who is the Angel-keeper, nor that the Angels, whether more or fewer, remain always with good men. There were a great ma­ny about one Prophet Elisha, 1 Kings VI. 12. But it is not likely, that those Troops were his constant Guard. But it is in vain to appeal to S. Cyril of Alexandria his opi­nion, that it is meant of the Angel-keeper; for they will not in other cases, as I shall show shortly, stand to his judgment.

It is true, in the XII. Acts 13.XII. Acts 13. The Jewish Christians, who were assembled in Mary's House, were of opinion, That it was the Angel of St. Peter, who knock'd at the door: But whether this opinion was true, or no, is the question: which the Scripture doth not resolve: Nor can we gather the Faith of the Primitive Church (which this man thinks is apparent from this place) from the opinion of a few of the Jewish Christians; who had many opi­nions, which I hope this man will not justifie. And though this should prove such a man as Peter had an Angel-Guardi­an, it will not prove that every man hath. [Page 152] For this seems to have been the old opinion among the Jews, That only excellent men, Persons of great integrity and usefulness, had such attendants to take care of them; for instance, Jacob, as one may gather out of St. Chrysostom's Third Hom. upon the Co­lossians. But it doth not appear that they thought they had them always; nor one and the same, when God favoured them with their Ministry. And thus Mr. Calvin (in that place of his Institutions, which this man quotes) says he does not see what should hinder us from understanding this Angel of St. Peter, of any Angel whatsoever, to whom God committed the care of him at that time, whom we cannot therefore con­clude to have been his perpetual keeper.

Let who pleases see more; he will not find one of the Scriptures he quotes, speak home to the point: No, not those out of Tobit (which he knows we do not own for any part of the Rule of our belief) for it doth not follow, that every man hath an Angel-Guardian, if Tobit had one who ac­companied him in that journey. No, Tobit himself had not his company alway; but the Angel when he had finished his journey, departed from him. See how foolish this man is, who not only quotes Books, which [Page 153] we allow not to be Holy Writ, but alledges places there, that make against him.

And his Fathers he quotes as madly, be­ginning with St. Gregory; and putting even Gregory of Tours before St. Austin. And the Reader may judge of what value his Testi­monies are, by what he alledges out of St. Hierome; whose words if he would have given us intirely, it would have appeared they carry no Authority with them. For it immediately follows, Whence we read in the Revelation of St. John, to the Angel of Ephesus, of Thyatira, and the Angel of Phi­ladelphia: As if these had been Guardian Angels of these Churches, to whom our Saviour wrote; when all agree, they were the Bishops of those Churches; as Ribera confesses; who justly wonders that St. Hie­rome, or any one else, should think them to be Angelical Spirits. If St. Hierome wrote those Commentaries, it is manifest he de­parted from the opinion of other Fathers, when he saith, That every soul hath its An­gel assigned it, from its Nativity: For they say only, That every Believer hath this pri­vilege. There needs no more be said in this matter, which can at most be no more than a probable opinion; and therefore it is not contrary to the Faith, to deny, that [Page 154] every one of us hath an Angel for his custody and patronage.

Answer.

NOne of us say, That the holy Angels pray not for us in general, (no, ma­ny Protestants grant it) but we have no reason to believe they pray for us in our particular concerns; and we are sure they do not intercede for us by their Merits, for they have none. We are sure also, that they know not our thoughts or desires; unless they be discovered by external effects or signs, or they be revealed to them by God. For the Scripture expresly saith, God only knows the heart, 1 Kings VIII. 39. 1 Cor. II. 11. And this Suarez L. 2. de An­gel. c. XXI. n. 3. himself saith, is a Catholick Assertion, That an Angel can­not naturally know or see the act or free consent of any created will, unless by him [Page 155] that hath such a tree affection, it be mani­fested to another. And this he saith is de fide; and proves it from Scriptures and Fathers. Now if any one will say, that God doth reveal our internal thoughts and desires to the Angels, he is a very bold man; unless he have a Divine Revelation for it. None of the Scriptures here men­tion'd, say any such thing.

The first of them, I. Zach. 12.I. Zac. 12. only proves, That an Angel prayed (not for a particular person, and his particular necessities, but) that he would have mercy upon Jerusa­lem and the cities of Judah; that is, upon the whole Nation. This many Protestants grant; and therefore he belies them when he saith, They believe the Angels do not pray for us. For this very place is alledged by the Apology for the Augustan Confessi­on, and by Chemnitius in his Common-places, as an argument why they grant, Angels pray for the Church in general: For this Text proves no more.

The next,Tob. XII. 12. (tho out of an Apocryphal Book, XII. Tob. 12.) says nothing of the Angels praying for us, but of their bring­ing mens prayers before the Holy One: Which the same Protestants also allow; meaning thereby only a Ministerial Oblation of mens [Page 156] Prayers before God, (as they explain themselves) not a Pr pitiatory Oblation, which is proper only to Jesus Christ.

VIII. Rev. 4.Unto whom the third place belongs, VIII. Rev. 4. not to an ordinary Angel, but to that great Angel of the Covenant (whom the Prophet speaks of, III. Mal. 1.) out of whose hand the smoke of the incense came, and ascended up before God. So St. Austin, and Pri­masius; nay, Viega, a famous Jesuit, affirms, that most Interpreters, by this Angel under­stand Christ: And he gives these good rea­sons for it: Unto whom, but to him alone, doth it belong to offer the Incense of the whole Church, that is, their Prayers, in a golden Censer? Who but he could send down part of the Fire with which the golden Censer was filled, (v. 5.) upon the earth, and inflame it with the Fire of the Divine Love, and the Flaming Gifts of the Holy-Ghost? &c. See the Folly of this man, who applies that to Angels, which belongs, in the opinion of most Interpre­ters, unto Christ alone. And see his False­ness also, who 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 [Page 157] 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 Tab [...]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 [Page 158] 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?

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, [Page 159] 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 l [...]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.

[Page 160] 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 [Page 161] 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 H [...]brews are so far from think­ing that Jacob m [...]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 [Page 162] 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 of St. Austin's Annota­tions on the Book of Job, is not worth our regard. For St. Austin See his Retract. L. 2. C. 13. himself was doubtful whether he should own them, be­ing put forth by others, rather than him; and so corruptly, that he would scarce say they were his. And being admitted for his, he doth not speak home to this man's purpose: For he only says, Job seems to intreat the Angels, that they would deprecate for him; or rather the Saints, that they would pray for a Penitent. Now this is not the Religious invocation, which the Ro­manists [Page 163] plead for; but only such a desire as we make to a Friend here on Earth, to help us by his prayers. But whatsoever St. Au­stin may be supposed to say, it is manifest, he that thus interprets the place, mistakes very much; fancying those to be Friends in Heaven, who are Friends on Earth; of whom Job most certainly speaks.V. Job 1. And so doth the next place; V. Job 1. which speaks not at all of praying to the Saints, but of de­siring them to appear for him, and testify to his innocence. Thus Menochius himself expounds it, The meaning seems to be, I (that is Eliphaz) have already told thee my Opinion, If thou hast any Patron among the Saints, or whose testimony thou canst bring forth in thy de­fence; do not delay, but produce it before us. They can tell of none (as others enlarge upon the words) who was ever oppressed with such Calamities as are fallen upon thee, unless they deserved them for their sins. If these words relate to Angels, as some Protestants think they do (because the LXX. here have An­gels, instead of Saints) the meaning is the same: If thou hast seen an Angel, as I have done (IV. 15.) he can give thee no other an­swer. Thus the same Menochius.

Answer.

THIS man seems to have been in love with lying: else he could not have invented such a senseless falshood. For no Protestant ever was so foolish as to say, they cannot help us. We believe they both can, and do: and we thankfully acknow­ledge their ministry, in our Publick Prayers on Michaelmas day. But we look upon them only as Ministers; who can do nothing of themselves, but as they are ordered. For they are not set over us as Lords, to act according to their own pleasure: but sent by the great Lord of all, to do us ser­vice as he appoints them.

Neither his Scriptures, nor Fathers, say more than this, and we say the same: therefore what a Trifler is this, who blots Paper to prove the Sun shines!

Answer.

THIS is just such another Falshood, devised on purpose to have some­thing, right or wrong, to object against us: For no Protestant is of this mind. He saith, he hath met with some such: But for my part, I cannot give any credit to one, who hath told so many untruths.

The Scriptures therefore which he al­ledges, need not be considered; much less his Story out of the Maccabees. And his Fa­thers are such as were imposed on by Fabu­lous Relations, devised to make way for the belief of Purgatory. And such Apparitions we have great reason to doubt of.

Answer.

NO; not every thing that here passeth, as his words seem to import. For so Aquinas Pars I. Q. XII. Art. 8. ad 4. himself resolves, speaking of the knowledge of the Blessed in Heaven, Though it be the natural desire of a rational Creature to know all things which belong to the perfection of its understanding (which are the species and kinds of things, and the reasons of them, &c.) Yet to know particulars, and the thoughts and actions of them, belong not to the perfection of a created understanding: nor doth its natural desire tend to this. The very same say we; and a little more: they may know some particulars, at some times; but not all, at all times. And let us hear what this vain Talker hath to say to the contrary.

XVI. Luk. 29. First, He says, out of XVI. Luke 29. That Abraham knew there were Moses and the Prophets Books here on earth, which he had never seen when he was alive. What a Ninny is this! who undertakes to prove they know [Page 167] what passeth here at present (or else he doth nothing) by proving they know what is pass'd and gone long ago: Which they may know, and not understand what is done at this instant. Besides, if they know some such general things, it doth not prove they know all particulars: For instance, what I am now writing about this matter. St Austin, in that Book he mentions,L. de cura pro mor­tuis. doth indeed say, Abraham knew of Moses: But in the very same Book, and the Chapter foregoing (C. 13.) he expresly saith, the spirits of the dead are there, Where they do not see whatsoever things are done, or come to pass, in the life of men. And in the same place he alledgeth, LXIII. Isa. 16. to prove, That Abraham and Israel did not know what is done in this world, nor how their children fare. And (to confound this man, and all such false pretenders to Learning) he saith, in that very Chapter quoted by him (which is the 14th. not the 24th. for there are not so many Chapters in the Book) in express terms, he knew those things, not while they were a doing when they were alive, but being dead he might know them from Lazarus; and thus he resolves, lest it should be false which the Prophet saith, Abraham knows us not. And then immediately begins the next [Page 168] Chapter, in this manner, It must be con­fess'd therefore, that the dead do not know what is done here, while it is doing; but may hear it afterwards from those, who dying, go from us to them. Not all things indeed, but such as they are suffered to relate, and such as they are suffered to remember, and such as are fit for them to hear. They may hear something also from the Angels, &c. It would be too long to Tran­scribe the rest; and this is sufficient to convince those that have a mind to under­stand the truth, how little credit is to be given to such men as this, Who to give us farther proofs of his folly, alledges, V. John. 45.V. John 45. to prove the Saints know what's done here. When it's evident our Saviour doth not speak of Moses his Person, but of his Writings, or Laws; as he himself could interpret it in the foregoing place.

XII. Rev. 10.And who for shame (to use his own word) but such a man as he, would quote the XII. Rev. 10. to prove the Saints must know what is done on Earth, because the Devil doth; whose business it is to go to and fro (which the Saints do not) while he seeks whom he may devour: And to prove likewise the Devil knows what's done, be­cause he lays false accusations to the charge of good Christians. So this Text signi­fies, [Page 169] as Menochius himself expounds it; The accuser, saith he, is the backbiter, the calumniator, the detractor, who accuses the Saints with false criminations, and calumnies, as anciently he did Job. A most excellent argument to prove the Devil knows what is done here, because he is a lyar, a false accuser, who tells what was never done. Will people never open their eyes, and see the senselessness of these men, who trou­ble the World with their Brain-sick Dis­courses?

He promised express Scriptures, and per­petually falls into pitiful arguing. As he doth here upon another Scripture in the Old Testament, 2 King. VI 12. where, because Elisha is said to know what the King of Israel said in his Bed-chamber, 2 Kings VI. 12. he concludes that he knew by the light of Prophecy, even the inward thoughts. And what it God had revealed this to him (which he did not) would it follow that he knew the words and the thoughts of all Israel? And because he knew what the King said in secret, at some time, that he knew what he and all his People said at all times? These are ex­travagant Conceits; fit only for men in B [...]dlam. What the light of glory, as he calls it, can make the Souls of the Blessed un­derstand, [Page 170] we cannot tell: but they are not capable to understand all particulars, as you heard before. And therefore St. Au­stin Cura pro M [...]tuis, c. 14., in the Book and Chapter before-quoted by himself, argues quite otherwise: that it doth not follow, because the rich man told Abraham how many Brethren he had, therefore he knew what his Brethren did, and what they suffered at that time. In like manner, he would have argued, no doubt, in any other case, if there had been occasion; that because the Saints, for in­stance, know some things which they are told by others from this World, we must not infer that they know other things be­sides them.

That which follows is like this, but much worse. For because Elisha, 2 Kings V. 26.2 Kings V. 26. being afar off, as he says, saw all that passed between Naaman and Gehasi, there­fore the Saints, he concludes, see what pas­ses in this World. What mad stuff is this? Elisha was not afar off, for the Text saith expresly, v. 19. Naaman was departed from him a little way, when Gehasi ran after him. And in the very same Book we find, that though Elisha knew this thing, at some di­stance from him, yet he did not know ano­ther, which was as easie to know, viz. [Page 171] That the Shunamite's Son was dead, 2 King. IV. 27.

And how doth St. Paul's being wrapt into the Third Heaven (which is his next proof) give us any reason to believe that they who are there, know what is done upon Earth? These things hang together, like Harp and Harrow.

Nor doth it appear that St. Stephen saw from Earth, as far as Heaven. Our Savi­our indeed presented himself unto him, standing (not sitting, VII. Acts 55. as this man quotes it) at the right hand of the Divine Glory; which then also appeared. But so it had done, in ancient times, in the very door of the Tabernacle; where the Congregation of Israel saw it without looking as far as Hea­ven. But if we take it otherwise; it doth not follow, that because God can make his Divine Glory shine from Heaven to Earth, therefore any one can see from Earth to Heaven, or from Heaven to Earth. Much less, that the Saints can always see what is done here on Earth: For St. Stephen could not alway behold the glory of God, and our Lord standing at his right hand; but only at that time, upon an extraordinary occasion, when God in an extraordinary manner shone upon him.

[Page 172]All his own Divines will tell him, that Arguments are not to be drawn from Parables: such as that of the Rich man and Lazarus, (to which he makes his next resort). For if we allow that way of reasoning, then he may prove from hence, that we and the Saints may talk together, though at this distance one from another; as the Rich man did with Abraham, and Abraham with him. Of all the ways that have been in­vented, to shew how the Saints may know what we do; there was never any so ex­travagant as this, of their seeing from Heaven what is done here.

I believe the Reader is weary of such Discourse as this; especially if he lookt for express Scripture; which this man bad him expect. Therefore I shall not exercise his patience, with any further notice of what he saith, about the Communion of Saints, which may be without the least knowledge they have of us, or we of them: as ap­pears by the Communion of all the Mem­bers of Christ's Body here on Earth; some of which never heard of, or have ever seen the other.

Look never so long in the other Scrip­tures he quotes, you will find nothing in them to the purpose. And the first of his [Page 173] Fathers is a Counterfeit; the two next we shall meet withal presently, to prove we may pray to the Saints; which is the drift also of this Discourse.

Answer.

THere is no such assertion as this among us; but he again calumniates us. For though the Saints cannot know our parti­cular wants, and therefore cannot make particular Prayers for us; yet that in general they pray for that part of God's Church, which is here on Earth, and perhaps (for this we cannot affirm certainly) for some particular persons, who were well known, and dear to them, when on Earth, we do not deny: But if we did, he is so ill pro­vided of Proofs, and of Scripture for it, that those which he alledges will work no belief in us.

For in V. Rev. 8.V. Rev. 8. there is a plain repre­sentation of the Church here on Earth, not in Heaven. So the latter end of their Song, [Page 174] v. 10. might have informed him, where they say, Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, and we shall reign on the Earth. And thus many of the Fathers un­derstood it; as he might have learnt from Viega, one of their own Doctors. So th [...]t he might have sp red his lo, how, &c. and we may rather say, in imitation of it, Lo, how silly an Interpreter this is of such Divine Mysteries!

What is recorded in a Book of no au­thority,2 Macc. XV. 14. 2 Maccab XV. 14. concerning Ju­das his Dreams, is not worth considering: and it proves no more if we should allow it, but only a general recommendation of that Nation to God.

XV. Jer. 1.The next place out of XV. Jer. 1. doth not imply that Moses and Samuel then pray­ed for them in Heaven, but that if they did, or rather if two such powerful persons were then alive to intercede for that People, they should not prevail. And so St. Hierom (whom this man belies, as he doth us) plainly enough expounds it. Nay, his own Sixtus Senensis saith, upon the like place (though Noah, Daniel and Job stood before me) that the Prophet speaks upon a suppo­sition, that if such men as they were in this sinful World, they should deliver none, &c. [Page 175] God would not hear them, for such a wicked People.

It is of no consequence, what Baruch saith, being never reputed a Canonical Book, and, according to his own Rule in his Preface, ought to pass for nothing; unless he had prov'd the same that Baruch saith, by places of Canonical Writ. Besides,III. Baruc 4. dead Israelites may mean no more but those now dead, who when they were alive, prayed as their Posterity now did. And so Nich. Lyra understands by dead Israelies, the holy Patriarchs and Prophets, who when they were alive, prayed for the good Estate of their Poste­rity. Or dead, may signify those, whose condition was so low, that they could do no­thing for themselves, as he describes all Israel, v. 10. that they were accounted with them that go down into the grave, that is, dead men. This, I will stand to it, is an Interpreta­tion they cannot confute. Theodoret doth say, that these words clearly prove the immor­tality of the Soul: and that's all.

I see no reason why II. Rev. 26, 27. may not be interpreted of the preferment Christ promised, in this world, to those who should keep his words, i. e. fulfil his Commands, to the end of that present persecution. But, if it relate to the other World, Menochius [Page 176] (a better Interpreter than he) expresly saith, that Christ speaks of the power which the Saints shall exercise in the day of judgment over all Nations, which did not obey Christ: judg­ing them with Christ, and delivering them to the punishment of eternal death. Agreeable to what we read III. Wisd. 8. They shall judge the Nations, and have dominion over the people. St. Austin hath not a word of this matter upon the second Psalm, but only says, these words, ruling with a Rod of iron, is as much, as with inflexible Justice. We see what th [...]se men would bring things to, it they be let alone. The Saints may be looked upon now as Rulers of this World, by a power imparted unto them from Christ, who hath thus established them, this man saith, over the Nations. He should have shewn us where he reads this, for we cannot find it here.

But this leads him into reasoning again (finding so little help in his express Scri­ptures) and that is as weak as all the rest. For it is out of a Parabolical Scripture be­fore-named; from which all acknowledge Arguments ought not to be drawn. And besides, it is not a Prayer to Abraham, but such a request as we make one to another here, when we want relief.

[Page 177]What St. Austin saith on this place, is not worth the searching after; for it will prove no more than what he quotes out of his XVth. Sermon (de verb. Apostol.) he should have said the XVIIth. where he di­stinguisheth between the Commemoration that was made of the Martyrs at the Altar, and of other Faithful persons. For the l [...]t­ter they prayed; but this would have been an injury, he thinks, to the Martyrs, by whose Prayers we rather should be recom­mended to God. But this signifies no more than a general recommendation of the Church to God's Mercy. His next Fa­ther, St. H [...]lary, speaks only of what An­gels do, not of Saints: And I gave an ac­count of that before, but for want of com­pany he brings him in again. He concludes with Damascen, a Father that lived almost Eight hundred years after Christ; and was so credulous as to vouch it for a Truth, That Trajan's Soul was delivered out of H ll by Gregory's Prayers; and saith, The whole world witnesseth it. Which all the world now, even their own Church, believes to be a fable. And yet this Damascen s [...]ith no more, but that they are to be honoured as those that make Intercession to God for us; that is, for the Church.

Answer.

IT is no small favour, that we can get so much truth out of him, as to confess, That this is one way of their Praying by the Mediation of Saints, to beseech God to grant their desires in favour of them and their merits. For some of his brethren mince the mat­ter, and say, they only desire the Saints to pray for them. But their Missals and Bre­viaries confute such men, as notorious dis­semblers; for there are abundance of Pray­ers like this, ThatDecemb. VI. by the Merits and Pray­ers of St. Nicholas, God would deliver them from the fire of Hell. Which if it be an allowable way of Praying, I do not see but the Saints are Mediators of Redemption, as well as of Intercession, (as they are wont to distinguish) for by their merits is a great deal more, than by their Intercession. And if they intercede by their merits, wherein [Page 179] do they fall short of Christ? who by his Merits redeemed us, and in virture of the same Merits intercedes for us.

But let us hear his Scriptures; which the Reader may take notice are every one of them out of the Old Testament, during which (according to the common Doctrine of their Church) the Souls of pious men were held in a Limbus, remote from God, in the borders of Hell; and therefore could not be Intercessors with God; much less plead their merits. This is enough to overthrow his whole Discourse in this Chapter: yet to shew his folly a little more fully, I am content to consider them par­ticularly.

The first is XXXII. Exod. 13. which he hath the confidence to say,XXXII. Exod. 13. is against us in express words; when there is no mention of merit, and the sense is evidently declared in the Text it self; which speaks of the Oath of God to those great men, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: shewing that Moses his Prayer was grounded not upon their me­rit, but upon God's gracious Covenant with them, confirmed by his Oath, XXVI. Gen. 3. Which is the sense of Theo­doret also (whom this man most shamefully belies) in the place by him quoted: Moses [Page 180] mentions the name of the Patriarchs, instead of supplication: and remembers the Oaths made to them, and begs that the Covenants wherein he was engaged to them, might stand firm. Who would trust such a man as this, who makes Theodoret say that Moses added the intercession of the holy Patriarchs, thinking himself insuffi­cient? when he only saith, he mentioned their name (as men i. e. in covenant with God) instead of supplication. And thus he deals with St. Austin, or rather worse; who, in the place he mentions, saith not a word of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but only of Moses, whose merits were so great with God, as his most faithful Servant, that God saith, Let me alone, &c. upon which Passage he makes this reflection, We are ad­monished hereby, that when our merits have so loaded us, as to make us not beloved of God, we may be relieved by the merits of those whom God doth love. For when he saith, Let me alone that I may destroy them; what is it but to say, I would have destroyed them, had they not been beloved of thee? Now what is this to the meritorious intercession of the Saints in the other World, when he speaks of the merits (as his phrase is) of Moses here on Earth?

[Page 181]I have been the longer in this,2 Chron. VI. 16. because it will serve to answer all the rest. For in 2 Chron. VI. 16. the Prayer expresly relies upon the promise God had made to his Ser­vant David, not upon David's merits.

In the next place, CXXXII. Psal. 1.CXXXII. Psal. 1. God is desired to remember David's afflictions; but how doth it appear that they merited? If this Psalm was made by David, (as many think from the first 8 Verses of it) sure he was not so immodest as to plead his own merits with God. The truth is, the Pen­ner of this Psalm, whoever he was, most likely Solomon, puts God in mind of David, and his fidelity to him under all his suffe­rings; because of the Covenant God had made, and confirmed by an Oath, with that pious man, v. 10, 11, 12.

He doth wisely only to name the next place, 2 Chron. I. 9. for the words are ex­presly against him, which are these, Now, O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my Father be established. But the alledging LXIII. Isa. 17. argues gross Ignorance, for it's a plain desire God would return to them, for the sake of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which contain'd his people, who were his inheri­tance, as Menochius, and indeed the Text it self, expounds it. And this desire is found­ed [Page 182] upon the above-named Covenant, Promise, or Oath, made to their Fathers: which he may find in a number of Places, 1 King. VIII. 25, 26. 2 Chron. XXI. 7. LXXXIX. Psal. 3, 4.

Why he adds the two next places, unless to make a show, I cannot imagine. For H ster's Apocryphal Prayer hath nothing in it sounding this way, but only those words, O God of Abraham. And David only says, 1 Chron. XXIX. 8. O God of Abraham Isaac, and Israel, our Fathers. Which no Man in the World but himself, I believe, will take to be naming them for his Intercessors, (as he speaks) when they evidently signify the fa­vour and kindness God had to them, which he hoped he would graciously continue, according to his Promise, unto his People Israel.

The last place, XX. Exod. 5. is a direct Confutation of all that he saith; for it mentions not the Merits of good Men, but the Mercy which God will show unto thou­sands of them that love him, and keep his Commandments.

God of his infinite Mercy, put an end to the reign of these Men, who thus fouly a­buse his holy word; that they may no lon­ger pervert the right way of the Lord, [Page 183] and mislead his People into pernicious Er­rors.

Answer.

HEretofore the words were these, That we may not pray to them; which is the true point. But now they are changed into, We may not pray them to pray for us. As if the Church of Rome did no more than this; when it is manifest they pray direct­ly to them; and Invocation, according to their Doctrine, is a part of that Worship which is due to them; whereas praying them to pray for us (as one man desires another to do) hath nothing of worship in it. He could not go on to deal sincere­ly, as he had begun in the former Section. Truth is a very great stranger to them; and their great business is to misrepresent both our Opinion and their own.

[Page 184] Luk. XVI. 24.The very first Scripture also, which he quotes over again, if it prove any thing, proves more than he would have us think is their Opinion. For the Man doth not say, I pray Father Abraham pray for me▪ but have mercy on me. But I have told him be­fore, this is a Parable, which he will by no means allow, and thinks to choke us with the Voice of ten Renowned and Ancient Fathers, who all affirm this to be a true Hi­story, and not a Parable. But this Man hath very ill luck with his Fathers; for the ve­ry first he mentions (who should have been one of the last) Theophylact, not only calls it a Parable, but is so confident of it, that he says they think foolishly (so it is in the Greek, tho in the Latin they leave out that word, [...], foolishly) who take it for an History. The Reader, I believe, blushes for this Man, who if he could or would have look'd into Maldonate, (a Jesuit of no mean note) he might have found several other Fathers, whom Theophylact follows in this opinion. And St. Chrysostome among the rest, who indeed sometimes says it is a History; but doth not say, as this Man makes him, that it is not a Parable. And if the Cause must be carried by the Voices of Fathers, I can name him more than Ten, [Page 185] or a Dozen, who say the Souls of the Faith­ful do not enjoy the Glorious Vision of God till the Resurrection. And therefore Saints can neither know our Prayers, nor are to be invoked, as he concludes merely from this Parable. Concerning which, I think both Maldonate and Menochius (two considerable Jesuits) have very judiciously resolved, for the quieting of this doubt, whether it be History or Parable; that it is both. For that there was a rich man, and a poor, called Lazarus; that the one when he died went to Hell, and the other was carried to Abraham's Bosome, is a History. But that the rich man talk'd with Abraham, and desired him to send Laza­rus to cool his Tongue with a drop of Water, is a Parable adjoyned to the Histo­ry; for they that are in Hell, do not ask Courtesies of the Saints. Now it happens unfortunately for this man, that what he grounds his Argument upon, falls within that part which is Parable, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. Which Maldonate judici­ously observes, is a form of Speech, which Beggers use; as they lye in the High-way, showing their sores; and well represents how Lazarus and he had changed Conditi­ons. Lazarus was poor here, and the rich [Page 186] man stript of all there. Here the rich man enjoyed his pleasure, and there Lazarus re­joyced. No man of sense can reject this Interpretation. And yet this Writer cries out, Lo, two Saints are here prayed to, and besought in one verse. Nay, he hath the Con­fidence to ask us, For God-sake, where are your Eyes? Truly, mine are newly open this morning, when men are wont to be most sober; and I can see none to whom the rich man addresses his Request, but Abraham, alone. How this man came to see double, I leave it to himself to consider. Here is not a word said to Lazarus in this Parable, 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.

[Page 187]It is to no end to look what St. Austin saith I know not where, when he declares himself so positivelyL. 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 [Page 188] 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.

Answer.

HEre he saith some truth. We do be­li [...]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.

[Page 190] 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] 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 [Page 193] 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 [Page 194] 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.

Answer.

NO; not so much as to make them be­come Sacramental things, which have a power in them to purge away venial sins, [Page 195] 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 [Page 196] 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 fi [...]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 [Page 197] (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 [Page 198] 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 of the Fish to drive away the Devil, and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul, I cannot devise; for I never read, nor he neither, that they were sanctified any way.

None of his Fathers, tho half of them are young ones, in comparison, ascribe any su­pernatural vertue to such things; and there­fore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness.

Answer.

NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Do­ctrine. For we teach, That there is no Salvation for Infants, in the ordinary way of the Church, without Baptism. Inso­much, that by an express Canon (LXIX.) every Minister is to be suspended for three months, who suffers any Infant in his Parish to dye without Baptism, being informed of its weakness, and danger of death, and desired to come and baptize the same: And is not to be restored, till he acknowledg his fault, and promise before his Ordinary, that he will not wittingly incur the like again. But we do not tye God to those means, to the use of which he hath tyed us; and therefore do believe, that by his infi­nite Grace and Mercy, those Infants may be saved, who, without their own fault, dye unbaptized. And this was the Faith of the [Page 200] Ancient Church, as appears from Socrates L. V. Hist. c. 22., who says, In Thessaly they baptized only at Easter, by which means many dyed unbaptized; and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places, to baptize only twice a year; which custom, he saith, hath been changed, be­cause a great many departed without Bap­tism. But still this is an evidence, they did not think it absolutely necessary; nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church, such as Gabriel Biel, Card. Cajetan, and many others I could name, condemn children to Hell, who dye unbaptized; but being the children of Faithful Parents, look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace, and capable of eternal life: For which they give these reasons: Frst, The infinite Mercy of God, who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained: And secondly, The like case under the Old Testament, when Circumcision answered to our Baptism (as this man acknowledges) and the children dying unbaptized, were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents. So S. Bernard, Epist. 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part. Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather, That even this notion of childrens being sa­ved [Page 201] by their parents Faith, without Baptism, is no more our opinion, than it is theirs. Some say so among us; and so do some among them.

Matters therefore being thus stated, all his Texts are already answered. We say the very same our Saviour doth, III. Joh. 5.III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism. Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray, That God will grant to the child, that thing which by nature he cannot have, &c. But tho this be the ordinary way, we dare not say it is the only. God's Grace, many of themselves acknowledge, supplies the want of Baptism, in extraor­dinary cases. Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit, in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Austin for it (who was very rigid in this point) that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is suffi­cient, without the visible Sacrament; when not by contempt of Religion, but by mere necessity, they are deprived of Baptism. And thus Peter Lombard L. IV. Distin. 4. c. 2. understands this Text, it is to be understood of those who can be baptized, and contemn it.

III. Tit. 5. proves no more, but that Baptism is the ordinary way, and ought not to be neglected, where it can be had.

From XVI. Mark 16. he concludes pe­remptorily, [Page 202] That children must be Bapti­zed or not Saved,XVI. Mark 16. because they cannot be­lieve; which is to make Baptism more ne­cessary than Belief: Whereas they cannot be baptized, but upon a supposition of be­lief, as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent Sess. VII. Can. 14.: Children wanting Faith in the first act, are baptized in the Faith of the Church. And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is, that as our Lord saith, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; so he would have said (had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary) he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned. But he only saith, He that believeth not, shall be damned; which makes Faith only, ab­solutely necessary. And I showed before, there are those in his own Church, who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose.

And thus the most learned of the Fa­thers expound those words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. VII. 14. 1 Cor. VII. 14. particularly Theodoret: The unbe­lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; that is, saith he, hath hope of Salvation; but if either he or she continue in this disease, their seed shall partake of Salvation: Which is but reason; for if the unbelieving husband, suppose, [Page 203] should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized; who can think this child, so dying, perished?

His last Text, XVII. Gen. 14.XVII. Gen. 14. proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism, where they could be had; as was shewn before. For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness, V. Josh. 5. But who will say, that all they who were born, and died within that time, which was forty years, went without remedy to Hell?

His Fathers, which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine, are not worth examining; because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism, as St. Austin, Epist. 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easie to be understood; for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes, That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption, and our souls by the spirit: And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism, as the Papists themselves will not abide by; but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion, which must admit of some exception: And his opinion is con­demned by later Fathers, as they call them; particularly St. Bernard, who disputes a­gainst [Page 204] it at large in the Epistle before-men­tioned. As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fi­dus, it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received, That children of two or three days old were not to be bapti­zed; but they were to stay till the eighth day, as in Circumcision. But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism; but that none should be denied it, tho new­ly born; who the rather should be received, because, not their own sins but anothers was there remitted to them.

Answer.

HE knew very well, that tho we deny Confirmation to be a Sacrament, yet we use it; not as a Sacrament, nor as absolutely necessary to Salvation (for we have declared that children baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved), but so ne­cessary unto compleat Communion, that we require the Godfathers and Godmothers [Page 205] to bring children baptized, to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, when they come to years of discretion; and we admit none to the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood, till they be confirmed, or be ready and desirous so to be.

Now where doth the Scripture say it is a Sacrament? There is not a word of it in VIII. Acts 14.VIII. Acts 14. much less is it there expressly declared, and declared to be necessary, or so much as to be used by others; but only that the Apostles laid their hands on those who were baptized, and they received the Holy Ghost; which I am sure no body can now communicate in such Gifts as were then bestowed. But above all, it is to be noted, that there is nothing said here of the Chrysm, or anointing with holy Oyl; in which they make this Sacrament consist; but only of laying on of hands, unto which they have no regard. For thus Confirmation is perform­ed in the Roman Church; the Bishop takes sanctified Chrysm, as they call it, made of Oyl and Balsom, and therewith anoints a person baptized, with the thumb of his right hand, in the form of a Cross, upon the forehead, which is bound with a fillet on the anointing, till it be dry; and it is also accompanied with a box on the ear; all [Page 206] which is plainly ordered to be done in their publick Office of Confirmation. But nothing of laying on of Hands is there mentioned, which they deny to be either the matter, or the form of this Sacrament; tho we read of nothing else but this laying on of hands, either here, or in what follows. A clear Demonstration, that this place is ex­presly against their pretended Sacrament of Confirmation.

VI. Hebrew 1. is so far from being con­trary to our Doctrine, that some of their own AuthorsSalmero & Justini­anus. think it doth not speak of Confirmation at all, but of the Benediction of Catechumens, and others; and some of our Authors think it doth, even Mr. Calvin himself. But then, it is expresly said to con­sist in laying on of hands; and ought not to be turned into a Sacrament; but look'd upon as a solemn Form of Prayer (as St. Au­stin calls it) for Youth, who being grown beyond Childhood, made a Profession of their Faith, and thereupon were thus bles­sed. Which pure Institution (as Mr. Calvin's words are) is to be retained at this day, and the Superstition corrected. Behold, how vile­ly the Protestant Doctrine is calumniated by such wretched Writers as this, who seem not to understand Common Sense. [Page 207] For he saith, Confirmation is here called, not only one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, but a Foundation of Repentance; when all, but such as himself, clearly see, that the Apostle here makes the Foundation of Re­pentance from dead Works, to be one of the Principles of Christ's Doctrine, as laying on of hands, is another.

He betrays also notorious ignorance, or falshood, in the Citations of his Fathers, to which he sends us. For Tertullian plainly speaks of the Ʋnction which accompanied Bap­tism in his Country; not of a distinct Sacra­ment from Baptism. And Pacianus also men­tions it, as a solemn Right in the Sacrament of Baptism, wherein Children are regene­rated. So doth St. Cyprian likewise, even in that place which he mentions; where is no such sense as he dreams. For he di­sputes for the Re-baptizing of Hereticks, because it is not enough if hands be laid upon them, unless they receive the Baptism of the Church; for then they are fully sanctified, and made the Children of God, if they be born by both Sacraments; for it is written, Ʋnless a Man be born again of Water, and of the Spi­rit, &c. This latter part this Man conceals, which shows St. Cyprian speaks altogether of Baptism, in which there were then Two Rites, [Page 208] Washing with Water, and Laying on of Hands. Which were not Two Sacraments properly, but Two parts of the same Sacrament; which he calls both the Sacraments of Baptism. Just as Hulbertus Carnotensis, calls the Body and Blood of Christ in the Communion, Two Sacraments, which in truth are but one. For speaking of three things neces­sary to Salvation, he saith of the Third, that in it Two Sacraments of Life, that is, the Lords Body, and his Blood, are contained. St. Hierom likewise speaks of Laying on of Hands, but not as a distinct Sacrament: For he earn­estly contends (in that Book) that the Spi­rit is conferred in Baptism, and that there can be no Baptism of the Church, without the Spirit. I have not taken any notice of St. Ambrose, for those Books of the Sa­crament, which gounder his Name, are none of his.

Answer.

THIS is Fiction, and false Represen­tation. For we expresly declare in the XXVIII. Article of our Religion, That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death, in so much that to such as rightly, wor­thily, and with Faith receive the same, the Bread which we break, is a partaking of the Body of Christ, &c. And in our Catechism we also declare, That the inward and spiri­tual Grace in this Sacrament, is the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. And Mr. Calvin himself saith as much.

But if we had not been of this mind, his first place of Scripture, XXII. Luke 15.XXII. Luk. 15. would have proved nothing against us; for it speaks only of eating the Passeover; in [Page 208] [...] [Page 209] [...] [Page 210] which he instituted this Sacrament; but that followed after: Here he speaks only of the Paschal Feast. Insomuch, that Menochi­us thus interprets it, He most earnestly desired to eat the Paschal Lamb of this year, and this day, in which the Eucharist was to be institu­ted; and shortly after it was to be shown by his Death, how much he loved Mankind, whom he so redeemed. It was not therefore the Pasche (as this Man speaks) of his true Body and Blood, which our Saviour thus desired to eat. This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine, who hath a Divinity by himself; which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God. But St. Peter was a bet­ter Divine than he, who applies those words of David to our Blessed Saviour, My flesh shall rest in hope, because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, &c. II. Acts 26, 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine, whether there can be any Hope without Faith, which made him confidently expect 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 [Page 211] 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 [Page 212] 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. [Page 213] 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, [Page 214] 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.

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 [Page 216] 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 [Page 217] 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 [Page 218] 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.

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 [Page 219] 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 [Page 220] 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 [Page 221] 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.

Answer.

THERE are many things Sacramental, which are not Sacraments: and others called Sacraments by the Ancients, which [Page 222] 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 Ʋnction; 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 Ʋnction: 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 Ʋn­ction, 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.

[Page 223]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 Ʋn­ction. 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 [Page 224] Sacramental Ʋnction of Extream Ʋnction, 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 Ʋnction 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 Ʋnction. 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 Ʋnction 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 [Page 225] 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,

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 [Page 226] 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. [Page 227] 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, [Page 228] &c. And he hath answer'd, I trust so; then the Bishop (after other Questions and Answers) layeth hands on him. Which is not to sanctify him, for that is sup­posed; but to impower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God.

The Apostles words, V. Hebr. 4. are al­ledged after his manner, to prove what none of us deny, That no man may take this Office upon him, unless he be called to it.

They who have a mind to see more, may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures (some of which are the same again) prove nothing but a Mission, by laying on of Hands, which we practice. And one of them, 1 Tim. V. 22. can never be proved to be­long to Ordination; being referred by ma­ny, of no small Name, to Absolution. For Imposition of Hands was used in giving that, as well as in giving Orders; which is an unanswerable Argument, that this is not a Sacrament; because the only sign that can be pretended out of Scripture, to belong un­to it (viz. Imposition of Hands) is not pro­per to giving Orders, but common to other things.

[Page 229]None of his Fathers, nor any others, for many Ages, knew of more proper Sacra­ments, than two only. And therefore it is but to waste Paper, and abuse the Readers patience, to show how impertinently those, whom he mentions, are alledged.

Answer.

THERE is no such loose Doctrine a­mong us: But we say, That it is free for Priests to Marry, as well as other Per­sons; for Marriage is honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled. Which signifies, we think, that Chastity may be preserved in Marriage, as well as in Virginity. Therefore, we fur­ther say, no man ought rashly to Vow he will never marry, when he is not sure of his power to contain For this is not given to all, as Christ himself saith, XIX. Mat. 11. but every one hath his proper gifts from God; [Page 228] [...] [Page 229] [...] [Page 230] one after this manner, another after that, 1 Cor. VII. 7. If any one hath made such a Vow, we say, he ought to use his endeavours to keep it; but if he cannot without Sin, he ought to Marry; for in this case, the matter of his Vow ceases. This is our Do­ctrine, which is not contrary to the Scrip­ture.

XXIII. Deut. 22.There is mention of a Vow, in XXIII. Deut. 22. but not of Chastity, which he un­dertook to show us expresly in our Bible. Alas! that was impossible; and so he falls a talking of Vows about other matters. And yet, even in such Vows as this, whereof Moses speaks, if a Person was not in his own power, or vowed a thing impossible for him to give, or a thing not acceptable to God, he was not bound by his Vow.

1 Tim V. [...] 12.The next place, 1 Tim. V. 11, 12. is against him. For the Apostle would not have Widows taken into the Office of Deaconesses, when they were young (as the Church of Rome lets Boys and Girls of Six­teen years old, vow Virginity) but re­quires Timothy to refuse such, if they offer­ed themselves to that Service, and take in none under the Age of Sixty; when it was likely they would have no mind to change [Page 231] their Condition, as the younger would be apt to do. Who thereby; became guilty of a great fault (as Menochius expounds, having Damnation) in departing from the Covenant they had made, to devote them­selves to the Service of the Church. For they had not chosen Widowhood with the Judg­ment of Reason, or just Consideration, (as Theo­phylact glosses) in which case the Apostle allows them to Marry, v. 14. Upon which the same Theophylact thus again Para­phrases; In the first place, I wish they would not make void their Contracts (or Covenants) but because they desire Marriage, I desire it also, condescending to them. For it is better they should be Mistresses of Families, that is, look after their own House, and Labour, than running about to other Folks Houses, be trifling and idle. Which is the sense of more An­cient Fathers than he; particularly of St. Cyprian, who speaks of Virgins, that after they had dedicated themselves to God, were found in bed with men, saith, It was better for them to Marry, than to fall into the Fire by their Offences Epist. ad Pompon.. His Master, Tertulli­an, saith the same, speaking of this very Text. Nay, St. Austin, tho he do not ap­prove of Marriage after a Vow, yet resolves that such a Marriage is not to be dissolved. [Page 230] [...] [Page 231] [...] [Page 232] And their own Doctors determine, That when a thing is unprofitable, and hinders a grea­ter good, what is promised by a Vow, ought not to be kept. Upon which their Dispensations are founded, even in this solemn Vow of Chastity.

1 Tim. V. 15.I have said the more of this, because it answers what he pretends out of the 15th verse of the same Chapter; where the Apostle doth not call their Marrying, turning aside after Satan. For he had just before gi­ven them leave, or rather advised them to Marry, lest they should give occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully, &c. that is, as Theophylact explains it, Give the Devil occasion to make a mock of them, by drawing them into Adultery, through the unstedfastness of Youth. And for this very reason, he thinks the Apostle endeavoured to bring them un­der the yoke of Marriage (as his Phrase is) lest being left loose, they should run into the aforesaid mischiefs.

By this the Reader may be convinced, with what Honesty this man quotes the Fathers, and reproaches those that Marry, (after they have unadvisedly devoted them­selves to single life) as God's Adulterers; when they say the Apostle directs them to Marry, that they may not be such Adulterers.

[Page 233]In all the other Scriptures which he would have us see, there is not one that speaks of the Vow of Chastity: But of Vow of Offering Sacrifice, or of being Naza­rites (which was in some cases but for a time) or such like things, as any one may satisfy himself that will read the pla­ces.

We and the Fathers do not differ in this point, as I have already said; and there­fore I will not swell this Book by an unne­cessary account of what they say, in the places he mentions.

Answer.

FAsting, that is, Abstinence from all Meat and Drink, is grounded on Scrip­ture, and doth much good: But Fasting, or Abstinence from certain Meats only, is [Page 234] not Fasting, and hath no ground in Scrip­ture, nor do we see any Spiritual Good in it; but, rather much hurt, because it cheats men into a belief that they Fast, when they Feast.

XXXV. Jer. 5.The Prophet, XXXV. Jer. 5. doth not speak of fasting from any Meat whatsoever, but of a total forbearance of all Wine, and from dwelling in Houses, or having any Land, &c. And all this, not out of Religi­on, but for a Civil Reason, as the very Text tells us, v. 7. Which laid no Obliga­tion upon other People so to do, no not upon the Israelites, much less upon us Chri­stians; being an Injunction to one Family only, by the Father of it. Are not these men rare Interpreters of Scripture, who expound it at this rate, and apply it to a­ny purpose; for this very case, just be­fore, was brought to prove the Obligation of Vows.

The next place, I. Luke 15. is alledged as sillily. For it proves too much; an Absti­nence, which no man thinks himself bound unto, from all Wine and Strong Drink, as long as he lives. Which John Baptist himself would not have practised, had he not been disigned to an austere sort of Life, after the manner of the Ancient Nazarites, as Meno­chius [Page 235] expounds this place. It is a wonder, when there are so many Texts that speak of Fasting, this man should pick out such as these, which have no respect unto it.

The next indeed hath, XIII Acts 3. and accordingly we have our Fasts before every Ordination, in the Ember weeks.

XVII. Matth. 27. proves nothing, but that upon extraordinary occasions, there must be extraordinary Prayer and Fasting; which we also both affirm and practice.

The rest of his Scriptures, and his Fathers, I assure the Reader, say nothing that we deny; but he had a mind to slander us, as if we were Enemies to Fasting; when we Fast truly, by total Abstinence from Meat and Drink on our Fasting-days, they Fast only nominally, eating all sorts of Fish, and drinking Wine on their Fasting-days. Whereby they hope also, to satisfy for their Sins, and to merit a Coelestial Reward; as Bellarmine speaks in his Second Book of Good Works. Why did he not prove this end of Fasting, and not spend his time about that which is not questioned; for we ac­knowledg that Fasting is good, if rightly de­signed.

Answer.

WHat an impudent Lyar is this, to say we deny that which is an Ar­ticle of our Creed, professed by us every day, That Christ did descend into Hell? Not indeed, to deliver the Souls of the Fathers in Limbo; because we read of no such thing in any of the Scriptures which he mentions.

Ephes. IV. 8.The Apostle in IV. Ephes. 8. says nothing either of their Limbus, or of the Souls of the Fathers; but of leading captivity captive. Which hath no relation to the Souls either of the glorified, or of the damned, but of such men and women as we are: Whom Christ did not captivate, when we were free (saith Theodoret upon the place) but being under the power of the Devil, he rescued us; and making us his captives, bestowed liberty upon us. To the same purpose Theophylact, but a lit­tle larger, (comprehending all our ene­mies) [Page 237] What captivity doth the Apostle mean? That of the Devil: For he took the Devil cap­tive, and Death, and the Curse, and Sin, and us, who were under the Devils Power, and ob­noxious to the forenamed enemies.

The next place, II. Acts 27.II. Acts 27. only proves our Saviour descended into Hell, but saith nothing of the Fathers being there. What St. Austin saith, is not the business, but what the Scripture saith expressly. Yet the words which he quotes out of him, touch not us. who believe Christ's Descent into Hell, as much or more than himself. And it is worth the noting, how in this very place where he calls it Infidelity to deny Christ's going into Hell, he overthrows this end of it, (to fetch the Fathers from then [...]e); for he professes he could find the name of H [...]ll no where given unto that place where the souls of righteous men did rest.

There is no mention in 1 Pet. 3.18, 19.1 Pet. III. 18, 19. of so much as Christ's descending into Hell, but only of his Preaching to the spirits in pri­son; and that not in person, but by that Spi­rit which raised him from the dead. St. Au­stin wishes us to consider (in that very Epi­stle which he just now named, XCIX. ad Euod.) lest perhaps all that which the Apostle speaks of the spirits shut up in prison, who did [Page 238] not believe in the days of Noah, do not at all belong to hell, but rather unto those times (of Noah) whose pattern be applies to our times. And this St. Hierom relates as the opinion of a most prudent man; and is followed by Bede, Walfridus, Strabo, and others. And if this place should not be thus interpreted of his Preaching by his Spirit in the Ministry of Noah unto the old world, but of his own Preaching unto the spirits in hell, it must be to the damned spirits (for we read of no others there) as a great many Ancient Writers, through mistake of this place, conceived: And this is as much against his opinion, as against ours.

The XI. Heb. 39, 40. proves no more, but that they had not their compleat hap­piness; yet were not in Hell, as that signi­fies any thing of torment; but in Heaven, tho not in the highest felicity of it. Thus Theodoret, and others of the Ancients un­derstand it: Tho the combats of these men were so many and so great, yet they received not their Crowns: For the God of the Ʋniverse, saith he, expects till others have finished their race, that then he may solemnly declare them all together to be Conquerors. Which Theophylact thus farther enlargeth, Is not God unjust then unto them, if they who have got the start in la­bours, [Page 239] must expect us in Crowns? No such mat­ter, for this is very acceptable unto them, to be perfected with their brethren; we are one body, and the pleasure is greater to the body, if all its members be crowned together, &c. but God gave to those who preceded us in labours, a certain foretaste, bidding them wait for the compleat banquet till their brethren come to them. And they being lovers of mankind, joyfully expect (note that) that they may be all merry toge­ther. This plainly shows such men as these did not look upon the Fathers as in Hell, but in Heaven, in a state of joy; tho not consummate, but in expectation of its completion. I could show this to be the sense which men in his own Church put upon this place; but I am afraid of being tedious, and therefore shall make shorter work of the rest.

Jonas, mentioned XII. Matth. 40.XII. Mat. 40. was a Type of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resur­rection; and the Whale's belly represented his Grave, and nothing else. So Menochius acknowledges, That tho many by the heart of the earth, understand the Limbus of the Fathers, yet others take it for the Grave. As Ignatius doth, in that very Epi­stle which he quotes presently, and St. Chry­sostome, to name no more.

[Page 240]St. Matthew, XXVII. 52. speaks of the Resurrection of many out of their Graves; but whence their Souls came, neither he nor Ignatius say a word.

IX. Zach. 11.There is no reason to think that IX. Zach. 11. speaks of fetching souls out of the infernal prison; but Theodoret saith expressly, That if by the Pit or Lake, we shall under­stand either Eternal Death, or Idolatry, we shall not miss the mark. For when men were bound in this lake, our Lord Christ loosed them and brought them out; and bestowed liberty upon them by his Precious Blood, and sent them forth into the way of life, when he gave them the New Testament. And so St. Austin LXVIII. de Civit. Dei, c. 25. thinks it is best understood, of the profundity of human misery. And I assure the Reader, that both St. Hierom, and St. Cyril, (to the great shame of this false Writer) un­derstand this place, as Theodoret doth.

1 Sam. II. 6.1 Sam. II. 6. is very foolishly applied to this matter; for the plain meaning is, as Menochius acknowledgeth, That God, if he pleaseth, raises dead men to life again; or by way of Allegory, he restoreth unhappy and miserable men to a hapyy and flourishing condi­tion, according to his will: As in the next verse (saith he) is more clearly repeated, he raiseth up the poor out of the dust, &c. that [Page 241] is, from a low condition. He did not think it absurd to understand the Grave, by that word which they translate Hell; concern­ing which it is not proper now to dispute, because he promised to confute us out of our own Bible, not out of theirs. Nor is it fit to trouble our selves about the rest of his Scriptures (which he barely names, and some of the very same over again) or his Fathers, which we have seen he alledges withour Judgment or Fidelity.

Answer.

VEry right; and there is nothing either in Scripture or Antiquity to prove it.

The fire spoke of, 1 Cor. III. 13.1 Cor. III. 13. is by their own Authors interpreted, to signify the fire at the day of Judgment, in the Confla­gration of the World. So Menochius and Estius expressly disputes against the applica­tion of this to Purgatory. Nor doth one of the [Page 242] Ancient Fathers, in the Six first Centuries so understand it; but all apply the words to other purposes. St. Austin in a great many places, particularly in his Enchiridi­on Cap. 67, 68. &c. expounds it of the tribulations of this life, and that grief, wherewith a man's mind is stung, when he loses those things which he dearly loves; And hence saith, it is not incredible, that some such thing may be after this life; but whether it be so or no, he leaves it to every ones inquiry. Which demon­strates, he did not look on this, as an Article of Faith, but as a thing uncertain; and it is certain, understood these words of St. Paul otherways. And in the place he here mentions, Psalm 37. it is evident he speaks of the fire at the end of the world, as any one may see who will look into it.

The Learned reasoning (as he esteems it) of Card. Allen upon XI. John 22.XI. John 22. is so frivo­lous, that it shows how impossible it is, with all the Learning or Wit in the world, to make good their Cause. For Martha's Speech, any one may see without much Learning, hath respect to the Resurrection of her Brother out of his Grave, not to Praying for his Soul in Purgatory: Which if she learnt in the Synagogue, we have the less reason to receive it: Especially if she [Page 243] was then so ignorant, as he saith she was, that she did not know our Saviour to be the Son of God.

It might be sufficient to Answer to the next place, II. Acts 24.II. Acts 24. that he falsifies our Bible, to make a show of an Argument against us, for we Translate those words, God hath raised him up, having loosed the pains of death; not as he reports it, the sorrows of hell. And St. Chrysostom, with other of the Ancients, justify our Translation, when by the pains of Hades, they understand Death; which suffered grievously by Christ's Resurrection from the dead. Menochius himself puts in both words, and saith; The pains of death and of hell, are by a Meta­nymy, most grievous pains: So that the sense is, God raised up Christ, death and hell being overcome, with all the pains that attend it; he loosing, that is, making void whatsoever death had done by its pains and torments. See by what pitiful wresting of Scripture these men maintain their Doctrine: Applying that to Christ's loosing others, which is evidently spoken of God's loosing him from the bands of death (as the plainest meaning is) for it was not possible he should be held by it, as the next words explain it.

[Page 244]If those words, baptized for the dead, 1 Cor. XV. 29.1 Cor. XV. 29. afforded such an evident proof, as he pretends, of the help which the Souls departed out of this world, may receive by the Church on Earth, for their deliverance out of Purgatory: It is a wonder that not so much as one of the Ancient Inter­preters, thought of this sense of the words, among the very many they have given; but every one carry the sense another way. St Chrysostom, with many other of the Greek Writers, and some of the Latin, expound them of the solemn Baptism of the Faithful; which is said to be for the dead, because they are all Baptized into the belief of the Resurrection of the dead. This is a plain and natural Interpretation: Whereas this man's sense of the word Baptized, is violently forc'd and strain'd. For to be Bap­tized, no where signifies to afflict ones self, or to do penance. Our Saviour indeed saith he had a baptism to be baptized withal: But he doth not call any sort of afflictions by this name, much less speaks of afflicting himself, but of his suffering death. And if we thus understand the word Baptize in this place of the Apostle; Guillandus, a Doctor of his own Church (to name none of ours) hath given this probable Inter­pretation [Page 245] of those who were Baptized for the dead; that they were such, as did not stick to suffer Martyrdom, for the defence of their belief of the Resurrection of the dead.

There are very few Scholars in the Ro­man Church, who adventure to alledge XVI. Luke 9. for a proof of Purgatory. XVI. Luk. 9. For it is manifest, saith Maldonate, That the Poor, are the friends, who are to receive us into everlasting habitations. That is, we shall be received thither, for our Charity to them. And in this he says, all Authors consent, ex­cept St. Ambrose, whose singular opinion it is, that they are the Holy Angels, which is deservedly rejected by all: And yet this poor Creature follows that rejected opini­on; (else why doth he quote St. Ambrose)? though it makes nothing for his purpose; Which is to prove, not what Angels, but what we on earth can do for the help of the dead. After the like senseless manner he alledgeth St. Austin, who saith not a word of Purgatory in the place he names: But mentioning a double order of those that shall be saved, he saith, some have lived in such sanctity, that they may help their friends to be received into everlasting habitations; and others lived not so well, as to have been sufficient to attain so great a blessed­ness, [Page 246] unless they had obtained mercy by the Merits, that is, the Prayers (as Bellar­mine acknowledges) of their Friends. Now what is this to Purgatory? Unless it can be proved that there is no way to receive Mer­cy from God, but by passing through that fire, of which he saith nothing. How the word fail in this Text, inforceth, as he fancies, receiving succor after death, I can­not conceive. For it signifies our dying, as Menochius himself expounds it; depart­ing this life, as Theophylact, who knew of no other sense, unless it be understood, saith he, of Pusillanimity being condemn'd.

Nor doth St. Austin in the next place, XXIII. Luke 44. say that Souls may be holpen in Purgatory: But expresly de­clares, if no sin were to be remitted in the last judgment, our Lord would not have said of a cert [...]in sin, it shall not be remitted in this world, nor in the world to come. Which the Thief hoped for, when he Prayed, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And if the Theif had any such erroneous Notion in his head (which we do not believe) of going to Purgatory, when he died; our Lord presently freed him from that false conceit, by that graci­ous promise, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradice.

[Page 247]It is a lamentable Cause which must be supported by such an Author as Jason of Cyrene, whose Book is of no credit. But if it were, the place he cites, 2 Maccab. XII. 44, 45. proves nothing but Prayer for the dead, which doth not infer a Purgatory. For the Greeks use Prayer for the dead, who believe nothing of Purgatory. And indeed the Text it self tells us, their Prayers had respect, not to the deliverance of those Prayed for out of the flames of Purgatory, but to their Resurrectien: And if they had believed Purgatory, they could not, ac­cording to the Popish opinion, have prayed for these men who died in mortal Sin; being defiled by things belonging to Idols, which were found under their Garments. Now the Romish Church doth not admit such people as die in mortal Sin, into Pur­gatory. See how weak all their proofs are, of this great Article of their Faith. For there is no greater strength to be found in the rest of his Texts, which he hath jumb­led together, after a very strange fashion, as if a long row of Chapters and Verses would do his business. Nor did the Fa­thers in the Six first Ages, know any thing of this Doctrine. Gregory indeed, called the Great, began to talk of it, and laid [Page 248] the foundation of it: But his Authority is not great, being much addicted to Fables, and relying upon pretended Revelations, Visions, and Apparitions. And as for Ori­gen's Purgatory, St. Austin saith,De haeres. [...]. 43. What Catholick Christian is there, whether learn'd or unlearn'd, who doth not vehemently abhor it? And yet this man is not ashamed to alledge his Testimony; by which the Reader may make a judgment of the rest.

Answer.

THIS is another shameless slander, as his own Bellarmin confesses; [...]. 2. de Ec­cles. Tri­umph. c. 8. who says, the opinion of Calvin himself is this, That Images are not simply forbidden, but he ad­mits only of an Historical use of them. The sum of our Doctrine is this, That it is not law­ful to make an Image of God (and so some of their own Church have confessed) nor to make any Image to be worshipped. If we [Page 249] should have further added, That it is un­lawful to make or have Images, because of the danger of Idolatry, we could have justified our selves by the Authority of as wise men, as any in their Church. For more than one of the Ancient Fathers were of this opinion; who were never condemned by the Ancient Church, nor was this reckoned among their Errors.

His Texts of Scripture are impertinently alledged.XXV. Exod. 18. For God might command that to be done (XXV. Exod. 18.) which he forbad them to do, without such a special Order. And there is no proof that the Che­rubins were made with Faces of beautiful young men, as this Writer asserts; but the contrary is apparent, as many have demon­strated. He belies St. Hierom also, when he makes him say, the Jews worshipped them: which the best of their own Authors deny. Particularly Lorinus, a famous Jesuit, upon XVII. Acts 25. Concerning the Cherubims made by God's Command, and other Images made by Solomon, it must be said, that they were only an Appendix, and additional orna­ment of another thing: and were not of them­selves propounded for adoration; which it is manifest the Hebrews did not give them. And Vasquez saith the same out of Tertullian, that [Page 250] no worship was given to the Cherubims; al­ledging no less than twelve Schoolmen of that opinion. Why should I trouble my self therefore any further with such a Writer, whose next Scriptures are still about the Cherubims, and therefore are already an­swered? For he doth not believe, I hope, that when the Apostle, IX. Hebr. 1. speaks of the Ordinances of Divine Service, that is, Commandments about the Worship of God (as Theodoret, and from him Menochius expounds it) and after many other things, mentions the Cherubims of glory, he intended they should have divine service performed to them. If not, then his observation is fri­volous; for no body denies there were such things as Cherubims in the most holy place: where no body saw them, much less wor­shipped them.

When he hath done with his Scriptures, he goes about to prove (so fond he is of Images) that an Image is of divine and natu­ral right, because we always form one in our mind, when we conceive and understand any thing. As if it were all one to form an Idea invisibly in the mind; and to make a vsible, standing representation of it, in Wood, Brass, or Stone. Such Writers tire one with their folly and falshood: which [Page 251] is notorious in what he quotes out of Saint Austin in the conclusion of this Chapter; Who taking notice that some Pagans had forged a Story of I know not what Books, written by Christ to Peter and Paul, con­cerning the secret Arts of working Miracles, says they named those two perhaps rather than other Apostles, to whom those pre­tended Books were directed, because they might have seen them painted with Him in ma­ny places. Which, whether it be meant in private Houses (as is most probable) or in publick places, it is manifest St. Austin did not regard such Pictures; for he presently adds, in the very next sentence (which this false Writer conceals) these remarkable words: Thus they deserved to err utterly, who sought for Christ and his Apostles, not in the holy Books, but in painted Walls. And it is no wonder, if they that counterfeit (in forging Books he means) were deceived by them that paint.

Answer.

NOW we are come indeed to the busi­ness: but they seem afraid to touch it. For, first, instead of saying, it is not lawful to worship Images (as it was before, when Bi­shop Montague answered this Book) now they dwindle it into reverence of them. And then, they fallaciously tack to this a Proposition of another nature, that no honour is to be gi­ven to insensible things. Which is a new Calum­ny; for we do upon some occasions give honour or respect (tho no Worship, nor Adora­tion) to things that have no sense in them.

Therefore he might have kept to him­self his first Scripture,Exod. III. 5. which is brought to prove this; not the worshipping of any Crea­ture. For putting off the shooes was a respect paid to earthly Princes in those Countries, when they came into their presence.

Ps. XCIX. 5.In the next place XCIX. Psal. 5. instead of our Translation, Worship at his footstool (which he promised to stick unto) he gives us their own, Adore the footstool of his feet; ex­presly [Page 253] contrary to the Original, and to the most ancient Translations; particularly the Chaldee Paraphrase, which runs thus; adore, or worship in the House of his Sanctuary, for he is holy. Which is so plain and literal an Inter­pretation, that Jansenius and Lorinus himself follow it. And they, among the Ancients, who follow the Vulgar Translation, thought it so horrible a thing to worship his Foot­stool) thereby underdanding the Earth, which is called God's footstep, that they expound these words of Christ. Hear St. Austin upon the place. I am afraid to worship the Earth, lest he that made Heaven and Earth condemn me; (observe that) and yet I am afraid not to wor­ship the Footstool of my Lord, because the Psal­mist saith, Worship the Footstool of his Feet. What therefore shall I do? In this doubt, I turn my self to Christ, whom here I seek, and find; how without impiety the Earth may be worshipped; without Impiety may be worship­ped the Footstool of his Feet; For he took Earth from the Earth, Flesh being of the Earth: and he took Flesh of the Flesh of Mary. He must have a brow of brass, if he can read this, and not be put out of countenance. But if they had any shame left, they would not draw in St. Hierom to conuntenance this Impiety; Whom this man quotes again [Page 254] (though he tells us not in what Epistle to Marcella we may find it) to prove that the Ark was worshipped in regard of the Images that were set upon it, that is, the Cherubims. A foul Forgery! For he only saith, the Ta­bernacle was venerated; that is, had in ho­nourable regard, because the Cherubims were there. Veneration is one thing, and Reli­gious Worship is another: And his mean­ing is no more than this, that they reverenced the Sanctuary (as God commanded Moses) because of a Divine presence there. It was the more impudent to alledg him, because he is the Father who saithL. W. in Ezek. c. 16., We have one Huband, and we worship one Image: which is the Image of the Invisible, Omnipotent God; i. e. Christ.

What he intends by alledging, II. Philip. 10. for a proof that Images are to be worship­ped, I cannot imagine: unless he be so sensless, as to take the Name of a thing, for an Image of it. And he could not but know also, that when we bow at the Name of Jesus, we worship our Lord Christ.

His long Discourse of the brazen Serpent, mentioned XXI.Numb. XXI. 8. Numb. 8. is as impertinent. For there is no proof that it was an Image, nor the least signification that it was set up to be worshipped. If it were, why did He­zekiah break it in pieces; for that very rea­son, [Page 255] because, in process of time, People burnt incense to it? He ought to have known also, That Vasquez (as I shew'd be­fore) together with Azorius, both learned Jesuits, with a great many other of the best Writers of his own Church, acknowledge that no Image among the Jews was set up for worship. And Azorius expresly confutes his most learned Dr. Saunders, for abusing the Testimony of some Fathers to prove the con­trary. As this man doth those whom he hath named, particularly their Pope Gregory the Great: who is known to all the World to have been against the Worship of Images; though he earnestly contended to have them in Churches. But I refer the Reader to Bishop Montague for satisfaction about his Fathers (some of which are forged, others say nothing to the purpose, and John Da­mascen was no Father, but a superstitious Monk) because, contrary to his custome, he takes notice of some of our Objections a­gainst Image-worship, and endeavours to an­swer them; which may seem to require con­sideration, though I think the most ordi­nary Reader might be left to grapple with him.

His Answer to the first Objection, of He­zekiah's breaking the brazen Serpent, seeing [Page 256] it the cause of Idolatry, if it have any sense in it, is an audacious reflection upon that good King; nay, upon the Holy Ghost, who commends him for what he did: Whereas this man going about to prove, that the a­buse of a good thing, ought not to take a­way the use of it, doth as good as say, Heze­kiah should not have broken it, but left it as a Monument of God's Mercy to them, with­out destroying it. What is this but cen­suring him, instead of answering us?

His Answer to the next, is an impudent denial of their Principles, and of their Pra­ctice. For their greatest Writers say, it is the constant Opinion of Divines, that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship where­with that is worshipped of which it is the Image. So Azorius.

The third is no Answer to what we charge upon them, but a false Charge up­on us; Who do not fall down before the Sacrament, and worship it as an Image of Christ; but worship Christ himself, when we receive it upon our Knees.

The Fourth is a fresh piece of Impudence; in denying Images to be set up in Churches with a special intent, that People should worship or adore them: and in affirming, That the worship is given them, as it were, by a conse­quence; [Page 257] and rather, because it may be lawfully given, than because it is principally sought to be given. For their great Cardinal Bellarmin L. 2. de Imag. c. 21, 22., to name no other, expresly saith, That the Images of Christ, and of the Saints, are honoured, not only by accident, and improperly, but per se, and properly: so that they terminate the Venera­tion, as they are considered in themselves; and not only as they represent their Exemplar. And their Opinion savours of Heresie in that Church, who say that they are not set up to be worshipped. Of which this man, I believe, was sensible, when he tells us, They are partly set up in Churches, to stir up our minds to follow the Example of those holy men, whose Images we behold. Which supposes this not the whole end for which they are set up; but that they are partly intended for another purpose. What that is, he durst not confess; for fear he should confute himself: For he knew that the stirring up of Peoples minds to follow the Saints, is but a small part of the reason for which Images are set up in Churches: the great end is, that they may be wor­shipped.

His distinction between an Idol and an Image, is as vain as all the rest (as our Au­thors have demonstrated a thousand times) and that they do not give Latria to Images, [Page 258] is another egregious untruth: for they ex­presly say in the Ceremoniale, that Latria is due to the Cross: for which reason it is or­dered to take place of the Imperial Sword, when they are both carried together.

Neither he, nor any any one else (what­soever he vapours) dare break in pieces, or tear a Crucifix, or Picture, solemnly conse­crated to be worshipped: not with an infe­rior sort of Worship (as he pretends); for that, the greatest Men in his Church acknow­ledge is down-right Idolatry. And there­fore maintain, that the Image, and the Per­son represented by it, are worshipped as one Obect, with the same act of worship.

What the Council of Trent saith, hath been considered by a number of our Wri­ters, who have shown, that the Prayers wherewith Images are consecrated, the Pilgrimages that are made to them, the Prayers to the Wood of the Cross, do suppose they expect vertue, yea very great benefit from them: and that, notwithstanding all their distinctions, the worship of them is Idolatry.

Thus much I have thought good to add in this place (that I may not be less careful than he) for the preservation of our People from being deceived by those who mince [Page 259] this matter of Image-worship. Concerning which, I may truly say, as Dr. Jackson hath done, that the Primitive Church abandon'd it, as the Liturgy of Hell.

Answer.

IN the First Edition of this Book, they condemned us for saying, No man hath seen God at any time (so well are they skilled in Scripture, where we find those very words, I. John 18.) but having been soundly lash'd for this foul Ignorance, by Bishop Mountague, now they have altered the words, they think, more wisely; tho still with a contradiction to St. Paul, who saith of God, that no man hath seen him, nor can see him: Which is as much, we think, as if he had said, no man hath seen him in any form, because his words import, that it is impossible one should see him at all.

[Page 260]From whence it is a plain consequence, that his Picture, or Image, cannot be made. And nothing but stupid superstition, that horrid blindness where with those are struck, who fall into Idolatry, could make any man affirm the contrary. Their Ancient School­men, it is well known, absolutely condemn the making any Picture of God; but only, as in Christ he took upon him our Nature. Nay, the Second Council of Nice (as block­ish as they were) had so much sense re­maining, as to condemn the making of an Image of God, when they established the Worship of Images. And John Damascen himself saith, it is the highest madness and im­piety, to make any Figure of the Deity. But time hath wrought mens minds into this Madness: and one would think a real frenzy possess'd this man, when he thought of the III.III. Gen. 8. Gen. 8. (which only saith, They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden) to prove God hath been seen in a Corporal form: As if hearing were seeing; or one could paint the form of a sound, or of motion. To what Impiety may not such men arrive, who can satisfy them­selves with such Arguments?

XXVIII. Gen. 12.Nor is there the least mention of anyform, wherein the Lord appeared to Jacob, [Page 261] XXVIII. Gen. 12. But if there had, it would be the highest impiety to call that the picture of God, who hath no form, no shape, no figure, or lineaments; and therefore cannot be Painted.

God speaking to Moses face to face XXXII. Exod. 11.XXXII. Exod. 11. doth not imply God to have a face; but only that he spake most familiarly to him, as one Friend speaketh to another. His own Menochius goes far­ther; for his Interpretation is, By an Angel appearing in corporeal and humane shape, God spake most familiarly to him. And indeed it is the opinion of his Order (the Jesuits) and of all later Divines in the Roman Church, very few excepted, that God never appeared, but by the Ministry of Angels.

Which answers what he alledgeth out of VII.VII. Dan. 9. Dan. 9 To which Menochius also gives this farther satisfaction, That every thing which is here attributed unto God, signifies only the splendor of the Divine Majesty; which, in one word, may be called Glory. This is the only thing that can be represented; which it is impossible for any one to describe.

As for VI. Isa. 1, 5. 1 Kings XXII. 19. There is not the least signification of any form wherein the Divine Majesty appeared. His reasonings upon these Texts are so [Page 262] weak, that they are not worthy any ones notice: But lest he should be wise in his own conceit, let him take this rational ac­count from Abulensis, an Author of his own Church, why no Image of the Trinity should be made. First, For fear of Idolatry, lest the Image it self should be worshipped. 2dly. For fear of Error and Heresy; in attri­buting to God corporiety and essential differences, such as we see those Three Figures represent. This is sufficient to convince any man, who is not drunk with the cup of fornication, mentioned by St. John in the Revelation.

We hear not a word of Fathers to coun­tenance this Doctrine, which is a shrow'd sign it is so far from being Ancient, that they speak directly against it. And it is observable, that they bring in the Gentiles excusing their making Images of their Gods, just as the Papists now excuse them­selves, and as this man argues: That Images were unto men, instead of writings (or Scrip­tures) upon which fixing their sight, they might have some Conceptions of God. They are the words of Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles. And so Eusebius tells us, Porphyry said, That men by Statues, as by Book [...], have learnt to know the Doctrine of the Gods. Behold the Fathers whom they follow. Thus the [Page 263] Sworn Enemies of Jesus Christ were wont to discourse.

Answer.

IT is uncertain, what he means by this proposition; whether he make Blessing, and Signing with the sign of the Cross, Two several things, or the same. If he mean that we say, Blessing things or Persons is not founded in Scripture, he is a notori­ous Calumniator; for we Bless our Chil­dren and our Meat. But if he mean, That Blessing by Signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded there, he saith true; for we find no Precept or Example for such a way of Blessing. Anciently indeed, when the Cross of Christ was counted foolishness, Christians used to sign them­selves in the Forehead with this sign, in token that they gloried in the Death of Christ; which was nothing else, but to [Page 264] make a confession of their Faith, and to testi­fy in what esteem they had Christ Crucified. The use of the sign upon such an occasion is not to be condemned, nor the use of it in their Benedictions: Whereby they de­clared their Belief, that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ, who was made a curse for us; and that through his Death and Passion (of which the Cross was a Memori­al) they expected all manner of Blessings from God. But all this was of Humane Institution; for which we find no directi­ons in Scripture.

None of the places he alledgeth, say a syllable of it; much less expresly men­tion this sign; Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII.VII. Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more, but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads; With what mark we are not told.

In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV. Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him, and of blessing his Disciples; but nothing of signing either with the Cross, or any thing else; which therefore is not founded in these, or indeed in any other Scriptures.

[Page 265]The Fathers, we know, speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions; but do they say it was founded in Scripture? Not a word of that, which is the only point. And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now, as many other Rites have been; which were no less in use in Ancient times, than that was; particular­ly, the Custom of Praying Standing, not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day be­tween Easter and Whitsuntide. Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice; and as it had been in use before, and not then introduced, but only confirmed, so con­tinued in the Church for 800 years; and yet is now quite disused. I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue, as well as Bodily Prote­ction, which they in the Roman Church, now expect from the Sign of the Cross; for which there is not either Scripture, or other An­cient Authority.

Answer.

IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly; for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly. This is our Doctrine, which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible; that unless the Bible contra­dict it self, nothing can be found there to the contrary.

I Luke 8.St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spake, when he ministred in the Sanctuary. Nor do we find in the Bible, the least mention of Publick Prayers he made there, but only of burning Incense; which the People well understood repre­sented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance; which they made without, while he burnt Incense within. Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer; the meaning of which was as well under­stood by the People, as what they themselves [Page 267] spake. The Angel indeed tells him, v. 13. thy Prayer is heard; but this doth not prove he spake any words, but rather lifted up his mind to God, when the Incense ascend­ed towards Heaven. For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb; and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words. But suppose he did, how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times, the Language of the Country? Tho it is not material whether he did or no; for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice. And therefore this place, if it prove any thing, proves too much; that the Publick Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People, where they can neither hear, nor see the Priest.

The XVI. Levit. 17.XVI. Lev. 17. is most absurdly al­ledged to serve this purpose, because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place; unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth, but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven, by vir­tue of his most precious Blood, wherewith he entred in thither. Besides, the High-Priest of old, said not one word while he [Page 268] staid there; and therefore this can be no ar­gument the People need not understand the Publick Prayers of the Church, which are made, not in such a Secret Place as that was, but openly in the hearing of all the Peo­ple. Who, by this reasoning, may be shut out of the Church, as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers, and the Priest left there to a silent Service by him­self.

Here Fathers being wanting (for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue) he pretends he hath no need of them; tho he needlesly heapt them up, where he could find a word, that seemed to look that way he would have it. But he supplies this want with a bold untruth, That the practice of the whole Christian World, for these many hundred years hath been a­gainst us, who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand: Which can be salved by nothing, but by another proud falsity, that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World. For no Church uses Latin Service, but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome; all others use the Language of their several Countries. Nay, there are some who have acknowledged his Authority, [Page 269] that would still have the Publick Service in their own Language, which the People un­derstood.

For shame, let these men leave off Wri­ting, and betake themselves to their Prayers, that God would forgive them their abominable Falshoods, wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause; particularly in this point, about Publick Service in a Language the People do not understand. Which they are sen­sible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul, in 1 Cor. XIV. and therefore this man thinks himself concern'd to attempt an Answer unto what we alledge from hence.

At first he distinguishes between Publick Prayer and Private, which here is very idle, for it is evident, the Apostle speaks of Pub­lick Prayers in the Church, verse 19. When the whole Church came together in one place, verse 23.

Secondly, He saith this place is against us, because it proves the Common Service of the Church, was not then in a Tongue which every man understood, but in another Language, not so common to all, verse 16. Mark, how he contradicts himself; before he supposed (or else he talk'd impertinently) that the [Page 270] Apostle discourses of Private Prayers; now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church, of which he speaks, but shews it was not in the Common Language. What a brow have these men, who can thus out-face the clearest truth? That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons, and condemns as utterly inconsi­stent with the very end of Speech, as well as with the Edification of the Church; this man makes to have been common al­lowed Practice. Was there ever such Pre­varication? A man had better have no use of Reason, than Discourse on this fashi­on; no Tongue at all, than talk at this rate, expresly against the Apostle's In­junction, who requires him, who could not deliver what he spake in a known Tongue, or had no Interpreter, To hold his peace, and speak to himself, and to God, v. 28.

His Argument to justify their Practice is so silly, that it cannot but make a good man sigh deeply, to think that poor ig­norant People should be mis led by such Ideots. For he takes him, who occupied the place of the unlearned (in verse 16.) to be one, who was required, or supposed to be there, to supply the unlearned man's [Page 271] place, That is, saith he, one who should have further understanding of that Tongue in which the Service of the Church is said. Which he imagines is a proof, the Service was not in the Vulgar Tongue, for then there had been no need of one to supply the Ideots place, &c. This is such a gross piece of Duncery, as his Master Bellarmine would have corrected, if he had look'd into him, or any of the Ancient and Modern Inter­preters: Who by one that takes up the place of the Ʋnlearned, do not understand, one that acts in the stead of an Ʋnlearned Person, (that's a dull fancy, never heard of among the Learned) but one that sits in the Place or Bench, is in the Form, as we speak, of the Ʋnlearned. That is, an Ignorant Person, who is the man that the Apostle saith, could not say, Amen, if he un­derstood not what was said in the Thanks­giving. So Menochius upon that Text, He that sits among the Simple and Rude, who are ignorant of Tongues, how shall he say, Amen? That is, approve thy Prayer, if he do not understand it.

His Cavil therefore at the Geneva Mini­sters is foolish, if not malicious; for they translate the words honestly, not deceit­fully, according to the certain sense of [Page 272] them; there being no difference between an Ideot, and he who supplies the place of an Ideot.

We know of no Reformed Churches, where they do not say Amen to their Pub­lick Prayers. Here we are sure the People are enjoyned so to do. Therefore it is another Slander, if he object this to us, who have not turned Amen into So be it, as he says many of the Reformed Churches have done. If it be true, that any have expounded the word, into others of like signification, it was for the Edification of the People, and no body hath just reason to find fault with them, if the People did not understand its meaning. Which they did in Greece, as much as in Judea, and therefore the Apostle had reason to re­tain it.

But he belies St. Austin, as he hath done us, when he makes him say, It is not lawful to turn Amen into any other language, without the scandal of the whole Church. For he saith, L. 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 10.There is such variety of Latin Interpre­ters of the Scripture, as makes the know­ledge of the Hebrew and Greek necessary; that when one doubts of the Latin, re­course may be had thither; (this is worth marking for other purposes). Tho some [Page 273] Hebrew words indeed we often find are not interpreted, as Amen, Allelujah, Ra­cha, and Osanna, &c. Which Antiquity hath preserved, partly, for the more sacred Authority, tho they might have been interpret­ed (observe that) as Amen, and Allelu­jah; partly, because it's said they cannot be translated into another tongue, as the two other words, Racha, and Osanna. In which discourse he says nothing of the un­lawfulness of Translating the Hebrew words, nor of the scandal their Translation would give; but only of some of them, particu­larly, Amen, being more venerable in the Original Language, than in any other. What he says in his Epistles I cannot stand to examine; for in that Epistle which he quotes, there is nothing to be found about this matter.

In conclusion, he is driven to this shift, to say, That our own Service is not un­derstood, because it consists partly of the Psalms of David (which he most falsly says are the hardest part of all the Bible) and of Lessons out of the Old and New Testament, which are not understood by the people. But is this all that our Service consists of? Have we not Prayers and Thanksgivings, easie to be understood every word? As in the [Page 274] other part of the Service they understand enough for their Edification; whereas of their Mass, the simple people understand nothing: Or suppose they understand a lit­tle, yet this will not make their case like ours; because the people with us have all in their vulgar Language, tho they do not every one understand all; but they have not a word in their vulgar language, tho some perhaps may understand a little of the Latin Tongue.

And what is the reason they dare not trust the Mass in the vulgar language? Be­cause it is hard to be understood? No, but quite contrary, because the people would easily find things there which confute their own Religion, and are conformable unto ours. For who would believe Purgatory any longer, who heard the Priest say in the vulgar tongue, Lord, remember thy servants and handmaids that are gone before us, with the sign of Faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace? If they be in peace, every one would be ready to say, Then they are not burning in the Purgatory fire; and what need I give my money to Pray them out from thence? The like passages there are, that would make them believe Transubstantiation to be a Fable; and that it is a novel thing to have [Page 275] the Divine Service in an Ʋnknown Tongue; which I have not room to mention: But desire the Reader to observe how this pra­ctice is condemned out of the mouths of many great persons in their own Church. I will name Two.

One is Cardinal Cajetan, upon 1 Cor. XIV. who saith, Out of this Doctrine of Paul we learn, That it is better for the Edification of the Church, that the Publick Prayers which are said in the audience of the people, should be said in the tongue common to Clerks and People, than said in Latin. A most ingenuous Con­fession; in which he doth but follow one of their Saints, viz. Anselm, in his Expo­sition of the same Chapter; That is good which thou sayest, but another is not edified by thy words, which he understands not. There­fore since you meet in the Church for Edification, those things ought to be said in the Church, which may be understood by men, and afford Edification to the hearers.