to the Master that Priests bind and loose because they declare Men to be hound and loosed In short the Doctrine of the Church is that God absolves by his Ministers who cannot see into mens hearts and therefore can only pronounce that he absolves them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost upon supposal of their unfeigned Repentance But it is apparent the Church always believed it is God who properly absolves and forgives Sins not the Priest For all the Ancient Rituals show that the Absolution was given by Prayer to God for the Penitent there being no other Form of Absolution in them but Prayers which being made in behalf of the Penitent they believed did obtain from God the pardon of those Sins which he had with all humility publickly confessed And therefore the present form I absolve thee which was never used but in the Latin Church and not there neither till the middle of the XIIIth Century must be understood to be only a very solemn declaration That God forgives the person upon his sincere Contrition and Repentance This is the meaning of our Saviour XX. John 21. XX. John 21. when he made the Apostles his Delegates saying As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Which supposes a sâ—perior Power to theirs in whose Name they acted only as Ministers And therefore when he adds in the next words Ibid. v. 22 23. v. 22 23. Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Menochius expounds it thus That though the Holy Ghost was not given till the day of Pentceost yet on the first day of the Resurrection they received the Grace of it by which they might remit sins and baptize and make children of God and give the Spirit of Adoption to them that believed c. Now let any man tell me whether it were they that for instance gave the Spirit of Adoption or God himself they that healed and wrought Miracles as they did after the day of Pentecost or God by their Ministry In like manner it was not they who conferred Forgiveness of Sins but God properly bestowed it as he did the other Blessings they only serving as Ministers by whom he conveyed it to the Penitent In the next place of Scripture he makes bold to add words which are neither in our Bible nor theirs IX Matth. 8. When the multitude saw it i. e. the man take up his bed and walk they marvelled and glorified God which had given such power unto men he adds as to forgive sins Whereas the Evangelist speaks of the power of healing a sick man which they saw plainly and which our Saviour alledges as an Argument that he could forgive sins which the multitude could see no other way but in this miraculous demonstration of it But suppose the multitude had admired at his Power to forgive sins will it follow that any body else hath that Power which Christ had No Christ could as man forgive sins yet not as any sort of man saith Menochius * Non ut qualiscunque homo sed ut homo Deus himself but as God-man which no Priest whatsoever is He bids us after his usual form see more in several Texts which he sets down without the words and we are very willing to obey him if there were any thing to be seen to this purpose But the two first of them are only a promise of what our Saviour afterward bestowed and we have heard what that was from XX. John 23. The two next speak not of forgiving sins nor merely of retaining them but of delivering men up to Satan which no body now can do 2 Cor. II. 10. The next 2 Cor. II. 10. proves too much if it prove any thing to this purpose for it speaks of the whole Church giving Pardon to an Offender viz. by receiving him again by the Apostles order into their Communion V. 19. The next 2 Cor. V. 19. relates to the Apostles reconciling men by preaching the Word of God as Menochius expounds it or if by Word of Reconciliation we understand saith he the thing that is Reconciliation it self then the Apostle speaks of the whole Power and Ministry of reconciling men to God The last place out of V. Numb 6. is as impertinent as the quotations that follow out of the Fathers which they have a little mended since Bishop Mountague lash'd this Author severely for his childish and careless Transcriptions of them out of Father Bellarmine You may judge of them all by the last save one which was the first heretofore out of Irenaeus L. V. c. 13. who proving that we have a Specimen of the Resurrection in those whom Christ raised from the dead instances in Lazarus unto whom he said come forth and the dead man came forth bound hand and foot c. A Symbol saith he or Type of that man who is tyed and bound in sins and with respect to this the Lord said Loose him and let him go But what good would their loosing him have done if Christ had not first raised him from the dead unto whose power not theirs all that followed is to be ascribed And to whom did Christ speak when he bad them loose Lazarus but to the Jews who were present As Maldonate one of their own good Writers expounds it and saith It is the opinion of all good Authors except Austin Gregory and Bede and adds That to found the Doctrine of Confession or Absolution upon this place is no better than to build upon sand But if it be supposed that he here speaks to his Apostles and bids them loose him still it can figure no more but a declaration of Pardon of Sins granted already by the Mercy of the Almighty What St. Austin therefore saith in the place which this man mentions first is to no purpose for it is the very same with this of Irenaeus For having said in the beginning of that Tractate * Tract XLIX in John that the works of our Lord were not only facta but signa and showed how the three persons raised by him from the dead signifie the raising up three degrees of sinners out of their sins When he comes to this passage in the story of Lazarus's Resurrection Loose him and let him go he saith What is loose him c. but what ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And let it be so that our Lord's words fitly represent this yet still it was God that properly loosed men from their sins the Apostles were but Ministers in this business who declared what God had granted As God raised up Lazarus from the dead they only untied him after he had really made him alive and raised him out of his Grave All the rest out of the Fathers is no better than this and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it but pass to the next Where he makes us say XV. That we ought not to confess
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 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 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 saith * L. 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 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 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 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
declared their Belief that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ who was made a curse for us and that through his Death and Passion of which the Cross was a Memorial they expected all manner of Blessings from God But all this was of Humane Institution for which we find no directions in Scripture None of the places he alledgeth say a syllable of it much less expresly mention this sign Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII VII Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads With what mark we are not told In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him and of blessing his Disciples but nothing of signing either with the Cross or any thing else which therefore is not founded in these or indeed in any other Scriptures The Fathers we know speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions but do they say it was founded in Scripture Not a word of that which is the only point And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now as many other Rites have been which were no less in use in Ancient times than that was particularly the Custom of Praying Standing not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day between Easter and Whitsuntide Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice and as it had been in use before and not then introduced but only confirmed so continued in the Church for 800 years and yet is now quite disused I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue as well as Bodily Protection which they in the Roman Church now expect from the Sign of the Cross for which there is not either Scripture or other Ancient Authority LII That the Publick Service of the Church ought not to be said but in a Language that all the People may understand Answer IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly This is our Doctrine which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible that unless the Bible contradict it self nothing can be found there to the contrary I Luke 8. St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spake when he ministred in the Sanctuary Nor do we find in the Bible the least mention of Publick Prayers he made there but only of burning Incense which the People well understood represented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance which they made without while he burnt Incense within Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer the meaning of which was as well understood by the People as what they themselves spake The Angel indeed tells him v. 13. thy Prayer is heard but this doth not prove he spake any words but rather lifted up his mind to God when the Incense ascended towards Heaven For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words But suppose he did how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times the Language of the Country Tho it is not material whether he did or no for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice And therefore this place if it prove any thing proves too much that the Publick Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People where they can neither hear nor see the Priest The XVI Levit. 17. XVI Lev. 17. is most absurdly alledged to serve this purpose because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven by virtue of his most precious Blood wherewith he entred in thither Besides the High-Priest of old said not one word while he staid there and therefore this can be no argument the People need not understand the Publick Prayers of the Church which are made not in such a Secret Place as that was but openly in the hearing of all the People Who by this reasoning may be shut out of the Church as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers and the Priest left there to a silent Service by himself Here Fathers being wanting for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue he pretends he hath no need of them tho he needlesly heapt them up where he could find a word that seemed to look that way he would have it But he supplies this want with a bold untruth That the practice of the whole Christian World for these many hundred years hath been against us who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand Which can be salved by nothing but by another proud falsity that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World For no Church uses Latin Service but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome all others use the Language of their several Countries Nay there are some who have acknowledged his Authority that would still have the Publick Service in their own Language which the People understood For shame let these men leave off Writing and betake themselves to their Prayers that God would forgive them their abominable Falshoods wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause particularly in this point about Publick Service in a Language the People do not understand Which they are sensible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul in 1 Cor. XIV and therefore this man thinks himself concern'd to attempt an Answer unto what we alledge from hence At first he distinguishes between Publick Prayer and Private which here is very idle for it is evident the Apostle speaks of Publick Prayers in the Church verse 19. When the whole Church came together in one place verse 23. Secondly He saith this place is against us because it proves the Common Service of the Church was not then in a Tongue which every man understood but in another Language not so common to all verse 16. Mark how he contradicts himself before he supposed or else he talk'd impertinently that the Apostle discourses of Private Prayers now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church of which he speaks but shews it was not in the Common Language What a brow have these men who can thus out-face the clearest truth That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons and condemns as utterly inconsistent with the very end of Speech as well as with the Edification of the Church this man makes to have been common allowed Practice Was there ever such Prevarication A man had better have no use of Reason than Discourse on this fashion no Tongue at all than talk at this rate expresly against the Apostle's Injunction who requires him who could not deliver what he spake
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 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 Protestants hold he saith XXIX That the Angels cannot help us 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 XXX That no Saint deceased hath afterward appeared to any upon Earth 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 XXXI That the Saints deceased know not what passeth upan Earth 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 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 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
Scriptures are hard to be understood but that there are some things therein hard to be understood and those things in St. Paul's Epistles The rest of the Scripture notwithstanding this may be easy and the hard places he doth not say are wrested by every body but only by such as are unlearned and unstable Let us but learn and be stedfastly fixed in the Principles of Religion and practice accordingly then we shall not be in that danger but may read the Revelation it self without hazarding our Salvation Nothing will be in danger of Destruction by reading the Scriptures humbly and piously as they themselves teach us to do but only Men's Vices and the Roman Church which it is easy to see in that hard Book The Revelation is doomed in due time unto Destruction For without understanding every particular Passage one may easily see in general with a little help that Rome is there intended and not Pagan Rome but Christian which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State The following Text is like to this which doth not say VIII Acts 30. That the Eunuch could understand nothing in the Scriptures for then he would not have troubled himself to read them but that he could not understand that place of the Prophet which he was reading when Philip met with him Which was obscure to him only in part not in the whole before he was converted to Christianity but is not so to us who enjoy the glorious Light of the Gospel In which there are some things we cannot understand neither with a Guide nor without But other things as I said are so plain that we cannot mistake them unless we do it wilfully Against which there in no help tho we had the most Infallible Guide that ever was The next place speaks not one word of the difficulty of the Scriptures but rather supposes them to be easy enough even in those matters of which Christ was speaking XXIV Luke 25. XXIV Luke 25. if the Apostles had not been then fools and slow of heart Which Names they had not deserved if the Scriptures had been so hard that it was not their fault they could not understand them before he expounded them The things they read there were not in themselves difficult but the Disciples did not at that time sufficiently attend to what was written For if they could not as this Man affirms have understood them I do not see how they could be justly blamed by our Saviour much less so severely reprehended Besides it is to be observed both of this place and the former that they speak of the Prophetical Writings in which there are greater Obscurities than in other Parts of Scriptures and yet even these if they had not been Fools might have been understood without putting our Saviour to the pains of expounding them One would be tempted to think the Man distracted when he set down the next place V. Rev. 1. V. Revel 1. to prove his Position For the sealed Book which the Angel said no man could read was not the Bible but the ensuing Prophecy which our Saviour presently after opened and hath in some measure let us into its meaning I beseech the Reader to mark what a dolt this Man is who makes the Book of Scripture to be shut with so many Seals that even in St. John 's and the Apostles times none could be found either in Heaven or Earth able to open the same or look therein For what is the consequence of this if it be true but that the Bible must be quite thrown away and neither Priest nor Bishop nor Pope nor Council look therein For they cannot be more able than St. John and the rest of the Apostles O that all People would see by what sottish Guides they are led on in darkness If he had thought that heap of Texts which follow would have done him any Service we should have had their words no doubt and not merely the Chapter and Verse but they are set down only for show and the V. Revelat. is reckoned again to make up the Tale. The Holy Fathers are mentioned for no other end their words being so full and so numerous on our side that it would fill a bigger Book than this if I should muster them up Particularly those very Fathers whom he quotes and in the very Books he mentions are of our minds But it is sufficient for the ordinary Reader to observe that at this Man's rate of proving no Body must read the Scriptures no not such as St. Ambrose if the Scriptures be such a Sea as he speaks of a depth of Prophetical Riddles But the truth is St. Ambrose doth not say what this Man makes him speak Not that it is a depth c. but that it hath in it profound Senses and a depth of Prophetical Riddles It hath so and it hath also plain places in it which are not so deep but they may be fathomed by ordinary even by shallow Capacities St. Austin saith nothing contrary to this but must be supposed to know enough tho much less than what he did not know And so must the rest of the Fathers be understood or else the Scripture is good for nothing if even such Men as Dionysius Gregory the Great c. could understand little or nothing of it If what they say be to his purpose it is concerning themselves and not others and therefore they ought to have refrained from reading the Scripture as well as the Vulgar What then will become of the Common People if their greatest Guides could know so little of the Mind of God His last Author he took upon trust or else is an egregious Falsifier For there is nothing to that purpose in the Chapter he quotes L. VII cap. 20. There are words to that effect in the 25th Chapter where Irenaeus writing against those who denied the Revelation of St. John to be a Divine Book saith Tho I do not understand it yet I suppose there is a deeper sense in the Words and not measuring those things nor judging of them by my reasonings but giving more to Faith I esteem them to be higher than to be comprehended by me but I do not reject that which I cannot understand but admire it the more because I am not able to understand it Now with what face could this Man apply that to the whole Scripture which is spoken only of the Book of the Revelation Let the Reader judg by this what honestly he is to expect in other Quotations IV. He makes us say next That Apostolical Traditions and Ancient Customs of the Church not found in the Written Word are not to be received nor do oblige us Answer THIS is a downright Calumny for we have ever owned that Apostolical Traditions if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible are to be received and followed if delivered by them as of necessary Obligation But we do likewise say That we know no such
this was become his name as much as Simon before this time for at their first meeting Christ gave him this name of Peter I. John 43. 1 Cor. III. 4.22 From that which follows 1 Cor. III. 4 22. there is a wonderful fetch For as before he argues Peter's Supremacy from his being named first so now he argues it from his being named last whereas in his first observation it was an argument of Judas being the unworthiest because named last When he thinks again perhaps he will prove his Supremacy because in II. Gal. 9. he is named neither first nor last but in the middle between James and John And according to his wise note That the Apostle ascends from those he would have esteemed lesser to those whom he would have esteemed greater we must look upon Apollos as greater than Paul because he ascends here from Paul to him and so to Peter Whither will not the Folly of these men lead them XXII Luke 31 32. His Reasoning for we are not to expect Express Texts whatsoever he vainly bâ—ags upon the next place XXII Luke 31 32. is still more strange For who ever heard that to strengthen or confirm his brethren can be nothing but to practice and exercise his greatness over them This Greatness of his runs so in their heads that they fancy they see it every where even where there is not a shadow of it For none before him sure ever thought that to strengthen others is an exercise of Greatness but rather of Goodness It implies indeed that he who establishes another is in that greater than he but it doth not follow he is so in any thing else nor doth it imply any thing of Jurisdiction over others Tho if it did they are not the Apostles who are here intended to be strengthned for they were as strong as himself but the Converted Jews who might be in the same danger wherein he had been And therefore our Lord bids him learn to pity their weakness by the remembrance of his own and to establish them in that Faith which he had denied From hence he leads us back to v. 26. XXII Luke 26. of the same Chapter and from the vain ambition which was in the Apostles who strove which of them should be accounted the greatest v. 24. concludes That really some of them was greater than others viz. in Power and Authority over the rest or else he concludes nothing But this vanity our Saviour checks and therefore it is far from truth that one of them was accounted greater than another even by Christ himself No such matter he only shows them that if in any quality one excelled another it should make him more humble and subservient to his Brethren not swell him and make him perk up above them And thus Theophylact understands it not of any Superiority in Power but in other things For the occasion of their contention Who should be esteemed greatest he thinks was this That there being an enquiry among them which of them should be so wicked as to betray their Master v. 23. and one perhaps saying Thou art likely to be the man and another No it will be thy self They proceed from hence to say I am better than you and I am greater and such like things Which our Saviour expresses in the following words The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. but it shall not be so among you c Which is a pretty plain denial of any Authority they were to have one over another And indeed when he comes to speak of Power in the following Verses v. 29 30. he saith indifferently to them all I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me c. It was divided among them and none had an higher Throne given him than his fellows We are at last come to the main prop of this Cause which is as weak as all the rest XXI Joh. 15 16 17. XXI John 15 16 17. For who told him that the word used the second time by our Saviour which we Translate Feed †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must interpret the other two which are used at first and last Why may not they being used twice rather interpret that which is used but once And how doth he prove that it signifies to govern and rule rather than feed Or if it do signifie Government what 's this to his governing the Apostles who had as much Power to Feed and Rule both Lambs and Sheep as himself And thus the Ancients understood this to be spoken unto all the Apostles as well as unto him and even his own Companions who have more Wit and less Impudence by Lambs and Sheep understand not the Apostles but weaker and stronger Christians I will mention only Menochius whose words are these in his Notes upon this place By Lambs he signifies as the very name shâ—ws those that were newly converted to the Faith and were weaker in the Faith whose number was very great when the Apostles began to preach and therefore needed greater care for which cause Christ repeats this twice FEED MY LAMBS and but once FEED MY SHEEP who are those that are stronger in the Faith and therefore needed less pains to preserve them This is spoken like a man of sound sense And with the like Judgment and Integrity he interprets the rest directly contrary to the silly Reasonings of this Trifler who says Peter loved Christ more than the rest and therefore it follows necessarily he received more Power to feed than all the rest did This is more than Peter himself durst say That he loved Christ more than the rest No says Menochius He dares not answer that he loved more than others but only that he loved for his fall had made him more modest He had preferred himself to others when he said XXVI Matth. 33. Though all be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended and after this he fell more fouly than others therefore now he speaks of himself what he thinks to be true but he doth not prefer himself before others whose hearts he did not see Now I thought we had done when like a man out of his wits or rather possessed he flies to the Devil to help him at a dead lift and thus argues for express Scriptures have failed him long ago from XII XII Matt. 24. Matth. 24. Satan therefore hath a kingdom whereof he is chief And what then One would think he should have concluded Therefore so hath our Lord Christ But he was afraid of that for he saw it would not do his business but ours rather who own Christ for the only Head of the Church He tells us therefore as if he had found it in the Text There is but one visible Head even in Hell as there is one visible Head of the Church Triumphant in Heaven and therefore why not a visible Head on earth He might as well have ask'd Why not one
would make his Reader believe that Irenaeus understood this place as he doth when he speaks not one word of this matter in the place he mentions but only saith There is therefore an Altar in the Heavens for thither our Prayers and our Oblations are directed and to the Temple there as John in the Revelation saith and there was opened the Temple of God and the Tabâ—â—â—acle for behold saith he the Tabernacle of God in which he will dwell with men In which words he hath no respect to this place but to XI Rev. 19. and XXI 3. Once more take notice of the wretched performance of this man who took upon him to prove That Angels not only pray for us but know our thoughts and desires upon earth about which there is not the least touch in any one of these places which are all he quotes at large And as for those the Chapters and Verses of which follow they only tell us what Angels knew of the mind of God which they brought in messages to men but nothing of their knowing the minds of men Let the Reader if he think good peruse them and he will see I say true What heart then can one have to look into his Fathers when he deals thus insincerely with the Holy Scriptures But to show that nothing else can be expected from such men I will briefly note That St. Hilary expresly speaks of such a Ministerial Intercession as many Protestants grant that is of their bringing mens Prayers to God as he speaks Whose words are a gloss upon the Apostle's I. Heb. For they are ministring spirits sent forth for to minister to them who are heirs of salvation Whereupon follows the words he quotes Therefore the nature of God doth not need their intercession but our infirmity for they are sent forth for those who shall be heirs of salvation What can be plainer than that he speaks only of a Ministerial for they are sent forth to Minister not of a Powerful Intercession XXVIII That we may not Pray to them Answer HERE he speaks some Truth again and a great many of his own Church ingenuously confess That there is no command in Scripture nor so much as an example of Praying to them The Text they have most in their mouths who assert we may Pray to them is this which he first quotes XLVIII Gen. 16. XLVIII Gen. 16. But by this Angel a great number of the Fathers understand Christ himself St. Cyril for instance to whose Authority I told you they dare not always stand thus expounds it L. 3. Thesaur C. 1. And so doth Novatianus in his Book of the Trinity C. 15. St. Athanasius also against the Arians Orat. 4. And St. Chrysostome upon the place Hom. 66. in Gen. and divers others Therefore this is no sorry shift as this ignorant man presumes to call it having such very great Patrons to maintain it And what if St. Chrysostom in another place understands this of an Angel which attends not every man as this Writer pretends but every Believer as his words are expresly and St. Basil's it is no more than some Protestants do even Mr. Calvin himself is content with this Exposition in his Institutions tho in his Commentaries on Genesis he saith it is meant of Christ but they of the Church of Rome gain nothing at all from this concession For Jacob's words are no direct formal Invocation or Compellation of the Angel for he doth not say O Angel of God bless the lâ—ds but only an earnest desire that they might have the Angelical Protection for which he prays to God That he would send the Angel to preserve them as he had done him Tobit himself meant no more in the place which he next alledges V. Tob. 16. That God who dwells in Heaven would prosper their Journey by sending his Angel to keep them company For it is certain that the Jews never prayed to Angels and it is as certain that they constantly define Prayer by a direct and express relation to God and none else And therefore it is not to be thought that any good man among them ever joyned Prayer to God and an Angel together in the same breath as he makes Tobit do in this place No this is contrary to the sense of the greatest Divines in his own Church XII Hosea 4. Before he ventured to alledge the next place XII Hos 4. he should have been sure that the Prophet speaks of a Created Angel and not of the Son of God who in the Opinion of Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Hilary and many more Fathers appeared to Jacob and blessed him Whence it is that he called the place Peniel having there seen the face of God And to this sense the next verse inclines where he is called the Lord God of Hosts who found Jacob in Bethel Which the Fathers in the Council of Sirmium thought so certain that they denounce a Curse against those that maintain'd it was the unbegotten Father not the Son for God they concluded he was that wrestled with Jacob. But suppose it was an Angel the Hâ—brews are so far from thinking that Jacob mâ—de supplication to him that they conceive many of them the Angel made supplication to Jacob for he prayed him to let him go Take it otherwise it signifies no more but that he desired him to give him his blessing which we desire of men here upon Earth to whom we do not properly pray From hence he passes to satisfy Scruples which he saith some have who say they would pray to them if they could be assured that they hear us c. Who they are that say thus I know not they are none of us For we do not think it lawful to pray to them though they could hear us But how doth he prove that they can hear us Why he brings the common place XV. Luke 10. which saith there is joy in their presence that is in heaven as it is v. 7. over one sinner that repenteth Which shews they know when there is joy in Heaven and what that joy is for because they are in Heaven but it doth not prove they know all things that pass upon earth but only those things of which notice is given in Heaven At this rate we may prove that good men know all that is done on Earth because they rejoice at the Conversion of of a Sinner that is when they hear of it and the Angels rejoice no other ways They that like his Performances upon these Texts may look into the rest and see how to fill up the number he alledges the same over again XII Hos 4. and now also quotes XIX Gen. 18 c. to prove we may pray to Angels which in the foregoing Section he brought to prove that they pray for us Nay sends us to the Song of the three Children where I can find nothing of praying to the Angels no more than of praying to the Sun and Moon and Stars His quotation out
knows what 's done because he lays false accusations to the charge of good Christians So this Text signifies 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 Bâ—dlam What the light of glory as he calls it can make the Souls of the Blessed understand we cannot tell but they are not capable to understand all particulars as you heard before And therefore St. Austin * Cura pro Mâ—â—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. 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 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 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 XXXII That the Saints pray not for us 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 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 thâ—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
if he had it is to be supposed there was Wine as well as bread else it will prove it is lawful for their Church to consecrate as well as to give the Communion in one kind alone Nor are there any of the ancient Interpreters who thus expound it St. Austin and Theophylact only apply it allegorically and mystically to the Sacrament as Jansenius ingenuously acknowledges the vertue of which may be here insinuated as Theophylact phrases it not expresly declared to enlighten the eyes of men The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew is thus to be understood or else we must make St. Paul's breaking bread in the Ship among the Soldiers and Mariners Acts XXVIII to be giving the Sacrament for that Writer joins this together with the other The later Scholastick Writers all expound it of common breaking of bread such as Albertus Magnus Bonaventure Dionys Cathusianus nay Tho. Aquinas himself whatsoever this man is pleased to say as any one may be satisfied who can look into him in Tertull. Dist XXI Q. 55. It is more impudence to quote II. Act. 42. to prove one kind to be sufficient when all acknowledge this Action was performed in the Apostolical Assemblies by giving the Wine as well as the Bread Therefore breaking of bread is used as a short form of Speech to signify they had Communion one with another at the same holy Feast He durst not here quote so much as one single Father as hitherto he hath done every where else because they are all manifestly against him As not only Cassander and such as he acknowledge but Cardinal Bonel * Rer. Liturg l. 2. c. 18. himself saith that Always and every where from the beginning of the Church to the Twelfth Century the faithful communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine XLI That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice and that the Mass is not a Sacrifice Answer HE began to speak some truth in this Proposition but could not hold out till he came to the end Falshood is so natural to them that it will not let them declare the whole truth when that which they said already would directly lead them to it For having said we do not believe there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church why did he not conclude that we deny the Mass to be a proper Sacrifice This had been honest for it is the very thing we have constantly said because proper sacrificing is a destructive Act by which that which is offered to God is plainly destroyed That is so changed that it ceases to be what before it was This they themselves confess and it is from this principle among others that we conclude there is no proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament Malachy I. 11. It is manifest Mal. I. 17. from the current Consent of the Ancient Interpreters speaks of an improper Sacrifice viz. prayer and thanksgiving represented by the Incense So Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Chrysostome and divers others His reasoning upon this place therefore is very childish for the Offering here spoken of is neither Christ sacrificed on the Cross nor Christ in the Sacrament for he cannot be often sacrificed But if we will apply it to the Sacrament it is the Commemorative Sacrifice which is there made of the Sacrifice of Christ with the sacrifice of Prayer Praises Thangsgivings and the oblation of our selves Souls and Bodies to him Such a Sacrifice we acknowledge is offered in the Holy Communion The Psalmist in CX Psam 4. Psal CX 4. speaks of the Priesthood of Christ which endures for ever in Heaven not of any Sacrificing Priest here on Earth where he presents himself to God in the most holy place not made with hands Nothing can be more contrary to the Scripture than to say Melchisedeck sacrificed Bread and Wine unless we will make his offering them to Abraham unto whom he brought them forth as several of the Fathers consent to be a proper Sacrifice But what dare not such men say when he affirms that Christ exercises an eternal Priesthood upon Earth tho the Apostle expresly tells us the contrary VIII Heb. 4 Some of the Fathers indeed make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and that which Melchisedeck brought forth but this is against the Popish Notion who will not have Bread and Wine to be sacrificed in the Eucharist though the Fathers expresly say they are His Argument from XXII Luke 19. is very idle For when Christ saith This is my Body which is given for you the meaning is which I have offered to be a Sacrifice to God X. John 17. and am about actually to give in Sacrifice for you And so their own Vulgar Interpreter understood it and translates this word 1 Cor. XI 24. tradetur not which was then given but was to be given viz. to die And so he constantly interprets the other part not is shed but shall be shed And if he spake here in the next words XXII Luke 20. of what was given to the Apostles in the Sacrament it would prove that the Blood of Christ is shed in the Sacrament which is directy contrary to their own Doctrine which makes it an unbloody Sacrifice All the other Scriptures speak of the Priesthood of Christ which none can exercise but Christ himself See them who will he will find this true Not one of his Fathers have a word of a proper Sacrifice much less of a Propitiatory but of a reasonable unbloody mystical heavenly Sacristce which proves the contrary to what they would have As the Fathers do also when they say it is a Sacrifice and then immediately correct themselves in some such words as these or rather a Commemoration of a Sacrifice viz. of Christ on the Cross a Memorial instead of a Sacrifice And thus Aquinas himself understood it XLII That Sacramental Vnction is not to be used to the Sick Answer THERE are many things Sacramental which are not Sacraments and others called Sacraments by the Ancients which are not properly so as the Sign of the Cross the Bread given to Catechumens washing of the Saints Feet c. because they were Signs and Symbols of some sacred thing So was Vnction but not appointed by our Saviour to be a Sacrament of the New Testament This he should have proved if he could have perform'd any thing and that it confers grace from the work done or hath a power by Divine Institution to cause holiness and righteousness in us as the Roman Catechism defines a Sacrament But it was impossible and therefore he uses these dubious words Sacramental Vnction which we see no reason to use unless we could hope for such miraculous Cures as were performed therewith by the Apostles V. Jam. 4. His first Text V. Jam. 4. hath not a word of Sacrament or Sacramental in it and plainly speaks not of their Extream Vnction which is for the health of the Soul when a man is a
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 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 XLVII That there is no Purgatory fire or other Prison wherein Sins may be satisfied for after this life 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 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 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 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 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 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