which the Apostle delivered in this Epistle To which Theodoret adds the grace of the Holy Ghost which he received at his Ordination That is his Office committed unto him and all the Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on him to qualifie him for this Office He bids us see more in several other places of Scripture whose words he is not pleased to recite and therefore I shall pass them by Because if there had been any thing to be seen in them to his purpose he would have set them forth at large And there is as little to be seen in the Fathers whom he mentions to confirm his pretended Catholick Doctrine And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus and Tertullian without alledging their words But he adventures to set down some words out of Vincentius Lirinensis tho he doth not tell us where to find them We need not go far indeed to seek for them they being in the beginning of his Book where he that is able to read it may find a full confutation of the Romish Pretences For having said that the way to preserve our Faith found is first by the Authority of the Divine Law Secondly by the Tradition of the Catholick Church He raises this Objection which shows how much the first of these is above the other Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect and abundantly sufficient unto it self for all purposes mark this which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cause what need is there to joyn unto this the Authority of the Catholick Sense To which he answers that the Scriptures being a great depth are not understood by all in the same Sense But Novatian understands them one way Photinus another Sabellius Donatus Arrius c. another And therefore because of the windings and turnings of Error the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation should be directed according to the Rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense Thus he ends his Book as he begins it We have not recourse to Ecclesiastical Tradition because the Scripture is not sufficient to it self for all things but because of various Interpretations But then he immediately subjoins in the entrance of his Book what that Catholick Sense is Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where and always and by all Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide our selves and from which the Church of Rome hath departed For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron where he expresly owns this Rule p. 22. Edit Lond. 1612. And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himself which this Writer should have been so honest as to have confessed For in conclusion Cap. XXXIX he saith that the ancient Consent of Fathers is to be studiously sought and followed not in all the little Questions of the Divine Law or Scripture for alas there is no Consent but only or chiefly in the Rule of Faith That is in those Questions as he explains it Cap. XLI on which the Foundations of the whole Catholick Faith rely And further he observes That all Heresies cannot always be confuted this way but only those which are newly invented as soon as they arise before they have falsified the Rules of the Ancient Faith and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients by the spreading of their poison For inveterate Heresies and such as have spread themselves must not be impugned this way but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture or at least-wise by the Universal Councils of Catholick Priests wherein they have been convinced and condemned I have been the longer in this because he is a most worthy Witness as this man calls him by whom we are willing to be tried And so we are by Tertullian some of whose words he also at last adventures to alledge out of two Chapters of his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks But as he jumbles together words far distant one from another so he durst not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX which would have explained the reason why sometimes they disputed not with Hereticks out of the Scripture because that Heresy of which he there treats did not receive some Scripture and if it did receive some Cap. XVII it did not receive them intire but perverted them by additions and detractions as served its purpose c. In short they would not acknowledg these things that is the Scriptures by which they should bave been convinced To what purpose then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures No let them believe saith he Cap. XXIII without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scripture just as the present Romanists now do From whence it is that he calls Hereticks Lucifugae Scripturarum men that fly from the light of the Scriptures L. d. Resur Carn C. XLVII Insomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the same Book Cap. III. Take from Hereticks those things which they have learnt from the Heathen that they may state their questions out of the Scripture alone and they cannot stand Unto which Rule if the Papists will yield their Cause is gone Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture and we desire no more Unto which it is manifest Tertullian appeals in other places so plainly that there is no way to evade it particularly in his Book of the Flesh of Christ Cap. VI. Let them prove the Angels took Flesh from the Stars if they cannot prove it because it is not written then Christ's Flesh was not from thence c. And again in the same Chapter there is no evidence of this because the Scripture doth not say it And plainest of all in the next Chapter I do not receive what thou inferrest of thy own without Scripture Let these men blush if they can who thus shamelesly pervert all things to a wrong sense as they do these two words Rule and Form of Faith Which this man hath the Confidence to say is the knowledge of Tradition But how we should know any Tradition to be true which is not contained in the Scripture is the Question Especially since there have been so many false Traditions as is confess'd by all sides Besides it is so far from being true that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith or put it before the Scripture that Vincentius expresly puts the Divine Scripture in the first place as our Guide and then the Ecclesiastical sense as a means in some cases to find the sense of Scriptures Cap. XIII And Tertullian as expresly in that very Book which he quotes and in the Chapter preceding makes the Apostles Creed the Rule of Faith Which is all contained in the Scripture and needs the help of no Tradition but that to prove it But after all I must ask what 's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this
never a one of which there is any mention much less express mention of Tradition And in the last the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver are expresly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes XV. Acts 28. For it is said v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude and delivered the EPISTLE What an unlucky man is this to confute himself after this fashion As for his Fathers he durst not quote the words of any but two only St. Basil and St. Chrysostome The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil * De Spiritu Sancto c. 27. into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition which as it belongs not at all to his subject so it contradicts his sense in another place Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith where he saith It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance either to reject what is written or to add any thing that is not written But admit those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil's they are manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that sense wherein he takes them For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them For instance the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing the Consecration of him that is baptized standing in Prayer on the first day of the week and all the time between Easter and Whitsontide And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty such as Praying towards the East and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture Nay he proceeds so far as to say in the words following that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel or rather contract it into a bare Name A saying so senseless or rather impious that if these men had but a grain of common honesty they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world by such spurious stuff as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is As for St. Chrysostome it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church And unless they be confirmed by Scripture he contradicts himself in saying Traditions not written are worthy of belief For upon Psal 95. he saith expresly If any thing unwritten be spoken the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. understanding of the auditors halts and wavers sometimes inclining sometimes haesitating sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying and again receiving it as probable but when the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit Sav. written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth it confirms and establishes both the words of the speaker and the minds of the hearers V. Next he makes us affirm That a man by his own understanding or private spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture Answer THere is no such crude saying as this among us But that which we affirm is That a man may in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed rightly understand the Holy Scripture so far as is necessary for his Salvation Who should understand or judge for him but his own understanding we can no more understand than who should see for him but his own eyes if he have any and be not blind And what is there to be found in our Bibles expresly against this The first place is far from express for the gift of Prophecying doth not to every one expresly signifie the interpreting of Scripture 1 Cor. XII 8. it having manifestly another signification in some places viz. Inditing Hymns Besides if this place were pertinent forbidding all to interpret Scripture but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy their Church must not meddle with that work for they have not that Gift no more than those that follow discerning of Spirits divers kinds of Tongues c. His second place is as impertinent 2 Pet. 1.20 21. for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture but of the Prophetical Scripture it self Which was not of private interpretation that is the proper invention of them that Prophecied for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth not at the will and pleasure of man but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things or foretold future were acted by the Spirit of God and spake those things which were suggested by Him These are the words of Menochius which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this mans Glosses who babbles here about a company of men and those very holy who are to do he knows not what which private and prophane men cannot do As if all private men were prophane and all companies of men were holy The Lord help them who follow such Guides as these The third place 1 Joh. IV. 1. if it say any thing to this purpose is expresly against him For it is a direction to every Christian not to be of too hasty belief But to try the Spirits that is Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God Now how should Christians try or examine them but by using their own understandings to discern between pretended inspirations and true If they must let others judge for them they cross the Apostle's Doctrine for they do not try but trust To tell us that their Church is infallible and therefore ought to judg for us is a pretence that must also be tried above all things else and in which every man 's particular judgment must be satisfied or else he cannot with reason believe it And to believe it without reason is to be a fool Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits but lays down these two in the following words 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh he was a deceiver v. 2. And 2ly if any man rejected the Apostles and would not hear â—hem he was not to be received himself v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error This makes it plain the Apostle did not leave them then without means of judging aright as he hath not left us now who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church which cannot be tried by particular men is past my understanding and I believe he did not understand it himself but used it as a big phrase to amuse
Imprimatur Apr. 14. 1692. JO. CANT AN ANSWER To a BOOK Spread abroad by the Romish Priests INTITULED THE Touchstone OF THE Reformed Gospel WHEREIN The True DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND and many Texts of the HOLY SCRIPTURE are faithfully Explained By the Right Reverend Father in God SYMON Lord Bishop of ELY LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE READER I Must let the Reader understand that the Book which I answer first appeared in the latter end of the Reign of King James I. under the Name of A Gagg for the New Gospel When it was immediately so exposed to the Scorn of all Men by Mr. R. Mountague afterward Bishop of Chichester and at last of Norwich that for many Years it sculkt and durst not show its head till they imagined that Baffle was forgot and then out it came again in the Reign of King Charles II. as if it had never been seen before with this New Title The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospel And the better to disguise the Cheat they begin the Book with a New Chapter or Section and have quite left out that which was formerly the Last Chapter transposing also the order of some of the rest making Amendments as they imagine in several places and adding several whole Chapters For there were but XLVII Points one of which as I said they now have wholly omitted which they charged upon us and undertook to confute in the First Edition But now they are improved to Two and Fifty and set out as formerly with a long Preface of the very same Stamp with the Book full that is of broad-fac'd Vntruths Of which it may be expected I should here give some account But my Answer to the Book it self is grown so much bigger than I designed that it must be omitted For the great Reason which was urged by those who had power to persuade me to undertake a New Answer to it was because Bishop Mountagu's was so large that few could purchase it And therefore they thought it needful there should be a more Compendious Confutation of the Book though now it be inlarged especially since they found it in every Parish of this great City and in the very Prisons where the Romish-Priests could meet with any entertainment For which Reason the same Persons have persuaded me that what I composed at their desire in the latter end of the late Reign ought now to be published because the Priests of that Church they assure me are still very busie and make account this little Book which I answer will do their business For they put it into the hands of all those whom they hope to make their Proselites and desire them to read it as an unanswerable Piece Let the Reader judge of that when he hath seriously considered what I have said to discover both the weakness and the dishonesty of its Author Who understood neither the Scriptures nor Fathers he quotes or hath so perverted them that as it cost me more time so I have been forced to use more Words than I intended to employ to represent his unskilful or false dealing But I hope I shall neither tire the Reader nor entertain him unprofitably but increase his Knowledge by a right understanding of a considerable part of the Bible and of the Christian Doctrine Especially if he will be pleased to turn to the Texts of Scripture which I have explained but not quoted at length for fear of swelling this Answer into too great a Bulk Febr. 22. 1690. AN ANSWER TO THE TOUCHSTONE OF The Reformed Gospel I. The Protestants he saith affirm That there is not in the Church One and that an Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scriptures and conserving Vnity in matters of Faith Answer THIS Proposition is drawn up deceitfully For neither we maintain this nor they maintain the contrary universally and without limitation No Papist dare say there is one and that an Infallible Rule for understanding all the Holy Scripture For then why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible Why do their Doctors disagree in the interpretation of a thousand places He ought therefore to have said that we hold There is not in the Church one and that an infallible Rule for understanding as much as is necessary to Salvation c. And then he belies us For we believe the Scripture it self gives us infallible Directions for the understanding of its sense in all things necessary which if all would follow there would be Unity in matters of necessary belief But God will not force men to follow those Directions They may err and they may quarrel when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both The Scriptures therefore whereby he proves what he charges upon us must needs be impertinent But it is something strange that in the very first of them he should be so sensless as to give himself the lye For he pretends to refute our errors as his words are by the express words of our own Bibles and immediately puts in a word of his own instead of that in our Bibles which say quite another thing For instead of according to the proportion of faith which are the words of our Translation XII Rom. 6. He says according to the rule of faith What is this but that chopping and changing which he falsly charges us withall in the end of his Preface And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible which he promised to quote expresly but of the sense of that Scripture as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors particularly St. Chrysostom and his Followers XII Rom. 6. who by proportion understand the same with Measure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius one of their own Interpreters and a Jesuit secundum proportionem mensuram Fidei i. e. according to the measure of Vnderstanding and Wisdom which God hath bestowed Now what can you expect from a man who falsifies in this manner at the very first dash In the next Scripture indeed he finds the word Rule III. Philip. 16. III. Phil. 16. and presently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly c. Whereas it is manifest to all who are not blinded with Prejudice that the Apostle supposes in the words before v. 15. they were not all of a mind in some things for there were those among them that believed in Christ who thought the observation of Moses's Law to be necessary also to Salvation which was a dangerous error to mix Legal and Evangelical things together as Theodoret here expounds it but might possibly be cured if Christian Communion were not broken on either side by reason of this difference but every one both the perfect who understood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law and the imperfect who fancied it still lay upon them walked by the same rule c. that is preserved Christian Communion one with another
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
could not see the Church all Africk over it being at that time as plain as a Mountain or a lighted Candle as our Church now is at this day But his words do not imply that the Church shall always be so manifest and never hid Mountains themselves being sometimes hidden in a mist For he saith in other places The Church shall sometimes be obscured and the Cloud of Offences may shadow it Epist 48. It shall not appear by reason of the unmeasurable Rage of Vngodly Persecutors Epist 80. It is like the Moon and may be hid in XIX Psalm Yea so obscured that the Members of it may not know one another as he speaks in his sixth Book of Baptism against the Donatists C. 4. What St. Cyprian saith is not contrary to this V. We maintain he saith That the Church was not always to remain Catholick or Vniversal and that the Church of Rome is not such a Church Answer WE maintain the quite contrary to the first Part of his Proposition asserting that the Church is always to remain Catholick or Vniversal not confined to one Country as the Jewish was but spread all the World over The second Part indeed we do maintain That the Church of Rome is not such a Church that is which is the thing they contend for is not the Universal Church but hath its limits and was anciently bounded within certain Regions beyond which it did not extend The first Scripture he alledges against us is a promise to Christ which we believe hath been fulfilled in part II. Psalm 8. and will be more and more fulfilled before the end of the World but hath nothing in it peculiar to the Church of Rome which at the best is but a piece of his Inheritance The second speaks expresly not of the Vniversality of Christ's Kingdom I. Luke 33. but of its Perpetuity and is as much verified in other Churches as in the Roman which is so far from being the only Universal Church that in this sense it is not Universal at all The third is directly against him For it shows that the Faith of the Gospel unto which he now skips I. Colos 3 c. when he should have said the Church of which he was speaking was planted at Coloss which was never under the Jurisdiction of Rome and there fructified and grew as much as in other places Nor will the next place help him where St. Paul doth not call the Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans but only saith I. Rom. 8. their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world I. Rom. 8. that is the fame of it was spread all the world over as Menochius one of their own honestly interprets it For what was done at Rome could not be concealed from the rest of the World saith Theodoret because the Roman Emperors having their Palace there from whence all sort of Officers were sent and whither all People resorted who had any boon to beg by whom it was signified every where That the City of Rome had received the Faith of Christ Thus he which shows the Gospel was spread in the World before it came to the City of Rome it not coming from thence but from Jerusalem and not coming thither till many other places had received it who were not beholden to Rome for it With what face then against such a clear sense of the words could this Man say that St. Paul in express terms calls The Faith of the whole World the Faith of the Romans or the Church of Rome When the words rather import that he calls the Faith of the Romans the Faith received in the whole World But he saith neither the one nor the other tho if he had it would prove nothing but that there was one and the same Faith then at Rome which was in other places The truly Catholick Faith from whence Churches were named Catholick not from their extending all the World over which was impossible and Jerusalem and other Churches were as much so as Rome it self and were so before there was a Church at Rome In short a Catholick Church signified no more than an Orthodox Church It is a matter of serious Lamentation that men should go about to pervert such plain and easy Truths as this and should heap up Scriptures to prove mere Nonsence For all the Scriptures which he bids us further look into he saith are not to be understood That the whole World should be Catholick at one and the same time Let the Reader consider what it is for the whole World to be Catholick as he hath explained it but for the whole World to be the whole World And he will have an hard task to make Sense of the next words that the whole World being converted unto Christ at sundry times it shall comprehend a greater part of the World than any Sect of Hereticks shall ever do I thought the whole World would certainly comprehended the whole World and not only the greater part of the World It is impossible by such Jargon as this to understand the true Sense of being Catholick or Vniversal Which the Church is either with respect to Faith because there is the same Faith in all parts of the true Church or with respect to Place because no Country is excluded from it which will receive this Faith or with respect to Time because it continues throughout all Ages tho not always in such an extent as to be actually in all Nations For those Countries which were once Parts of the Catholick Church are not so now And if those that are now so should lose the Faith still the Church might be Catholick if others embraced it as Bellarmine * L. IV. De Ecclesâ— c. 7. himself confesses If only one Province should retain the true Faith the Church might truly and properly be called Catholick as long as it might be clearly shown that it was one and the same with that which had been at sometime or in divers throughout the World According to his former Method he carries us now to the Fathers and mâ—kâ—s them guilty of as much Nonsense as himself For he makes St. Cyprian confess that part is the whole But the comfort is he either did not understand or else misrepresents St. Cyprian who speaks not there of the Authority but of the Example of the Roman Church and especially of Cornelius their Bishop who remaining constant in time of Tryal made all his Brethren every where rejoyce particularly Cyprian himself who in that very place stiles Cornelius and others his Fellow-Priests or Bishops For what Priest saith he can chuse but rejoyce in the praises of his Fellow-Priests as if they were his own It is not to be expressed with what Joy and Exultation he heard of his Fortitude whereby he made himself a Captain and Leader of Confession unto the Brethren c. And then follows While there is among you i. e. Cornelius and his Brethren one Mind
in the bond of Peace For he speaks here saith Theodoret of concord and the Rule is the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine by which if we walk't it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this that they have broken all Communion by their Tyrannical impositions and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine VI. Gal. 16. The next place evidently speaks of the self-same thing that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith we are sure of the Divine Favour In short the Rule here spoken of is that of the New Creature mentioned in the foregoing words v. 15. But the 4th Text 2 Cor. X. 15. more fully shews this man to be a meer Trifler with words without their sense For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule or line of Faith as he dreams but only of the bounds and limits of those Countrys in which the Apostle had preach'd the Gospel as Menochius himself interprets it This he might have learnt if he had pleased by the very next words where the Apostle saith he did not boast in another man's line or rule of things made ready to his hand i. e. those Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles glorying as Menochius well glosses in other mens Labours as if they had been his own Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures by the Regions in which the Apostles preached An excellent proof that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture because St. Paul had his own Rule and others had their Rule that is not one and the same for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line i. e. in those places where others had done it already Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits when they write on this fashion Either they have no understanding of what they write or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers who understand nothing else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff 1 Cor. XI 16. From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians Chap. XI 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second could he have found the Word Rule there which was all he sought for not regarding the Sense But alas he could find only the Word Custome in that place which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule And what is this Rule as he will needs have it of which the Apostle is there speaking Is it about any matter of Faith No only about Womens praying bare-faced without a covering over them which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church So the same Menochius whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church because he saith in his Preface he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers And what Church doth St. Paul here mean only one Church or all that he had planted He himself answers We have no such custom nor other Churches of God neither therefore you not only cross us but the whole Church as Theophylact expounds the words And to the same effect Theodoret he shows that these things did not seem so to him only but to all the Churches of God Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this of all the Churches for any thing wherein we differ and see whether we will be contentious Tho' I must tell them that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times tho' never so many hundreds and the Authority of those few Pastors as this man calls them which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves infallible men and other Apostolical persons who were guided by their directions And now he comes to tell us by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture instead of telling us by what names the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called For the good man when he had gone thus far had forgotten what he was about The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no service For it is Rom. VI. 17. saith Theophylact to live aright and with an excellent Conversation Or that Form of Doctrine saith Menochius which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching Unto which is there opposed not disunion and disorder c. as this Scribler pretends but their serving sin But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alledges else he would not have had the impudence if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it to mention the next place of Scripture 2 Corinth X. 16. A thing made ready to hand 2 Cor. X. 16. He should have said things made ready if he would have stood to his promise of quoting express words of our Bible For so it is both in our Translation and in the Original and even in the Latin Translation it self By which is meant as the same Menochius judiciously observes Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit And so Theodoret he reproves those saith he who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers c. Let the Reader here again look about and see if he can spy a word about disunion discord disobedience c. in this place of which this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges 1 Tim. VI. 20. In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling and opposition of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust not the Churches trust as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text. And what is this depositum or trust but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel unto which he opposes the new Phrases and the new Doctrines which the School of Simon Magus had brought in as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret whose words are these They that had their Original from Simon were called Gnosticks as much as to say men endued with Knowledge For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent they said God had revealed to them This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge From whence I think it clearly follows that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures Which is the Doctrine he saith let the Romanists mind this which all that have the dignity of Priesthood ought carefully to keep and propose to themselves as a certain Rule and by this square all that they say all that they do In short Tertullian de Prescript C. 25. understands by the thing committed unto him that Doctrine
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
poor people withal Who may easily understand that St. John speaks of particular persons or of the Doctrines vented by certain persons who pretended to be inspired whom every particular Christian was bound to examine and try by this mark whether they contradicted what the Apostles taught which was sufficient if they did to discover them to be Impostors His Fathers he only names and therefor they signifie nothing to common Readers for whose sake I write this confutation of his folly Which makes him bring in Luther as saying the same that he doth that is giving him the lye who accuses Protestants of affirming that which the very chief of them according to him denies But whether Luther say as he makes him or in what sense I am not able to affirm for I cannot find the words VI. They affirm That St. Peter's Faith hath failed Answer THere needs no more to make him confess the truth of this than only to ask him whether St. Peter did not deny his Master which our Saviour supposes in the words immediately following those he quotes Luk. XXII 32. Luk. 22.32 When thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren He was therefore out of the way for a time which is all we mean when any of us say Peter's Faith hath failed Not finally but for that present He fell though he recovered himself So that this is an Equivocal Proposition Peter's Faith hath failed which is true and so is the contrary his faith hath not failed Both are true in different respects It did fail and that notoriously when he denied his Master over and over But it was more stedfast afterward even by his fall which our Saviour foreseeing prayed particularly for him that he might not utterly miscarry Which is no Prerogative as this man fancies it that Christ prayed principally for him but rather tended to his disparagement as denoting him to be weaker than the rest and indeed so much the weaker because in his own opinion he was the strongest The second Text Mat. 16.18 XVI Mat. 18. as he manages it is expresly to another purpose For he lays the weight of his Discourse it appears by the consequence he draws upon those words the gates of hell shall not prevail against What the Text saith expresly against it that is the Church not against thee that is Peter They that are wiser argue from the foregoing words Thou art Peter and upon this rock c. If this be to his purpose the faith of St. Peter must be the Rock upon which the Church is built which they do not love to hear of and if it be the Rock was thrown down and the gates of hell prevailed against it at the time before mention'd when he denied his Master Which made a great man * Dr. Jacks L. 3. c. 7. say Doubtless that Religion which hath no better ground of Infallibility than Peter 's faith which was not secured from a threefold denial of Christ was first planted by the spirit of error and Antichrist The third Text we had before in the second Chapter where I have answered his question XXIII Matth. 2 3 how Christ might command the people and his Disciples also to do whatsoever they that sat in Moses his chair bad them and yet those Doctors might err But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail he asserts the Scribes and Pharisees when they sat in Moses his Chair could not err which is to justifie their putting our Lord Christ to death Whither will not the folly of such men as this carry them who mind not when they overthrow the Christian Religion to establish their own conceits Nay this man doth not mind when he ruins even his own conceits For if the truth of Christian Religion hath been no better preserved by the Romanists in the Chair of St. Peter than the truth of the Jewish Religion was preserved by the Scribes and Pharisees in the Chair of Moses the Roman Church is certainly become Antichristian He hath pickt up a fourth Text which hath nothing in it of Peter XI Joh. 49 51. no more than the former but only tells us that the Jewish High Priest Prophecied XI Joh. 49 51. Yet this is an express Text forsooth to prove that Peter's faith could not fail It is not easie to have patience enough so much as to read such wretched nay wicked stuff as this Which still proves if it be to the purpose that the High Priest speaking forth of his Chair could not but determine truly and consequently gave a right judgment when he condemned Christ to be put to death For he sat in the same Chair when he passed sentence on Christ and when he thus Prophecied both were in a Council which was assembled on purpose to resolve what to do with him XI Joh. 47. XXVI Mat. 57. Here the good man is in great want of Fathers and contents himself because he cannot help it with Leo whose words he doth not rightly translate For Leo doth not say If the Head were invincible but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered Worsted it was for the present though not quite overcome For he lost the confession of Faith with his mouth saith Theophylact though he kept the Faith or the seeds of faith as he speaks in his heart But unless a man do confess with his mouth as well as believe in his heart he cannot be saved Both are necessary unless St. Paul cross St. Peter X. Rom. 9 10. But what is all this to the purpose suppose St. Peter's faith did not fail what then Must we conclude from thence the Pope's faith cannot fail Stay there One of his own Communion a great man * Launoy Part V. Epist ad Jac. Bevillaq indeed hath shown that there being four Interpretations of this place XXII Luk. 32. the greatest number of Ecclesiastical Writers he reckons up XLIV and among the rest this Pope Leo expound it of the Faith of Peter alone which Christ prayed might not be lost in that time of Temptation which was a coming But next to this they are most numerous who think Christ prayed for the Vniversal Church that it may never fail in the faith In which number is Thomas Aquinas one of their Saints who expresly proves from this place that the Universal Church cannot err because he who was always heard by God said to Peter upon whose confession the Church is founded I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Where it is evident he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter separately from the rest of the Church but for the whole Church whose person Peter sustained as St. Austin is wont to speak Or as Gregory the Great 's words are of which Church he was the first Member But this belongs to the next Head where he saith we affirm VII That the Church can err and hath erred WHich is true in one sense though not true in another For if by Church be meant the
Universal Church and by erring be meant departing from the Truth in matters of necessary belief then we say the Church though it may mistake in matters of lesser moment yet cannot thus err because Christ will always have a Church upon Earth which cannot be without the belief of all things necessary to make it a Church But if by Church be meant the Church of Rome or any other particular Church we say it may err even in matters of necessary belief as St. Paul plainly supposes in his caution he gives the Romans XI Rom. 20 21. and thus many Churches have erred and faln from Christianity Now what hath he to say out of our Bibles which is expresly contrary to this First he alledges a place out of the Prophet Isaiah LIX Isa 21. LIX Chap. 21. where there is not one express word either of the Church or of it s not erring but only of what God will do for those who turn from transgression in Jacob as the words before going are upon whom we may suppose he Covenants and engages to bestow his Spirit c. Now before the Church of Rome whom this man here intends can apply this Text to themselves they must prove that they are the people who turn from transgression in Jacob which will be a very difficult task And when that 's done this Text may prove to be a command rather than a promise that it is their duty having God's Spirit who by faith and charity is diffused in the whole Church that is in the hearts of the faithful as Menochius here glosses and his words that is saith he his precepts they should keep them faithfully and not suffer them to depart out of their own mouth and their own heart as he goes on or out of the mouth and heart of their Children It is a most wretched inference for after all his brags of express Texts he is fain to come to that at last which this man draws from hence therefore the Church cannot err He might with respect to the sense have said more colourably therefore the Church cannot sin The folly of which every one sees men being too negligent on their part when God hath done his The next place is less to the purpose for it is a peculiar promise as appears by the whole context unto the Apostles of Christ XIV Joh. 16. In whose hearts he promises the Holy Ghost shall inhabit as Menochius expounds it performing the Office of a Comforter and of an Instructer And this for ever not for so short a time as Christ stayed on Earth with them but all the days of their life But let us extend this promise to their Successors they can never prove the Apostles have no Successor but only at Rome To which this promise can by no inferences be confined but must extend to the whole Church of Christ with whom he is still present by his Spirit to preserve them in the way of truth if they will be led by it In the nex place XVIII Mat. 17. he is at his C llâ—ctions again instead of express words for his Talent is meer bragging XVIII Matth. 17. without any performance But how doth he gather from this Text that the Church cannot err Why that he leaves to his Reader telling him only it may be clearly gathered but he for his part did not know how though it may be others do Let them try who have a mind I can find nothing in this place which concerns matters of faith and he himself seems to be sensible of it when he saith the Church cannot err in her Censure But what Church is this and what Censure It belongs to every Church to censure him that wrongs his Brother after he hath been admonished of the injury he hath done first in private and then before two or three Witnesses This being done where should he be proceeded against but in the Church where he lives Unto which if he will not submit but continue obstinately his injurious actions he is justly to be lookt upon as no Christian No man that is unprejudiced can read this Text with all its circumstances and not take this to be the sense of the words And then if they prove the Church cannot err we shall have as many infallible Tribunals as there are Churches XXXV Is 8. That which follows XXXV Isa 8. speaks of not erring but says nothing of the Church unless he make the Church to be fools who the Prophet saith shall not err How much wiser would this man have been if he had but consulted some such Author as Menochius Who observing that the Prophet saith v. 4. God will come he will and save you i. e. God incarnate as he expounds it by the way here mentioned v. 8. understands that narrow way which he taught leading by holiness of manners and life to the holy place i. e. to Heaven And upon the last words fools shall not err therein gives us this good Protestant Gloss for even the simple and unskilful might easily learn those things which are necessary to salvation The way is plain in these matters and none need err about them unless they will And I wish it was not a wilful error in this man to say that we affirm the whole Church and all holy men that ever have been therein for these 1000 years have erred There cannot be a greater calumny for we believe the whole Church cannot stray from the way that leads to Heaven though some particular Churches may There is nothing contrary to this in V. Ephes 27. V. Ephes 27. Which if it prove any thing of this nature proves the Church is so perfectly pure that it hath no sin in it But I doubt we must stay for this happiness till the other world when the Church will indeed be made a Glorious Church I have noted as he desires the words without spot wrinkle or any blemish and yet I think it possible that some Church or other hath taught horrible Blasphemies and Abominations For St. John in the Revelation tells us it is not only possible but certain XVII Rev. 3 4. And there are we think very evident proofs that the present Roman Church of which he is so fond and always hath in his mind when he speaks of the Church is described by St. John in that place We have seen so little in these Texts that I cannot find in my heart to look into the rest several of which we have had already as XXII Luk. 32. XXIII Mat. 3. XVII Deut. 8. XV. Act. 28. And he seems to have intended nothing but meerly to make a show of more strength than he had which made him thrust in among the rest V. Ephes 27. which I have just now examined His Fathers also are only Names without their sense and so let them pass Next he saith we affirm VII That the Church hath been hidden and invisible HE still goes on in his ambiguous way of stating our
who lived in the Eighth Century and yet is set before Theodoret who lived in the Fifth and St. Chrysostome who lived in the Fourth nay and before his Ignatius who lived in the time of the Apostles whose words import no more but that all must obey their Bishop as their Pastor which agrees well enough with the Bishop's obeying the Emperor as his Prince What John Damascen says I cannot find nor is there any thing of that nature in the place he quotes out of Theodoret. But Valens was an Arian who commanded things contrary to the Christian Religion and so was not to be obeyed It is mere tittle-tatle about St. Chrysostom's calling the Bishop a Prince as well as a King for a greater than he Constantine the Great in like manner calls himself a Bishop as to all External Government XIII That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man and that the Pope is Antichrist Answer THIS Proposition hath two Parts neither of which are the setled Doctrine of our Church or of any other Protestants but the Common Opinion of all some few excepted Especially the first Part That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man but a Succession of Men which may be evidently proved from the Confession of the ablest Men in the Roman Church For it is the Opinion of almost all their Interpreters that the last Head mentioned by St. John XVII Rev. 11. and called after a signal manner by the Name of THE BEAST is no other than Antichrist Now all the forgoing Heads do not signify so many single Persons only but all Expositors saith their Ribera * In XVII Revel have understood that in every one of those Heads there are a great many comprehended And never hath any man but Victorinus taken them only for Seven single Persons whose Opinion ALL do deservedly gainsay To the very same purpose also Alcasar another famous Roman Expositor writes upon the same place And let this man or any one else tell me if they can why the last Head i. e. Antichrist as he is commonly called should not comprehend a Succession of single Persons of the same sort as it is is manifest the Beasts in Daniel signify The Ram for instance doth not signify Darius only but the Ruling Power of Persia during that Kingdom And the He-goat not Alexander alone but him and his Successors VIII Daniel 4 5. Now from this ground it may be plainly proved which is the Second thing that the Ruling Power at this time in the Roman Church is The Beast that is Antichrist For the Beast and Babylon are all one in this Vision and by Babylon is certainly meant Rome as their great Cardinal Bellarmine and Baronius the best of their Authors not only confess but contend And not Rome Pagan but Rome Christian because she is called the Great Whore XVII Rev. 1. which always signifies a People apostatized from true Religion to Idolatry and because it is the same Babylon which St. John saith must be burnt with fire Ver. 16. XVIII 18. From whence Malvenda another of their Authors confesses it probable that Rome Christian will be an Idolatrous Harlot in the time of Antichrist because it is to be laid desolate it is manifest for some Crime against the Church of Christ Now that this Antichristian Power ruling in that Church is not to be adjourned to the end of the World as they would fain have it but is at this present appears from hence that the Sixth HEAD being that Power which reigned when St. John saw this Vision XVII Rev. 10. there was but one Ruling Power more and that to continue but a short space to come between the end of the Sixth HEAD and this last HEAD or Power called in an eminent sense THE BEAST v. 11. Now that Imperial Power which reigned at Rome in time of St. John it is evident ended at the fall of the Western Empire with Augustulus when another setled Authority was received by the City of Rome it self instead of that former Imperial Government Which new Authority lasting but a short space as the Vision tells us it is plain THE BEAST that is Antichrist is long ago in the Throne of the Roman Church Let this Man and all his Friends try if they can answer this Argument and see how they will free the Papacy from being that Antichristian Power which St. John foretold should arise and make it self drunk with the Blood of the Saints I am sure this is a stronger and clearer Explication of that Scripture than any he hath attempted And now let us examine whether there be any thing in our Bible contrary to this The first place he produces 2 Thess II. 3 2 Thess II. 3. c. most evidently overthrows both parts of his Proposition as I shall demonstrate For the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition v. 3. is no more to be restrained to a single Person than he who now letteth v. 7. is to be restrained to a single Emperor Now St. Chrysostome in plain terms saith that the Apostle by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. that which withholdeth this Man of Sin from appearing was the Roman Empire And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7 he who now letteth the very same Roman Power that is the Roman Emperors not one particular Emperor but the whole Succession of them who as long as they lasted would keep back the Man of Sin And this is not only his Sense in his Comment upon the place but the general Sense of the Ancient Fathers Tertullian Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem St. Ambrose St. Hierom and St. Austin and a great number of School-men in the Roman Church that upon the fall of the Roman Empire Antichrist shall come Which may satisfy any unprejudiced Man both that Antichrist is come and that he is not a particular Man but a Succession of Men who altogether make up one Person called the Man of Sin who can be none else but the Papacy For what particular Man is there to whom this can be applied after the fall of the Empire His next place of Scripture as he quotes it is neither out of our Bible XIII Rev 18. nor out of theirs so little is his honesty For thus the words run in both Let him that hath understanding count the number not of a Man as he falsly translates it but of the Beast for it is the number of a Man Now I have proved the Beast doth not signify a particular Man and therefore this Number whatsoever it is ought not to be sought only in one Man's name Which is not the meaning of the Number of a Man as this Man would have it but signifies as a better Interpreter than he viz. Arethas out of Andreas Caesariensis A number or counting usual and well known to Men. And if we will believe Irenaeus who in all probability was not the Inventor of it but had it from the foregoing Doctors of the Church it is to be
performs 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 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 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. 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 XVIII That no Man can do Works of Supererogation 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 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 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
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
of him when she stooped to touch the hem of his Garment His Fathers help him not at all For Eusebius only saith the Chair of St. James first Bishop of Jerusalem was preserved but not a word of its having any vertue in it or of its being kept to be worshipped as they now do Relicks Athanasius * In Vita S. Anton. speaks of an old Cloak and another Garment which St. Anthony desired might be given to him who had bestow'd it on him new when he died as we are wont to bequeath something or other in remembrance of us But that he laid it up and delivered it to posterity as a sacred Relick we are yet to learn And how far he was from desiring to have his Garments preserved as Relicks appears from the Charge he gives in the same place about his own Body which he would not have them carry into Egypt lest it should be reserved in some of their Houses * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mind this but bury it in some unknown place And so they did none knowing where they interred it but only two Servants to whom that care was committed His Friends indeed he saith kept those Garments as some great thing but mark what follows as the Reason For he that saw them thought be saw Anthony and he that wore them was as if he carried about with him joyfully his Precepts They were not laid up then as Relicks but used still as Garments which put them in mind of him and of his words St. Basil doth speak of wonderful things at the touch of the Bones of a Martyr whom God was pleased to honour at that time to convince Unbelievers of the truth of that Religion which Martyrs sealed with their Blood But there is no reason to expect such things now nor have their Bones been preserved to this Age. Saint Chrysostom's words are falsly alledged by Bellarmin from whom this man hath all these Fathers when he makes him say Let us visit them often let us adore their Tombs when in truth the very Latin Interpreter hath it let us adorn their Tombs and this not according to the Greek where it is let us touch their Coffin St. Ambrose his honouring the Ashes of Martyrs is nothing to the worshipping of them If we knew of any true Relicks of their Bodies we should not fail to honour them And we think the greatest honour would be to give them a decent burial XXXVI That creatures cannot be sanctified or made more holy than they are already of their own nature Answer NO not so much as to make them become Sacramental things which have a power in them to purge away venial sins cure diseases drive away devils preserve from all dangers and produce other such-like supernatural effects which they ascribe to Holy Water and many other blessed things But that creatures may be set apart to holy uses we own by our practice and withal acknowledg That by Prayer and Thanksgiving to God they may be blessed to us in the use of them more than otherwise they would be It is only the forementioned Sanctification of them which we believe to be superstitious and magical for we can find nothing in God's Word to warrant such consecrations of creatures to those supernatural effects St. Paul in 1 Tim. IV. 4. 1 Tim. IV. 4. speaks only of a general sanctification of the things we eat and drink which may be performed by any good Christian not of such a special one as this man intends made by the Bishop For doth any creature that we receive tho sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer cure diseases lay storms and tempests preserve from Thunder and Lightning and such-like mischiefs The Apostle plainly disputes against those who condemned the use of certain meats as not only the Jews but the Followers of Simon Magus Ebion and others did which he proves from the words of Moses as Theodoret observes are all good in their kind And if they be received with Thanksgiving in remembrance of God who hath made these things and by his Word given us allowance to eat them they become more than good saith the same Theodoret being sanctified by that holy action which makes the use of them well-pleasing to God That 's the most that can be meant by Sanctified And so Emanuel Sa one of his own Interpreters expounds it It is sanct fiâ—d that is made fit for food Which Claud. Guillandus like a man of learning thus further explains It is sanctified by the word of God ' by which we believe that nothing is any longer common or unclean and by Prayer whereby we request that such things may be given us and for which being given we return thanks to God But the Popish Sanctification of Creatures supposes that they are not only unclean but that the Devil is in them or that they are under his power the very opinion of the old Hereticks which is the reason of their Exorcisms that they may cast the Devil out of them Whereas should we grant they are any way unclean as Theophylact and Menochius think the Apostle speaks by way of Concession it is quite taken away and purged that 's all they understand by Sanctification if we take this to be the sense by God's word which allows the use of them and by Prayer and Benediction when we sit down to eat our meat We need not be told That in ancient time they sent sometimes part of the Consecrated Bread unto their neighbours in token of mutual love and fellowship in the same Faith But this was forbidden by the Council of Laodicea and when afterwards they sent only Bread Blessed not Consecrated unto those who were not yet baptized but in the number of Learners under instruction that had the like meaning to put them in hope they should at last be taken into Church Communion But what is this to the Blessing of Water and Oyl and Wax c. for such purposes as Agnus Dei's are Consecrated in the Roman Church Which may be seen in several of our Authors out of the Ceremoniale His Texts out of XXIII Matth. 17 19. prove no such Sanctification either of the Altar or Gift but only the separation of them from profane uses which doth not amount to the making them powerful against sin the Devil and all manner of evil He bids us see more in 2 Kings II. where we find Elisha cast salt in the waters and thereby made them wholsome to drink but did not infuse into them such a vertue as they pretend to give to the water mixed with salt which the Priest exorcises in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Crosses at the name of every one of them that it may become an exorcised water to drive away all the power of the enemy and to root out the Enemy himself with all his apostate Angels as their Church speaks in the Office for this purpose Why he mentions Raphel's using the Liver
of Confirmation is not to be used 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 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 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 Authors * Salmero 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 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 Vnction 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 Vnless 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 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 XXXIX That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord was but a Figure or Remembrance of the Body of Christ received by Faith and not his true and very Body 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 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
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