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
to the Master that Priests bind and loose because they declare Men to be hound and loosed In short the Doctrine of the Church is that God absolves by his Ministers who cannot see into mens hearts and therefore can only pronounce that he absolves them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost upon supposal of their unfeigned Repentance But it is apparent the Church always believed it is God who properly absolves and forgives Sins not the Priest For all the Ancient Rituals show that the Absolution was given by Prayer to God for the Penitent there being no other Form of Absolution in them but Prayers which being made in behalf of the Penitent they believed did obtain from God the pardon of those Sins which he had with all humility publickly confessed And therefore the present form I absolve thee which was never used but in the Latin Church and not there neither till the middle of the XIIIth Century must be understood to be only a very solemn declaration That God forgives the person upon his sincere Contrition and Repentance This is the meaning of our Saviour XX. John 21. XX. John 21. when he made the Apostles his Delegates saying As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Which supposes a sâ—perior Power to theirs in whose Name they acted only as Ministers And therefore when he adds in the next words Ibid. v. 22 23. v. 22 23. Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Menochius expounds it thus That though the Holy Ghost was not given till the day of Pentceost yet on the first day of the Resurrection they received the Grace of it by which they might remit sins and baptize and make children of God and give the Spirit of Adoption to them that believed c. Now let any man tell me whether it were they that for instance gave the Spirit of Adoption or God himself they that healed and wrought Miracles as they did after the day of Pentecost or God by their Ministry In like manner it was not they who conferred Forgiveness of Sins but God properly bestowed it as he did the other Blessings they only serving as Ministers by whom he conveyed it to the Penitent In the next place of Scripture he makes bold to add words which are neither in our Bible nor theirs IX Matth. 8. When the multitude saw it i. e. the man take up his bed and walk they marvelled and glorified God which had given such power unto men he adds as to forgive sins Whereas the Evangelist speaks of the power of healing a sick man which they saw plainly and which our Saviour alledges as an Argument that he could forgive sins which the multitude could see no other way but in this miraculous demonstration of it But suppose the multitude had admired at his Power to forgive sins will it follow that any body else hath that Power which Christ had No Christ could as man forgive sins yet not as any sort of man saith Menochius * Non ut qualiscunque homo sed ut homo Deus himself but as God-man which no Priest whatsoever is He bids us after his usual form see more in several Texts which he sets down without the words and we are very willing to obey him if there were any thing to be seen to this purpose But the two first of them are only a promise of what our Saviour afterward bestowed and we have heard what that was from XX. John 23. The two next speak not of forgiving sins nor merely of retaining them but of delivering men up to Satan which no body now can do 2 Cor. II. 10. The next 2 Cor. II. 10. proves too much if it prove any thing to this purpose for it speaks of the whole Church giving Pardon to an Offender viz. by receiving him again by the Apostles order into their Communion V. 19. The next 2 Cor. V. 19. relates to the Apostles reconciling men by preaching the Word of God as Menochius expounds it or if by Word of Reconciliation we understand saith he the thing that is Reconciliation it self then the Apostle speaks of the whole Power and Ministry of reconciling men to God The last place out of V. Numb 6. is as impertinent as the quotations that follow out of the Fathers which they have a little mended since Bishop Mountague lash'd this Author severely for his childish and careless Transcriptions of them out of Father Bellarmine You may judge of them all by the last save one which was the first heretofore out of Irenaeus L. V. c. 13. who proving that we have a Specimen of the Resurrection in those whom Christ raised from the dead instances in Lazarus unto whom he said come forth and the dead man came forth bound hand and foot c. A Symbol saith he or Type of that man who is tyed and bound in sins and with respect to this the Lord said Loose him and let him go But what good would their loosing him have done if Christ had not first raised him from the dead unto whose power not theirs all that followed is to be ascribed And to whom did Christ speak when he bad them loose Lazarus but to the Jews who were present As Maldonate one of their own good Writers expounds it and saith It is the opinion of all good Authors except Austin Gregory and Bede and adds That to found the Doctrine of Confession or Absolution upon this place is no better than to build upon sand But if it be supposed that he here speaks to his Apostles and bids them loose him still it can figure no more but a declaration of Pardon of Sins granted already by the Mercy of the Almighty What St. Austin therefore saith in the place which this man mentions first is to no purpose for it is the very same with this of Irenaeus For having said in the beginning of that Tractate * Tract XLIX in John that the works of our Lord were not only facta but signa and showed how the three persons raised by him from the dead signifie the raising up three degrees of sinners out of their sins When he comes to this passage in the story of Lazarus's Resurrection Loose him and let him go he saith What is loose him c. but what ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And let it be so that our Lord's words fitly represent this yet still it was God that properly loosed men from their sins the Apostles were but Ministers in this business who declared what God had granted As God raised up Lazarus from the dead they only untied him after he had really made him alive and raised him out of his Grave All the rest out of the Fathers is no better than this and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it but pass to the next Where he makes us say XV. That we ought not to confess
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
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 the Fish to drive away the Devil and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul I cannot devise for I never read nor he neither that they were sanctified any way None of his Fathers tho half of them are young ones in comparison ascribe any supernatural vertue to such things and therefore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness XXXVII That children may be saved by their Parents Faith without the Sacrament of Baptism Answer NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine For we teach That there is no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without Baptism Insomuch that by an express Canon LXIX every Minister is to be suspended for three months who suffers any Infant in his Parish to dye without Baptism being informed of its weakness and danger of death and desired to come and baptize the same And is not to be restored till he acknowledg his fault and promise before his Ordinary that he will not wittingly incur the like again But we do not tye God to those means to the use of which he hath tyed us and therefore do believe that by his infinite Grace and Mercy those Infants may be saved who without their own fault dye unbaptized And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church as appears from Socrates * L. V. Hist c. 22. who says In Thessaly they baptized only at Easter by which means many dyed unbaptized and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places to baptize only twice a year which custom he saith hath been changed because a great many departed without Baptism But still this is an evidence they did not think it absolutely necessary nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church such as Gabriel Biel Card. Cajetan and many others I could name condemn children to Hell who dye unbaptized but being the children of Faithful Parents look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace and capable of eternal life For which they give these reasons Frst The infinite Mercy of God who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained And secondly The like case under the Old Testament when Circumcision answered to our Baptism as this man acknowledges and the children dying unbaptized were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents So S. Bernard Epist 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather That even this notion of childrens being saved by their parents Faith without Baptism is no more our opinion than it is theirs Some say so among us and so do some among them Matters therefore being thus stated all his Texts are already answered We say the very same our Saviour doth III. Joh. 5. III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray That God will grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have c. But tho this be the ordinary way we dare not say it is the only God's Grace many of themselves acknowledge supplies the want of Baptism in extraordinary cases Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Austin for it who was very rigid in this point that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is sufficient without the visible Sacrament when not by contempt of Religion but by mere necessity they are deprived of Baptism And thus Peter Lombard * L. IV. Distin 4. c. 2. understands this Text it is to be understood of those who can be baptized and contemn it III. Tit. 5. proves no more but that Baptism is the ordinary way and ought not to be neglected where it can be had From XVI Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily That children must be Baptized or not Saved XVI Mark 16. because they cannot believe which is to make Baptism more necessary than Belief Whereas they cannot be baptized but upon a supposition of belief as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent * Sess VII Can. 14. Children wanting Faith in the first act are baptized in the Faith of the Church And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is that as our Lord saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved so he would have said had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned But he only saith He that believeth not shall be damned which makes Faith only absolutely necessary And I showed before there are those in his own Church who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose And thus the most learned of the Fathers expound those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. 1 Cor. VII 14. particularly Theodoret The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife by the husband that is saith he hath hope of Salvation but if either he or she continue in this disease their seed shall partake of Salvation Which is but reason for if the unbelieving husband suppose should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized who can think this child so dying perished His last Text XVII Gen. 14. XVII Gen. 14. proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism where they could be had as was shewn before For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness V. Josh 5. But who will say that all they who were born and died within that time which was forty years went without remedy to Hell His Fathers which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine are not worth examining because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism as St. Austin Epist 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easie to be understood for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption and our souls by the spirit And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism as the Papists themselves will not abide by but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion which must admit of some exception And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers as they call them particularly St. Bernard who disputes against it at large in the Epistle before-mentioned As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received That children of two or three days old were not to be baptized but they were to stay till the eighth day as in Circumcision But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism but that none should be denied it tho newly born who the rather should be received because not their own sins but anothers was there remitted to them XXXVIII That the Sacrament