THE People's Right To Read the Holy Scripture ASSERTED. In ANSWER to the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Chapters, of the Second Part of the POPISH REPRESENTER.  
LONDON; Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXVII.   

IMPRIMATUR,  
Hen. Maurice, Rmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscop. Cant. a Sacris. Maii 27. 1687.   

The Contents.  
Four Things proposed to be treated of.  


I. WHAT the Practice of the Church of Rome in this this Matter is.  
II. That this Practice is plainly contrary to the Will of God, to the Reason of the Thing, and to the Practice of the Christian Church, for more than a thousand Years after Christ.  
III. The Insufficiency of those Reasons, by which the Representer endeavours to justify it.  
iv The Truth of those Inferences the Protestants draw from it. Page 1, 2.    

CHAP. I. 
THE Practice of the Church of Rome in this Matter represented, Pag. 2, etc.   
CHAP. II. 
THE Contrariety of this Practice to the Will of God, to Reason, and to the Practice of the Christian Church for more than a thousand Years, Pag. 8, etc. 

SECT. I. It's contrariety to the Will of God, appears, in that God, 

1. Caused the Scriptures to be written in a Language understood by the Vulgar, Pag. 9  
2. Addressed them to the Vulgar, Pag. 11.  
3. Commanded the Vulgar to converse familiarly with them, Pag. 12.    
SECT. II. It's contrariety to Reason showed both from the Scope and End of the Scriptures, and from the Testimonies of many Learned Men of the Church of Rome, Pag. 14  
SECT. III. 

It's contrariety to the Practice of the Christian Church, proved by unquestionable Testimonies, for twelve hundred Years downward, p. 17, etc.  
When and upon what occasion, a Restraint was first laid upon the reading of the Scriptures, p. 26      CHAP. III. 
THE Reasons the Representer offers to justify this Practice of the Church of Rome, Pag. 27 

SECT. I. The general Reason (viz. the Mischiefs that arise from the promiscuous reading of the Scripture) considered, and the absurdity of it exposed, p. 28, etc.  
SECT. II. The Mischiefs objected are all of the same kind. p. 33In particular these three; 

1. The Divisions that are among Christians.  
2. As many different Bibles as there are different Heads.  
3. Not only several Persons, but the same Person many times hath different Bibles.   

I. That the Divisions among Christians arise solely or principally from the reading of the Bible by the Vulgar. 1. It is notoriously false. 2. In case it were true, it would not be of force to infer his Conclusion. p. 36 It is notoriously false. In that, 

1. There were Divisions among the ancient Guides of the Church. ibid.  
2. There have been, and still are, Divisions, yea, as many among the Learned of the Church of Rome, as among the Protestants. p. 37  
The Learned Romanists are divided among themselves, in all those Points in which they are divided from Protestants. ibid.  
4. Those very pernicious Doctrines and Practices, which the Representer himself mentions, are derived from the Learned; especially from the Learned of the Church of Rome. p. 39  
5. The Divisions among the Vulgar, for the most part are not owing to themselves, but to the Learned. 41   If it were true, that the Divisions among Christians arise from the reading of the Bible by the Vulgar; yet it would not be sufficient Reason for denying the Bible to them. p. 42  
II. The second Mischief, viz. If the Bible be allowed the Vulgar, there will be as many different Bibles among them as there are Heads. p. 43 That every difference in Sense, makes not a different Bible, p. 44 The vanity of this Reason appears, in that, 

1. It is of equal force against the reading of the Scripture by the Learned, yea of much greater. p. 45  
2. Where the Vulgar are not permitted to read the Bible, there are as many different Bibles (in the Representer's Sense) as where they are, p. 46  
3. The Argument retorted. p. 47    
III. The third Mischief may also be objected with as much Reason, against the reading of the Scripture by the Learned; particularly, by the Roman Bishops, Cardinals and Popes. p. 48    
SECT. III. The Reasons the Representer gives, why the Vulgar so differ in the sense of Scripture, are two, viz. The Obscurity of the Scripture, and the setting up every Man's private Reason to be judge of it. p. 50 

1. The Obscurity of the Scriptures. ibid. What the Protestants affirm of the plainness of the Scripture, is no more than what the Ancient Fathers, what the Bishop of Rome formerly, and what many Learned Romanists of this present Age have affirmed. p. 51 That the Disagreement about the sense of Scripture, proceeds not from the obscurity of it. p. 52 From whence this Disagreement proceeds. p. 53  
2. The setting up every Man's private Reason to be judge of Scripture, p. 54 The Protestants make not Reason judge of Scripture, as the Socinians do, ibid. They make Reason no otherwise Judge, than as our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles have allowed & commanded. p. 55 The Clergy of the Church of Rome, notwithstanding their loud Cry against private Reason, make it Judge as much as Protestants. p. 56 His Argument from the Oneness of the Christian Faith, answered and retorted. p. 57, 58, etc. His other Arguments from the Authority of the Church, the Creed, Heb. 13. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Mat. 18. 17. answered. p. 61, 62, etc.      CHAP. IU. 
THE false Constructions, or wrong Inferences (as the Representer calls them) which the Protestants make from this Practice, are three; 

1. That the Vulgar Papists are deprived of the Word of God.  
2. That they take up all their Belief upon trust.  
3. That the Reason why they are not permitted to read the Bible, is for fear lest they should discover the Errors of their Religion. p. 65▪   

SECT. I. The first Protestant Inference justified; and the Representer's Reasons to the contrary, showed to be idle and insignificant. p. 65, 66, 67, &c  
SECT. II. That the Vulgar Papist takes all his Belief upon trust. p. 7● This showed in each of those Heads mentioned by the Representer. And the absurdity of his Reasons to the contrary ma● manifest. p. 71, 72, 7●  
SECT. III. The third Inference vindicated, and his two Reasons ● it showed to be of no force. p. ●● No thanks to them that the Bible is not denied the Learned. p. ●● That it is the Bible itself they look upon as mischievous. p. ●● Some Learned Men not so well qualified to discover their ●●rors as some of the Vulgar. p. ●● Many of their Learned Men have discovered their Errors. p. ●● Why more liberty is given to their Vulgar here in Engla●● than in other Countries. p. ●● That the Vulgar here in England have discovered their Err●● p▪ ●●       

The People's Right to read the Holy Scripture asserted.  
THough it is as evident, as that the Scripture is in Print, that the free Use of it, is by the Roman Clergy denied to the Vulgar; yet when they are charged with it by Protestants, they either take the confidence plainly to deny it; or if they own the Charge (as the Representer doth) they endeavour to put such glosses upon it, as to make their denial of the Scripture, to be in effect, but a better way of granting it: For since it is not the words of the Bible, but the sense and meaning of the words, that is properly the Word of God; while they withhold from them the Letter, they provide means to acquaint them with the Spirit, or the true sense of Scripture; and so deliver it to them with much more advantage, than People of any other Persuasion have it.  
What others have formerly written for their Vindication in this Matter, it is needless now to examine; since it is not to be supposed, but that the Representer hath said as much to the purpose, as any of those who have gone before him. I shall therefore confine the ensuing Discourse, to what he hath said in his 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Chapters. And that it may be the more clear and satisfactory, I shall show these four Things.  
I. What is the Practice of the Church of Rome in this Matter.  
II. That this Practice is plainly contrary to the Will of God, to the Reason of the Thing, and to the Practice of the Christian Church, for more than a thousand Years after Christ.  
III. The insufficiency of those Reasons, by which the Representer endeavours to justify it.  
iv Vindicate those Inferences the Protestants draw from it.  
All that is said by the Representer, may, I think, be reduced to one or other of these Heads.  

CHAP. I.  
THough some may think it needless to insist upon the first of these, since what the Protestants charge the Church of Rome with in this Matter, is freely enough owned by the Representer himself 
* Chap. 6. p. 45, 46. Chap. 7. p. 52. Chap. 9 p. 57 ; yet because some of that Communion here in England, (who for prudential Reasons, are not so straight tied up) do confidently deny it; it may not be amiss, for their information, to give some short account of it, from better Authority than that of the Representer.  
For which we need go no further than the fourth Rule of the Trent Expurgatory Index, which is this: Since it is manifest by experience, that if the Holy Bible be promiscuously permitted in the vulgar Tongue, by reason of the rashness of Men, more Loss than Profit will thence arise: In this Matter, let the Judgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor be stood to, that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor, they may grant the reading of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue, translated by Catholic Authors, to such as they shall understand can receive no hurt by such reading, but increase of Faith and Piety. Which Faculty let them have in writing. But he, that without such Faculty, shall presume to read, or to have the Bible, he may not receive Absolution of his Sins, except he first deliver up his Bible to the Ordinary.  
If any Man shall say, That this Rule hath not the force of a Law, Monsieur de Maire, Counsellor, Almoner and Preacher to the King of France, in a Book published by Authority, shall give him an Answer: This Rule, saith he, is founded in Ecclesiastical Right, and no Man can transgress it, without contradicting that Obedience which he owes to the Church, and the Holy See, from which it hath received its Confirmation: Forasmuch as this Rule was not made but in prosecution of the Decree of the Council of Trent, etc. no Man can deny, but that it hath been approved by the Holy Sea, and authorized by the Bulls of Pius IV, and Clement VIII; who after they had viewed and diligently examined it, published it to the World, with Order that it should be obeyed. 
(b) Enfin je maintiens que cette Regle est fondeé en droict Ecclesiastic, et qu' on ne la peut violer sans choquer l'obeïssance qu' l'on doit à l'Eglise, etc. Le Sanctuaire serme aux Profanes, part. 3. c. 1. p. 335, 336.   
If, says he, there be any thing that can hinder this Rule from having the Force of a Law, it must be either because it hath not been published, or being published, hath not been received: but neither the one nor the other can be said, since it is evident, that this is the old Quarrel we have with our Heretics; that this is that which our Church hath always been upbraided with by the Enemies of the Faith; this is that which is the Subject of their most outrageous Calumnies; this is that which hath been acknowledged by 〈◊〉 wise Men; that which hath been earnestly maintained by all the Defenders of Catholic Truths, 
c— Ce que personne n' ignore; ce que tout le monde publie, n' y aiant point de creance plus common, ny plus generale parmy les fidels, etc. Ibid.  that which no Person is ignorant of; that which the whole World publishes; there being no Point of Belief more common, nor more general among the Faithful, than this of the Prohibition to read the Bible without permission. And this Belief so common, is (says he) a certain Proof, not only of the publication, but of the reception of this Rule.  
It cannot be denied, but that it hath been received by all those Nations, by which the Decrees of Trent were universally received: And so they were, as Pallavicino tells us 
d Pallau. l. 24. c. 9, 11, 12, 13.  in Italy, Spain, Sicily, Portugal, Poland, the greater part of Germany, and many other Countries.  
But suppose this Rule were not received as imposed by the Council of Trent, yet in all Popish Countries they have made it a Law to themselves. It is not indeed observed in France, upon the Authority of the Council; but they have set it up, and established it as a Law by their own Authority, as is manifest by the Mandates of their Archbishops and Bishops, the Decrees of their Provincial Councils, and the Edicts and Arrests of their Kings and Parliaments 
e La Bible Deffendue au Vulgaire. Part. 3. c. 1, & 4. Collectio Auctor. Versiones Vulg. damnant. . It is true, there is a little more latitude in France for granting a Licence, for not only the Bishop and his Vicar-General, but the Penitentiary, or a Man's own Parish Priest may grant it 
f Mandevent de Monseigneur L' Archevesque de Paris portant defence de lire la Bible en Langue Vulgaire sans permission. Fait le 2 Septembre, 1650. . But then to make an amends for this, in other Countries, the Rule is made stricter than it was at first by the Trent Fathers; for that does not forbid the Vulgar Bible, but only the reading it without a Licence; whereas the 5th Rule of the Spanish Index, prohibits the Bibles themselves in the Vulgar Tongue, and all Parts of them too; and that not only Printed, but in Manuscript. 
g Prohibentur Biblia lingua vulgari extantia, cum omnibus earum partibus impressis aut Manuscriptis; pariter summaria & compendia quamvis historica, eorundam Bibliorum, aut librorum sacrae Scripturae, idiomate aut lingua vulgari.  And Alfonsus de Castro tells us, That Ferdinand King of Spain forbade any Man under the heaviest Penalties, to translate the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue, or to keep any Bible in his Hands already translated. 
h Alfons. de Castro advers. Haeres. l. 1. c. 13.  And in the Index of Pope Alexander VII, not only those Bibles that are translated and printed by Heretics; but all Bibles in any Vulgar Tongue are prohibited 
i Biblia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta. . Yea so careful are the Clergy in most Popish Countries to keep the Laity from the Knowledge of the Scriptures, that, as Sir Edwin Sandys relates, in their very Sermons, though they preach for the most part on the Gospel of the Day, yet they do not read, or otherwise recite the Text, but discourse only on such Points of it, as they think fittest, that no sound of Scripture may possess the People. I say, in most Popish Countries, because the use of France, as he says, is otherwise. 
k Sandies Europae Speculum. p. 126, 127.   
It would be therefore ridiculous, in Spain, to talk of a Licence, because the Bible itself is not there permitted in the Vulgar Tongue. And all that is permitted in other Countries, where the Church of Rome bears sway without control, is, that a Man may read the Holy Scripture, in case he can get a Licence for it.  
But now, to whom may this Licence be granted? What, to all Men indifferently, who ask it? No; but to those only who they know can receive no hurt, but increase of Faith and Piety thereby 
(l)— Quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione, non damnum, sed fidei atque Pietatis augmentum capere posse. . That is, as the Representer expresses it, Those who are not in danger of preferring their own Sense, before that which they receive from their Pastors, and the Church 
(m) Chap. 7. p. 52. . And may it not be presumed, that these Men will never so much as ask it? For to what purpose should they desire to read the Scriptures, who are already resolved (right or wrong) to believe as the Priest bids them? Yea, so far are they from desiring it, that they reckon it a Mortal Sin. And should others presume to ask it, it would be denied them; because they cannot so much as ask it, but they will be suspected to be of the number of those Persons, who are in the greatest danger of receiving hurt by it. So that upon the whole Matter, the great noise they make of Licences, is but a mere Shame; since those of the Vulgar who might perhaps obtain them, are never likely to ask them; and those who will be most forward to ask them, will never be able to obtain them.  
And that it was indeed a Device of the Clergy, to get the Bible again out of the Hands of the People, among whom it was then dispersed, is plain enough; because whosoever had got a Bible, and had not a Licence, he might not receive Absolution of his Sins, unless he first delivered up his Bible to the Ordinary. And having thus got the Bible again into their own keeping, that they designed, as much as possible, to keep it for the future out of the Hands of the People, is further manifest, from the addition made to this Rule, by Pope Clement VIII, upon the new Impression of it, viz. That by this Impression or Edition no new Faculty is given to Bishops or Inquisitors, or any Superiors of Regulars, to grant a Licence of buying, reading, or retaining the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue; since hitherto by the command and usage of the Holy, Roman and Universal Inquisition, that Faculty of granting such Licences, of reading or retaining the Vulgar Bibles, or any parts of the Holy Scriptures, as well of the New as the Old Testament, in any Vulgar Tongue, hath been taken from them. Which, says he, is to be inviolably observed 
(n) Observat. Clement. VIII. circa Reg. quartam Trid. . If then this Power formerly given of granting Licences be taken away, and no new Power of granting them given, it necessarily follows; That there is now no such thing in being, as a Power of granting Licences. Or had there been any such Power before this new Impression of the Rule was made, yet it was then taken away by the Pope, in decreeing, That the Command and Practice of the Roman Inquisition, was to be inviolably observed. And lest some perhaps might presume to read the Bible, notwithstanding the Penalty threatened to them that do so; to give check as much as might be to such Presumption, the Booksellers who shall sell them to such Persons, besides the loss of the price of the Books, are liable to be punished at the Bishop's Pleasure.  
It would be now superfluous to produce Cardinal Bellarmin, Sixtus Senensis, Stapleton, Gretser, Ledesna, Azorius, or any other great Names in the Church of Rome, as Witnesses of this Practice. I shall therefore conclude with a brief Recollection of what hath been delivered.  
First, In the Pope's or the King of Spain's Dominions, no Vulgar Translation of the Bible is allowed; nor any Parcels or Summaries of the Bible, or of the Stories thereof.  
2dly. In those Countries where the Vulgar Bible is not absolutely prohibited, no Man is allowed to read it without a Licence.  
3dly. This Licence must be granted by the Bishop or Inquisitor only; (though by the Custom of France it may be granted by the Penitentiary or Curate.)  
4thly. It may not be granted by them; to all Persons who desire it; but to those only of whom they shall understand, that they can receive no hurt by reading it; That is, those of whom they are so secure, that they think there is no fear of losing them; and few or none of these will ever desire it. So that all this talk of granting leave to read the Bible amounts to no more than this, That those who desire it, shall for the most part be denied it. Even the Marshal of Chastres' Lady, notwithstanding her great Quality and Piety, could not without much difficulty get a Licence from the Archbishop of Sens. Nor could she by any Means procure it for the whole Bible, but for some certain Books only. 
(o) Le Sanctuaire fermè aux Profames. p. 339.    

CHAP. II.  
THat it is contrary to the Will of God, contrary to Reason, yea contrary to the Practice of the Christian Church, for more than a thousand Years after Christ, not to permit the free use of the Holy Scripture to the Vulgar.  

SECT. I.  
That it is the Will of God, That the Vulgar should have the free use of the Scripture, omitting many other Arguments, these three alone may suffice to prove.  

1. That God caused it at first to be written in a Language understood by the Vulgar.  
2. He caused it to be directed and addressed to them.  
3. He commanded them to acquaint themselves with it.   
1. God caused the holy Scriptures to be at first written in a Language understood by the Vulgar. That the Books of Moses and the Prophets were written in the common Language of the Jews, is generally granted by the Romanists themselves. Monsieur Mallet indeed, has been so hardy as to say, That it is most probable, that the Books of the Law were not composed by Moses in the Vulgar Language of the Jews. But the Arguments by which he attempts to prove it, are not only ridiculous, and in themselves false; but in case they were true, would be so far from establishing what he asserts, that they would quite destroy it: He that hath a Mind to see them exposed, let him consult Monsieur Arnaud's (another learned Romanist) Confutation of his Book 
(b) De la Lecture de l' Ecriture saint contre les Parodoxes extravagans & impis de Mons. Mallet. ; Out of which I shall at present transcribe but one Passage. I shall say a Word only, says he, of Moses 's last Song, because it is a demonstrative Proof, that there is nothing in the World more manifestly false, than that which Monsieur Mallet says is probable; for there is nothing in all the Books of Moses, that is more nobly written, and in a more lofty Style than this Song, which he commanded the Jews to write, and to learn by Heart, and to sing often, that it might serve as a Testimony against themselves, if they should forsake the Worship of God. He therefore certainly supposed, that they would understand it, since his Intention was, that in singing it, they should be touched and affected with it 
(c) Je diray Seulement un mot de son dernier Cantique; parce que c'est une preuve demonstrative pour faire voir que Mr. Mall. appelle probable la chose du monde la plus visiblement fausse, etc. l. 1. c. 4. p. 55. .  
As for the Books of the New Testament, there is no question (save of two only, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews) but that they were all written in Greek, which was then the most Vulgar Language in the World, there being no other Tongue at that time understood by so many People. And whereas it is objected that the Latin was the Vulgar Tongue of the Romans, to whom notwithstanding St. Paul wrote in Greek: The answer is easy, That the Greek Tongue was at that time more generally underderstood, and used at Rome itself: It was more known to the Strangers there, and particularly to the Jews, whom the Apostle had in his Epistle a special regard to; who were well acquainted with the Greek, but for the most part ignorant of the Latin Tongue 
d Grot. Annot. in Evang. S. Marci & Epist. ad Heb. . And for the Romans themselves, scarce any could be found, no not among their Women, who did not understand it; In such common use was it, that (as Mr. Arnaud observes) they taught it even their Parrots 
e De la Lect. etc. l. 2. c. 13. .  
If St. Matthew's Gospel was written at first in Hebrew (as many of the Ancients affirm); by Hebrew they meant that which was then the Vulgar Language of the Jews who dwelled at Jerusalem, for whose sake his Gospel was primarily written. This is asserted by such great Authorities in the Church of Rome, as one would think no Romanist should reject; particularly by Estius and Bellarmin. I shall recite Bellarmin's Words, and for brevity sake refer the Reader to Estius 
f Est Proleg. in Comment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos, super hac quaestione. Qua lingua scripta sit Epist. ad Hebraeos. . It is very probable, says the Cardinal, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syriac Tongue, for Albertus Widmestadius, and Guido Fabritius have proved it by the most convincing Arguments: Neither do the ancient Writers, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerom, who say these Books (especially the Gospel of St. Matthew) were written in Hebrew, contradict these; for they speak of that Hebrew which was the Vulgar Tongue in the time of the Apostles, even as in the Gospel itself we frequently read, that a thing was so called in the Hebrew, when it is manifest, that was so called in the Syriac: For instance, He went forth into a place called the place of a Scull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha; whereas Golgotha is not a proper Hebrew, but a Syriac word 
g Bell. de Verbo Dei, l. 2. c. 4. .  
Add to this, That Eusebius says expressly, that St. Matthew writ his Gospel in his Country Language; and the reason he gives for it, necessarily required that he should do so 
h Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 3. .  
For the Epistle to the Hebrews, it matters not whether it was originally written in Greek or Syriac, because both these Languages were then generally understood by the Hebrews: Tho Estius has produced such Arguments as will not easily be answered, to prove that it was at first written in Greek. To conclude this Argument: Since God caused the Scriptures to be at first written in a Language the Vulgar were acquainted with, who can be so senseless as to imagine, that is was not his pleasure that the vulgar should read them?  
2. God at first addressed the Holy Scriptures to the Vulgar, as well as to others: I have written to him, (saith God) the great Things of my Law 
i Hos. 8. 12. . Who was he to whom he had written them? The Verse foregoing told us it was Ephraim, who is there put for the whole Body of the Israelites. The first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, is directed to all that in every Place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus. The second, to the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Acaia. For the rest of the Epistles, I refer the Reader to the Discourse quoted in the Margin 
(k) The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. . Now can any Man who has not quite lost his Understanding suppose, that God would not have these Epistles read, by those Persons to whom they were written?  
There are those Persons, I know, who pretend to think so; who tell us, That though St. Paul directed his Epistles to all Christians in general, yet his intention was, that the Pastors of the Church only should read them. But can any thing be said more absurdly? Are not those Epistles he designed for the Pastors, directed to them alone? as his Epistles to Timothy and Titus: Why then should he direct his other Epistles to all the Saints, but that it was his intention, that they all should be made acquainted with them? When his Epistle to the Philippians is directed to ALL the Saints at Philippi, together with the Bishops and Deacons: Can any Man have the face to say, That he intended it only for the Bishops and Deacons? Is it not as manifest, as that there are such Epistles, that his Speech in them is usually addressed to the People? And let a Man but seriously consider, That in his Epistle to the Colossians, he commands, That after that Epistle had been read among them, they should cause it to be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans 
(l) Coloss. 4. 16. : That he gives a most solemn Charge, That his Epistle to the Thessalonians should be read to all the Holy Brethren 
(m) 1 Thess. 5. 27. ; and then believe, if he can, that it was his meaning, that the Scripture should be withheld from any the poorest and most ignorant Christian.  
3. Nor has God only addressed the Holy Scriptures to the Vulgar, but he hath also commanded them to acquaint themselves familiarly with them. The words I command thee this day, saith God to all Israel, (Priests and People) shall be in thine Heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy Children, and talk of them when thou sittest in thine House, etc. 
(n) Deut. 6. 6, 7, 8.  Can it be supposed, that they should talk of these words, when they sat in their Houses, and when they walked by the way, when they lay down, and when they risen up; that they should bind them for a Sign upon their Hands, and that they should be as Frontlet's between their eyes; that they should write them upon the Posts of their Houses, and upon their Gates; that they should teach them diligently to their Children, and yet should not be permitted to read them? When Moses had made an end of speaking these words, having said all that he had in charge from God to deliver to this People, he concludes thus: Set your Hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your Children to observe and do, all the words of this Law; for it is not a vain thing for you, because it is your Life, etc. 
(o) Deut. 32. 45, 46, 47. . Is this said like a Man; that would not have them so much as read the words he had spoken to them?  
And for the New Testament, the Command is general to Christians of all States and Qualities, That the Word of Christ dwell in them; and not only so, but that it dwell in them richly; so richly, that they may thereby be endowed with all Wisdom 
(p) Coloss. 3. 16. . Which St. Chrysostom thought so plain a Command to the common People to read the Scriptures, that in his Sermon upon these words, he thus earnestly exhorts them; Harken all ye that are Men of the World, and have a Wife and Children under your Government, how even You he commands especially to read the Scriptures; and that not simply, or now and then by chance, but with much diligence 
(q) Hom. 9 in Epist. ad Coloss. . If St. Chrysostom's word be not thought sufficient, I shall add to it a late famous Divine of the Church of Rome. What more clear, saith he, than that St. Paul thus exhorts, Coloss. 3. Let the Word of Christ dwell in You. But in what You? In those Saints and Faithful Brethren in Christ that were at Colosse, to whom he inscribed this Epistle, (not as some other Epistles to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons); Let the Word of Christ therefore dwell in You in all Wisdom, etc. 
r Espens. in Epist. ad Tit. cap. 2 p. 518, 519. . Which the Author speaks to show, that the reading of the Scriptures ought not to be prohibited to Laymen. That this Prohibition is indeed contrary to the Will of God, will yet further appear, by showing that it is very absurd and unreasonable.   

SECT. II.  
Let us hear what common Reason saith, (to use the words of a Reverend Person of our own Church, in an excellent Treatise upon this Subject) and that teaches us, That since the Holy Scriptures were written for the use and benefit of all, all should have the liberty to read them. They were written for all, it is plain; for that which they teach is the Duty of all, that which they promise is the Portion of all 
s Search the Scriptures, p. 58. .  
Dare any one say, That the Scripture was not given as a Rule to the People? That it was not designed to teach them, not only what they are concerned to know and to do in the general as they are Men, or as they are Christians, but to instruct them also more particularly, how they ought to demean themselves in their several Callings and Relations, in their different States and Conditions of Life, that they may walk worthy of God in this World, and be made meet for the happiness of the next? And what can be more absurd, than that a Man should not be suffered to read those Lessons, which as he hopes for Salvation, he is bound to learn? That he should not be permitted the perusal of those Laws, which under peril of Damnation he is bound to obey? That he should be forbid to see with his own Eyes, what God hath promised to quicken him to his Duty; and what he hath threatened to deter him from the contrary?  
Are not the Scriptures (as St. Chrysostom calls them) the Weapons of our Spiritual Warfare, the Storehouse of Spiritual Medicines 
t Hom. 9 in Epist. ad Colos. ? Are they not given for a Light to our Feet and a Lamp to our Paths 
u Psal. 119. 105. Prov. 6. 23. ? And therefore to deprive the People of them, what is it else, but to take away the Light from a Man in darkness? To deny Medicines to one that is sick? Or to deprive a Soldier of those Weapons, by which he should defend himself, and repel his Enemies? What the the Representer says in opposition to this shall be anon considered.  
I shall add no more upon this Head, than what I shall borrow from some great and learned Men of the Church of Rome. The Bishop of Vence in his Dedicatory Epistle prefixed to his Translation of the New Test. addresses thus to all Christians indifferently: Behold it is the Testament of the Son of God, your Father and your Judge, which I offer to you: I cannot doubt but the reading of it will be acceptable to you. You will see that he hath there left you a Patrimony most divine, which is his Truth; and that he hath divided it in a wonderful manner: For though it be but one, yet he hath suited it to the condition, and to the Duties of every Man, to the end that all Men by practising its Precepts, may live in Peace, and may come to the possession of his Inheritance, which is eternal Life 
x Voicy le Testament du Fils de Dieu vostre Pere et vostre Juge, que je Vous offer. Je ne puis douter que la lecture ne vous en soit agreeable. Vous verrez qu' il vous y laisse un patrimonie tout divin, qui est sa Verity etc. .  
The Translators of the Mons Testament in their Preface have these Words: If God heretofore commanded his People to read that Law without ceasing, which he had given them, and to meditate in it day and night. And if the Religious believe themselves obliged to read perpetually, the Rule they have received from their Founder. How can we neglect to read the Law of Jesus Christ, the words of which are Spirit and Life? since being entered by Baptism into the Catholic and Universal Religion, of which Jesus Christ is the Founder, we ought to look upon the Gospel as our Rule, which teaches us his Will, which assures us of his Promises, which is our Light in this World, and which must one Day be our Judge 
y Que si Dieu avoit commandé autrefois à son peuple de lire sans cesse la loy qu' il luy avoit donnée et de la mediter jour it nuit; et si les Religieux se croient obligez de lire tous les jours la Regle qu' ils ont recüe de leur Instituteur: comment pouvonsnous negliger de lire la loy de Jesus Christ &c p. 4, 5. ? In the Judgement of these Learned Men of the Church of Rome, to deny the reading of the Scriptures to the People, is as unreasonable and unjust, as not to suffer an Heir to see his Father's Will, or to forbid the Regulars the sight of their Rule.  
If any Man shall think that these Testimonies are not weighty enough, I shall add another, which cannot be refused by those Men I now dispute against, viz. That of Pope Gregory the Great: The holy Scripture, saith he, as a kind of Looking-glass is set before the Eyes of our Mind, that our inward Face may be seen by it. By it we know what in us is foul and what is fair; by it we perceive how much we profit; by it how far we are from profiting. It declares the brave Exploits of the Saints, and provokes the weak to the imitation of them; and while it commemorates their victorious Acts, it confirms and strengthens our weakness against the assaults of Vice, and we are the less fearful in the Encounter, by seeing the foregoing Triumphs of so many valiant Men. But sometimes it sets before us not only their Virtues but their Falls, that in the Victory of the strong, we may find that which we ought to imitate, and again in their Falls, that which we ought to fear 
z Scriptura sacra mentis oculis quasi quoddam speculum opponitur, ut interna nostra facies in ipsa videatur, etc. Expos. Moral in 1 cap. Job l. 2. c. 1. fol. 4. K . I appeal now to the Romanists themselves, Whether this great Pope, thought it not fit, that the reading of the Holy Scriptures should be left free to every Man? If they say no; I question not but to make them confess it whether they will or no, in the following parts of this Discourse.   

SECT. III.  
Nor is the practice of the Roman Church now, less contrary to the practice of the whole Christian Church, for more than a thousand Years after Christ.  
That the Scriptures lay open to all sorts of Persons in the Jewish Church, I need not prove; It is sufficiently known by that Passage of Josephus 
a Joseph. l. 2. contr. Appion.  frequently quoted by Protestant Writers, viz. That if any Man ask a Jew concerning the Laws, he will tell him every thing more readily than his Name; for learning them as soon as they come to have sense of any thing, they retain them deeply imprinted in their Minds. And Maimonides informs us, That it did not suffice a Jew, barely to read the Law; but he was to write it too. For though a Father had left his Son a Copy of the Law, he was notwithstanding obliged to write for himself, another Copy with his own Hand; or procure it to be written, if he could not write himself. And therefore the Pentateuch at least (as Morinus a Learned Romanist infers) 
b Exercit. Bibl. l. 2. Exercit. 16. c. 1. n. 6, 7.  that is the Books of Moses, were in the Hands of all the Jews; and frequently many Copies were in one Family, because they were wont to keep those that were left by their Fathers.  
But my design at present, is to show, That the practice of the Christian Church (yea of the Roman Church itself heretofore) was quite contrary to the Rules and Practice of the Church of Rome now: And that this may be made so evident, that those who wish it were false may be constrained to confess it: I shall proceed in the same Method, that a Reverend Author hath done in a late learned Discourse upon another controverted Point 
c A Vindication of the Answer to some Papers, etc. ; viz. I shall prove by unquestionable Testimonies, for twelve hundred Years downward, from our Saviour's Birth, that the reading of the Scripture had no restraint put upon it, but was left in common to all Christians.  
That it was so in the first Age, we have undeniable Evidence in the Scripture itself. Would our Saviour and his Apostles in their popular Discourses, so frequently have sent their Hearers to the Scriptures, had they not then been allowed to read them 
d Mat. 21. 13. Luk. 6. 3, 4. Joh. 10. 34, 35. Act. 2. 16. ? Can the Bereans have searched the Scriptures, to see whether those things that were spoken by Paul were so 
e Act. 17. 11. , had not the Scripture been in their Hands? Had not all the Saints in all Achaia been permitted to read the Scriptures, could St. Paul have said truly to them, We writ none other things to you than what you read 
f 2 Cor. 1. 13. ? That very Text so frequently produced by Romish Writers, to prove that the Vulgar ought not to read the Scriptures 
g 2 Pet. 3. 16. , is an Argument that in the Apostles time they did so: For it is not easy to conceive, how the unlearned and unstable should wrest the Scriptures, had they never read them.  
In the same Age, in St. Clement's Epistle directed to all the Christians at Corinth, we find these Words: You have known Beloved, you have well known the holy Scriptures, you have thoroughly looked into the Oracles of God, etc. 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And if the Christians at Corinth were so conversant in the Scriptures, surely the Christians of Rome, in the time of this Bishop, were not forbidden to read them.  
Toward the end of the second Age, Clement of Alexandria gives this Character of a Christian; His whole Life is a holy Solemnity, his Sacrifices are Prayers and Praises, and conferences of the Scriptures before his Meal, and Psalms and Hymns while he is at it 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stromat. l. 7. p. 728. Edit. 1629. . Certainly no Restraint was then laid upon the reading of the Scripture, when it was the common Practice of Christians to read it, and make it the matter of their Discourse at their Meals.  
For the third Century (though many other Witnesses stand ready, yet) Origen alone may suffice. Whether we consider, 1. How early he himself was educated in the Scriptures: Or 2. What he hath left on record to this purpose.  
First, His Father Leonides before he put him to other Learning, put him upon the study of the Scriptures, of which he set him a daily Task, to learn by heart 
k Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 6. c. 2, . Now his Father being a Layman, and he himself then a Child (for the Father was crowned with Martyrdom, before the Son was seventeen years old) what Arnaud hence infers, undeniably follows viz. That the Church then thought it good, not only for Laymen to read the Scriptures, but to make their Children also read them in their tender Age.  
2. Of those many Passages which Arnaud and others have observed in his Writings, it will be sufficient to produce one: directing his Speech to all Christians without distinction he thus exhorts them: We beseech you not to content yourselves to hear the Word of God, when read in the Church, but to apply yourselves to it at home, and to meditate upon it day and night; for Jesus Christ is there present as well as in the Church, and they that seek him shall find him every where. Therefore he hath commanded us to meditate in the Law of the Lord, when we walk by the way, and when we sit in our Houses, when we lie down, and when we rise up 
(l) Hom. 9 in Levit. .  
In the beginning of the fourth Age, it is certain that the Bible was in laymen's hands, because in Dioclesian's Persecution, many Laymen, to save themselves, delivered up their Bibles to be burnt 
(m) Quid commemorem Laicos, qui tunc in Ecclesia nulla fuerant dignitate suffulti? etc. Optat. advers. Parmen. l. 1. .  
That in the succeeding Parts of that Age, under the Christian Emgots, they had the free use of them is as manifest; because we find that all sorts of People were frequently and earnestly pressed by their Teachers to read them.  
I shall not insist upon what is by others produced out of St. Jerom, viz. The Dedication of his Commentaries upon the Scriptures to Women, his Epistles to many of that Sex, in which he highly commends them for their study of the Scriptures, and exhorts them diligently to instruct their Children therein: How he advised Gaudentius to cause his Daughter at seven years old to get the Psalms by Heart, and when she should come to the age of twelve, to treasure up in her Heart the Books of Solomon, the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, and the Prophets. But (omitting these) I think it enough, to tell you, that even Father Thomassin affirms, that this Father most straight charged, not only the Clergy and the Religious (that is, Monks and Nuns) to read the Scriptures; but recommended the reading of them to all sorts of Persons, without distinction of Age or Sex, even to Women and Girls 
(n) Part. 1. l. 11. c. 10. n. 6. . What pretence then have the Papists, for quoting St. Jerom as one of their side? You shall hear. In his Epistle to Paulinus he complains, That whereas Men of all other Arts contained themselves within the bounds of their own Profession, every one took upon him to be a Teacher of the Scriptures, even the doting old Man, and the tattling old Wife, etc. 
(o) Quod Medicorum est prómittunt Medici, tractant fabrilia Fabri; Sola Scripturarum ars est quam sibi passim omnes vendicant.— hanc garrula anus, hunc delirus senex, etc.  an unanswerable Argument, that the most simple of both Sexes did then freely read the Scriptures; For could they presume to teach them, had they never read them? Nor doth he blame their reading them, but that they took upon them to be Teachers, before they themselves had learned them; docent antequam discant.  
How vehement and copious St. Austin is, in his Exhortations to his Hearers, of all Ranks and Qualities, to read the Scriptures, you may be informed by another Learned Papist 
(p) Espenc. Comment. in Epist. ad Tit. c. 2. p. 517. Ed. Paris. 1619. . I shall give but a taste: It may not suffice, says he, that You hear the Divine Scriptures read in the Churches; but in Your Houses, either read them Yourselves, or get others to read, and do You readily hearken to them. Hear the Divine Scriptures read in the Church, as You are wont, and read them over again at Home. If any be so employed, that before his repast, he cannot have leisure, let it not grieve him, to read something of them at his Meal; that as the Body is fed with Meat, so the Soul may be refreshed with the Words of God; that the whole Man, both outward and inward, may arise satisfied from a holy and wholesome Banquet, etc. 
(q) De Tempore Serm. 55, 56, 57 De Sanctis Serm. 38. .  
What the same learned Romanist, hath to the same purpose produced out of St. Chrysostom, if the Representer please to read, methinks it should put him to the blush. I shall only observe, That this incomparable Saint, makes the reading of the Scriptures, not only necessary for all Men, of whatsoever rank they be, but more necessary for those whose Business lies in the midst of the World, than for those who live more retired from it. As you may see by many pregnant Proofs, in that excellent Treatise before mentioned 
(s) Search the Scriptures, p. 40 .  
Tho I omit many, as St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, etc. yet I shall mention two more Witnesses in this Age; The first, is Julian the Apostate, who derides the Christians for breeding up their Children in the knowledge of the Scriptures. The second, is St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, who in his Catechisms for the Illuminate, (that is, Persons newly baptised) charges them to read all the Books both of the Old and New Testament, and diligently to meditate upon them 
(t) Cateches. 4. de Sacra. Script. p. 36, 37, 38. Edit. Par. 1640. .  
In the fifth Age, Cyril of Alexandria, in his Books against Julian, informs us. That it was then also the practice of Christians, not barely to read the Scriptures themselves, but to train up their Children in them. And in answer to the Apostate's scurrilous Objections, he shows what Advantages accrued to them by being early instructed in the Divine Scripture, above all that could be expected from the Learning of the Greeks 
(u) Lib. 7. contra Julianum. .  
In the sixth Age, Pope Gregory the Great, in a popular Sermon, thus exhorts his Hearers: Study, most dear Brethren, the Words of God. Do not despise the Letters our Maker hath sent us. It is a great advantage, that by them the Soul is quickened, lest it should be benumned with the cold of its iniquity. When we there see, that Just Men have done valiantly, we ourselves are disposed to courage in well-doing. The Soul of the Reader is enkindled by the Flame of Holy Examples. It sees their noble Acts, and is displeased with itself, that it doth not imitate them. Hence in the Voice of the Bridegroom it is said to the Bride, Thy Neck is like the Tower of David, builded for an Armoury; whereon there hang a thousand Bucklers. In the Neck is the Throat, in the Throat is the Voice; What therefore is meant by the Neck of Holy Church, but its Sacred Oracles, whereon a thousand Shields are said to hang, because all our defence is contained in the Sacred Oracles. For there are the Commandments of God, there are the Examples of Just Men. If the Soul grow cold in the love of God, let it hear what is said; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Mind, and with all thy Strength, etc. 
(w) Hom. 16. Super Ezech.  He that desires to see more to this purpose, let him consult his moral Exposition of the Book of Job, (especially l. 20.); his Epistle to Leander Archbishop of Sevil, and read his famous Story of Poor Servolus 
(x) Hom. 15. de divers. Lect. Evangelii. . And when he has done so, I shall leave him to judge, whether this great Pope was of the same judgement with Pope Pius IV, and the Trent Fathers? Whether the Holy Scriptures were not in his time read at Rome, by the most unlearned Vulgar?  
For the seventh Age, Isidore Archbishop of Sevil, is a Witness beyond exception: The Holy Scripture, saith he, to the weak, and those that are Children in understanding, as to its History, seems low in words; when to more excellent Men it rises higher, while it opens to them its Mysteries, and by this means it remains common, both to the little Ones and to the Perfect. The Holy Scripture is varied in proportion to the Understanding of every Reader; as Manna, which to the ancient People gave a different taste, according to their different Palates, etc. 
(y) Scriptura Sacra infirmis & sensu par●●is secundum historiam humilis videtur in Verbis; cum excellentioribus autem viris al●●s incedit dum eis sua mysteria pandit, atque per hoc utrisque manet communis, & parvulis & ●erfectis Sententiar. l. 1. c. 18.   
That the same practice continued in the eighth Age, we are assured by venerable Bede, and the Saxon Homilies. In his Character of Aidan Bishop of the Northumbrians, he makes it none of the least of his Virtues, That he was so far from the sloth of the Age, that all that went with him, whether Clergy or Laymen, were obliged to meditate, that is, to take pains to read the Scriptures, or to learn the Psalms. This, saith he, was his daily Work, and the Work of all those that were with him 
z Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 3. c. 5. .  
And because the reading of the Scriptures was then too generally neglected, the Saxon Church endeavoured a Remedy for this Evil in her Homilies; out of which I shall cite but one Passage, viz. The reading of the Holy Scriptures, purges the Soul of the Reader. It brings to mind the fear of eternal Punishment; it also lifts up his Heart to the Joy Above. Whosoever would be together with God, he ought to pray often, and often to read the Holy Scriptures; for when we pray, we speak to God, and when we read the Holy Bible, God speaks to us. The reading of the Holy Bible brings a double benefit to the Readers: The first, That it informs the Mind; the other, That it takes it off from the Trifles of this World, to the love of God. How far was the Church yet from believing, That laymen's reading of the Scriptures, did more hurt than good. He that hath a mind to see more out of the Saxon Homilies, let him consult the Notes on Bede's Ecclesiastical History 
a Lib. 3. p. 172, 173, 174. l. 4. p. 310. .  
In the 9th Age, Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz speaks thus: That Divine Wisdom which shines forth i● the Holy Spripture, is both to the Strong and Weak, both to the Wise and Foolish, if they will mind it, and truly obey it, a wholesome Medicine. It is the enlightening of the Mind, the Correction of Life, the Path of Righteousness. And therefore both the greater and the lesser, do want its help, and stand stand in need of its conduct 
b Sapientia Divina quae in Sacra Scriptura elucet, omnibus tam potentibus quam infirmis, tam sapientibus quam insipientibus, si eam recte intenderint, & ei rite obedierint, Medicina Salubris est. Ipsa est Illuminatio animae, etc. .  
In the tenth, Odo Abbot of Clugny tells us; That by the wild Goats which God speaks of to Job, are meant all good and wise Men. For as these Goats abide in the Rocks, and if they at any time fall from their Heights, they keep themselves unhurt in their Flesh: So these good Men dwell in the Rocks, because they endeavour to live according to the Examples of the Fathers; and when they fall at any time, they are not dashed in pieces, because leaning upon the Scriptures of the two Testaments, they escape, and by the comfort of them, sustain themselves, that they do not faint in trouble 
c Collat. l. 3. . It seems, the Scriptures were yet thought useful to every Man, to support and comfort him in Troubles and Afflictions.  
In the eleventh Age, hear what Advice Theophylact giveth to Parents: If thou wilt have thy Children obey thee, instruct them in the Word of God; say not, that it belongs only to Monks to read the Scriptures, for it is the Duty of every Christian; especially of those who are conversant in the World, who stand in need of greater Assistances, as Men tossed in a Storm. 'Tis thy Concern and Interest, that they hear the Scriptures, for they will thence learn to honour their Father and Mother 
d Theoph. in Ephes. c. 6. v. 4. . So far was this great Bishop from thinking the reading of the Scriptures hurtful to the Laity, that he thought it more necessary for them, than others; so far from confining them only to the Learned, that he would have Children, the most ignorant of the Laity, to read them.  
In the twelfth Age, Rupertus Tuitiensis says; That the Holy Scripture is rightly called a Field, because it is in truth a public thing, that lies open, and is proposed to all Men who are desirous to read or hear it 
e Sancta Scriptura recte dicitur ager, quia profecto res publica est, res in aperto posita, & cunctis hominibus, imò populis omnibus legere vel audire capientibus proposita est. L. 1. de Glorific. Trinit. . To whom we may add St. Bernard, who in a popular Discourse earnestly exhorts his Hearers, to apply themselves to the Scriptures, from the consideration of those inestimable Benefits they would receive thereby 
f Serm. 24. de diversis. .  
Thus I have showed the practice of the Christian Church to the twelfth Age; not from the Testimonies of obscure and suspected Authors, but of Men famous in their Generations, and whose Names are held in great veneration in the Church of Rome. Which I have the rather done, because some Persons have had the confidence to bear the World in hand, that in the Primitive Church, a restraint was laid upon the reading of the Scripture. An Assertion so manifestly untrue, that we need desire no clearer Proofs of the contrary, than those two or three Passages out of the Ancients, they produce for it.  
If the Reader desire to know, when, and upon what occasion this Liberty was first taken from Laymen, I'll now tell him. The first Synodical Prohibition, was that of the Synod of Tholouse, in the Year 1228, in these words: We forbidden that Laymen be permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament; unless perhaps some one out of Devotion, desire to have the Psalter or Breviary for Divine Offices, and the Hours of the Blessed Virgin; but even those now mentioned, they may not have translated in the vulgar Tongue. 
g Prohibemus etiam ne Libros Veteris & Novi Testamenti Laici permittantur habere; nisi forte Psalterium aut Breviarium pro Divinis Officiis. ac horas Beatae Virginis aliquis ex devotione habere velit: Sed ne pr● libros habeant in vulgari Translatos. D'Achetii, Tom. 2. p. 624.   
The special occasion of this Decree, was the preaching of the Waldenses; who taught, that in Articles of Faith, the Holy Scripture was the Rule, by which Men were to judge, that whatsoever was not agreeable to the Word of God, aught to be rejected. That the reading and knowledge of the Scripture, was free and necessary to all Men, both Laity and Clergy 
* Cent. 12. Ecclesiast. Hist. c. 8. . By this time the Church of Rome had gotten such a new Faith, as would not abide the old Test; and therefore it was prudently done, to deprive the People of the Scripture, that they might not be able to discover those Errors into which they led them.    

CHAP. III.  
LET us now see what the Representer offers, to justify this Practice of the present Church of Rome, so manifestly repugnant to Scripture, to Reason, and to the ancient Practice of the Church of Rome itself; yea, of the whole Christian Church throughout the World.  
Surely, they must be very weighty Reasons, or else they will never bear down so great a weight, as lies in the other Scale against them. Does he show, that God hath retracted his first Grant? That he hath repealed his old Law, and established one quite contrary in the room of it? Does he show, That the Reason of the Thing is changed? So that if the Primitive Fathers were alive again, they would now with as much earnestness dissuade Laymen from reading the Scripture, as they formerly exhorted them to it? Had he done thus, he had spoken to the purpose: But, alas! we find nothing of this, nor any thing like it.  
What then are his Reasons? You shall now hear: And I shall endeavour to represent them to the best advantage, without abating one grain of their just weight. They are all reducible to this one general Head, viz. The Mischiefs that arise from the promiscuous reading of the Scripture; several of which he mentions, and insists upon; and then acquaints us with the Reasons (as he supposes) of those Mischiefs. That therefore my Discourse upon them may be the more clear and distinct, I shall divide it into these three parts.  

1. I shall consider the General Reason.  
2. The Particulars he insists upon.  
3. The Reasons he gives why these Mischiefs flow from the free reading of the Bible.   

SECT. I.  
The general Reason he gives of this Restraint, is; The Mischiess that arise from the promiscuous reading of the Bible: since these, and infinite other Mischiefs arise from the free permitting the Bible among the Multitude, He (viz. the Papist) thinks it commendable in his Church, out of a true solicitude for the Salvation of Souls, to prevent those Evils, by teaching the true sense of this Sacred Volume— without leaving the Book to be scanned by them as they please; and so not permitting them to turn the Food of their Souls into Poison, or abuse that to their Destruction, which was ordained by Christ for their gaining of Heaven 
(h) Chap. 7. p. 52. . But if out of pure kindness to the Souls of the Vulgar, they take away this dangerous Book from them; Why do they give them other very perilous Books in the room of it? I mean Images (which they call laymen's Books) though by the Confession of many of their own Writers, they are horribly abused by the Vulgar. But to pass that;  
This is the Argument they commonly insist upon, and though it hath been wretchedly baffled again and again, yet for want of a better, it is upon every occasion dressed up anew, and urged with as brisk a Confidence, as if it had never before been heard of.  
He says he does sincerely, respect, honour and reverence the Scripture 
(i) Chap. 6. p. 44. . But methinks he expresses his respect and reverence, as untowardly, as the Lindians did toward their God Hercules, whom they worshipped by throwing Stones at him. For what is this, but to say, that the Bible is the most dangerous Book in the World? since a Layman cannot read it, without danger of being eternally undone by it: And if this be to honour and reverence the Scripture, I know not what it is to revile it.  
The Representer will say this is a false Inference. I shall be glad if he can make that appear, for nothing seems to follow more naturally from the Premises. He will say, he does not impute these Mischiefs to the Scripture itself, but to men's Abuse of it 
(k) Chap. 7. p. 52. . What then? the danger is not the less, if it be so apt to be abused, that scarce any Man can read it who will not so abuse it. Let us suppose there are two things, the one of which is an excellent Antidote, if rightly used, but so hard a matter it is so to use it, that not one in an hundred can be found, to whom it doth not turn to Poison: The other is itself a rank Poison, yet may be so tempered, and taken with that caution, that it may become an Antidote: Is not now this Antidote (however excellent in itself) as dangerous as the Poison?  
But if these Mischiefs proceed merely from men's Abuse of Scripture, why is it then denied to those who do not thus abuse it? For in that he says, Such as for the MOST PART are not capable of reading it as they ought, have not leave to read it; and those that are capable may have IN MOST COUNTRY'S leave to read it, as they please 
l Pag. 52. . He plainly grants, that Some have not leave to read it, who are capable of reading it as they ought, and that in some Countries they cannot obtain this leave, though they never so much desire it. Where, by capable of reading as they ought, he must (if he speak sense) mean those who will not abuse it; though it is a great mistake to confound these two, as if they were the same, when they are as different, the one from the other, as a sick Man is from one that is not capable of being well; and therefore to say that a Man who abuses the Scripture, is not capable of reading it as he ought, is as absurd, as that a sick Man is not capable of recovering his Health. Were indeed all those that abuse the Scripture uncapable of reading it to good purpose, I should not deny, but they might with good reason be deprived of it: But if they must be denied it for no other reason but because they abuse it; then let all Men be deprived of their Eyes, their Ears, their Tongues etc. there being no Man by whom these are not more or less abused: Yea let not only some, but every Man in the World, be denied the reading of the Scripture; because (I fear) there is scarce any Man who is most careful to avoid it, but he may some time or other, through weakness or ignorance abuse it.  
It is therefore certain, that a Man ought not for every Abuse to be deprived of this Privilege: And if for any of those mentioned by the Representer, our blessed Saviour and his Apostles were much to blame, who put all Men indifferently upon the study of the Scripture, notwithstanding all these Abuses were as high in their time, as they have been in any Age since. Did I say not for every Abuse? I will add, not for any Abuse, unless there can be any that God did not foresee; for since notwithstanding any such Abuse, he gave free liberty to all Men, who can deny it to any, unless they will take upon them to correct God?  
And yet when all is done; in case Men are to be denied the reading of the Scripture, because they abuse it; then those above all others ought to be denied it, who most extragavantly abuse it. I mean those, who prove the Pope is as much greater than the Emperor, as the Sun is greater than the Moon, from Gen. 1. 16. God made two great Lights, the greater Light to rule the Day, and the lesser Light to rule the Night. That in the Church's Power are two Swords, the Temporal and the Spiritual; from that Speech of St. Peter to Christ, Behold, here are two Swords. That the Pope is an absolute universal Sovereign; because Christ said to St. Peter, Feed my Sheep. That a married Man cannot please God, because St. Paul saith, They that are in the Flesh cannot please God. And to give one Instance in the Subject we are now upon; That no unlearned Man may presume to meddle with the Scripture, because God commanded, That if a Beast touched the Mountain, it should be stoned, or thrust through with a Dart. Did ever Men more abuse the Scripture than those, who for bad purposes put such absurd ridiculous Senses upon it? And yet these are the Men, who have taken upon them to be the only infallible Interpreters of it. Let all impartial Men than judge, who best deserves to be forbidden to read it, Whether his Holiness, or an honest Mechanic? The Truth is, the Pope and his Clergy have set up a Worldly Religion, so directly opposite to that of Christ, that the Heretical Scriptures, however tortured, will never be brought to a compliance with. The Mischiefs they talk of that arise from the Vulgar, are but pretended; the Mischiefs that come to themselves thereby, are those they are indeed afraid of; as was plainly confessed to Pope Julius III, by those Bishops assembled at Bononia to consult about the establishment of the Roman Church 
m Verger. Consil. de Rom. Eccles. stabilienda. .  
I shall not insist upon it, That the Representer is so intent upon the Mischiefs, that he quite forgets the Benefits which arise from reading the Scriptures, and those many intolerable Mischiefs which flow from the neglect of it; which the ancient Fathers have largely insisted upon. The reading of the Divine Scriptures, says St. Chrysostom, is a Spiritual Meadow, a Paradise of Delights; a better Paradise of Delight than that other Paradise. God hath planted this Paradise not in the Earth, but in the Souls of Believers: He hath placed it not in Eden or toward the East, confining it to one place, but hath extended it to the Ends of the World.— Here is no Serpent, it is a place free from wild Beasts, and fenced with the Grace of the holy Spirit.— And this Paradise hath a Fountain as the other had, a Fountain from which not only four, but myriads of Rivers flow:— Would you know the Nature of it, know it from its use. It is not profitable to this present Life, but to the Life eternal. Let us spend our Time in this Paradise, let us sit by this Fountain, let us abide in the reading of these Scriptures. For as those that sit by a Fountain, and enjoy that cool refreshing Air, and when the Sun grows hot, dipping their Face continually, do drive away the stifling Heat, and easily cure their troublesome Thirst: So he that sits by the Fountain of the Divine Scriptures, if the flame of Lust annoy him, bathing his Soul in these Waters, he may easily extinguish it. If fierce Anger molest him, inflaming his Heart as a boiling Cauldron, by instilling a little of this Water, he may presently repress the importunity of the Passion; and from all evil Cogitations the reading of the Divine Scriptures delivers the Soul. For which Reason the great Prophet David, knowing the advantage that comes by reading the Scriptures, compares the Man who constantly attends to the Scriptures, to a Plant placed by the Rivers of Waters, which always flourishes. For as that Tree is not hurt by unseasonable Air, or by the scorching Rays of the Sun: So that Soul that stands by the flow of the Divine Scriptures, and is continually watered by them, is unconquerable; if Sickness, Loss, false Accusation, Revile,— Yea if all the Evils in the World assault such a Soul, he easily repels all Perturbations of Mind, having sufficient Consolation from the reading of the Scriptures 
n De utilitate lectionis Script. . If any Man list to see more to this purpose, let him consult the Sermon. And as the Benefits are many and so great, that a Man may reap from the reading of the Scripture, so the same St. Chrysostom tells us, that Myriads of Mischiefs spring from the neglect of it 
o Proaem. in Epist. ad Rom. ; many of which he hath given us a particular account of in several of his Sermons.   

SECT. II.  
Let us now consider what these Mischiefs are the Representer makes such a Noise about. Besides those mentioned by him, he says, there are infinite other 
p Pag. 52. . Those infinite other, I can say nothing to, because I know not what they are: If he please to tell us some of them (for we cannot expect he should ennumerate all, because they are infinite) they shall be considered. All those he is pleased to mention are of the same kind, viz. the Divisions that are among Christians from the different Senses they put upon the Scripture, thereby making as many Bibles as there are Men. The unhappy Divisions, says he, which are among Christians, sufficiently inform him, that to such Readers as St. Peter calls unwary and ignorant, how ever wise they may think themselves, Arianism may be as obvious in this Book, as Christ's Divinity; and that when such an one undertakes the interpretation of it, 'tis an hazard whether at the end, he comes out Quaker, Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Independent, Muggletonian, Socinian or Atheist: 'Tis a venture whether the Trinity shall have place in his Creed or no: Whether he'll allow of Baptism or any Sacrament; and whether Cruelty, cutting of Throats, Oppression, Tyranny, Dethroning of Kings and Murder of Princes, shall not with him become a necessary Duty, and a true serving of the Lord, etc. 
q Pag. 52. . And in another place, the Reason he gives, why the Holy Scriptures are not generally allowed to the Vulgar, is this; That there may not be as many different Bibles among them, as there are Heads 
r Pag. 54. : Which is in effect the same with the former. And in a third; That it is not only thus in SEVERAL PEOPLE, but even the SAME PERSON many times hath the faculty of multiplying the Word of God 
s Chap. 9 pag. 57 . That is, by reading the Scriptures, Men are not only divided one from another, but the same Person is at different times, divided from himself, by putting one Sense upon them at one time, and another, at another.  
I shall observe one thing by the way, before I come to expose the Folly of this way of Reasoning. Had not this Gentleman vainly presumed, that the Vulgar of our Communion, are as ignorant as those of his own, in other Countries, he would not have laid so great stress upon these Words of St. Peter (the unlearned and unstable) and repeated them thrice within the compass of one half Sheet, (though perhaps for a disguise in the words now cited, he puts unwary and ignorant instead of unlearned and unstable) since they are so far from proving what he designs, that they are a fair Argument for the contrary. For, as I before observed, could the unlearned have wrested the Scriptures, had they not read them? And if because they wrested them, they were to be forbidden to read them, would not the Apostle (when the matter required it) have told them so, and given this in charge to the Pastors of the Church? Had he been of the same judgement with his Successors at Rome, for the last three or four hundred years, was it possible he should have forgotten this? I appeal to the Representer's own Conscience: Does he think it was St. Peter's intention that this Epistle of his should not be read by those to whom he wrote it? If not, he intended it should be read by the Vulgar, for 'tis certain it was written to such.  
I shall now proceed to the particular consideration of these Mischiefs. Which though all (as I said before) of the same kind; yet because to make the greater show, the Representer hath put them into a different dress of words, and discoursed of them apart in three several Chapters 
t Chap. 7. 8, 9 , lest I should be thought to wave any thing material to his purpose, I shall also speak to them severally, and they are these:  

I. The many Divisions that are among Christians 
u Chap. 7. p. 52. .  
II. As many different Bibles as there are different Heads 
w Chap. 8. p. 54. .  
III. Not only several People, but even the same Person many times has the faculty of multiplying the Word of God 
x Chap. 9 p. 57 Mischief I. .   
I. Having just before spoken of the many unhappy Divisions among Christians, he says, That these and infinite other Mischiefs arise from the free permitting the Bible among the Multitude 
y Pag. 52. . Now if he speaks to the purpose, his meaning must of necessity be; That all these many unhappy Divisions arise from this cause only, or at least from this cause principally. And therefore no more is here needful than to discover the falseness of this Assertion. However I shall be more liberal, and show these two things: 1. That what is here affirmed is notoriously false. 2. That in case it were true, it would not be of force to infer the Conclusion, viz. That the reading of the Bible ought to be denied to the Vulgar.  
First, It is notoriously false, That all the unhappy Divisions among Christians take their rise, either ONLY or CHIEF from the free permitting of the Bible among the Multitude. This will be evident by considering these five things.  
1. That there were Divisions among the Ancient Guides or Pastors of the Church.  
2. That there have been, and still are Divisions, yea as many, among the Learned of the Church of Rome, as among the Protestants.  
3. That the Learned Romanists are divided among themselves, in all those Points in which they are divided from Protestants.  
4. That those very pernicious Doctrines and Practices, which the Representer himself mentions, are derived from the Learned; and especially from the Learned of the Church of Rome. And therefore,  
5. That the Divisions among the Vulgar, for the most part, are not owing to themselves, but to the Learned.  
1. There were Divisions among the ancient Guides and Pastors of the Christian Church; and in matters of as great moment, as those are in which the Protestants are divided. As between St. Irenaeus and Victor, St. Cyprian and Stephen, St. Chrysostom and Theophilus, St. Jerom and Ruffinus, St. Cyril and Theodoret, the Bishops of the Council of Nice, and those also of Sardica, etc. I wish those Divisions, and many other among the ancient Bishops were not too well known to need any Proof. Now can the Representer say, That these Divisions sprang from permitting the Bible to the Multitude? I trow not.  
2. There have been, and still are Divisions, yea as many, among the Learned of the Church of Rome, as among the Protestants. Almost every Schoolman is the Head of a Sect; and the Controversies between the Lutherans and the Calvinists are not so many, as between the Thomists and the Scotists. The Dissensions between the Regular and Secular Priests, have lasted already for some Ages, and are likely still to continue; so many several Orders, so many Sects in Religion, you may find among the Regulars; and the Remonstrants, and Anti-monstrants, will as soon unite, as the Dominicans with the Jesuits or the Franciscans. Yea the Pope's themselves (the Centre of their Unity) are often divided among themselves, and their Definitions plainly contradictory one to another. Witness Pope Gregory I, and Pope Boniface III. The former condemned the Title of Universal Bishop, as abominable and Antichristian 
z Lib. 4. Epist. 32, 33, 36, 38. , the later ambitiously affected and obtained it from the Tyrant Phocas 
a Plat. in vit. Bonifacii III. Sabellic. Ennead. 8. l. 6. . Pope Innocent I. held the Eucharist was necessary for Infants 
b Aug. Contr. duas Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Binii Concil. Tom. 1. p. 769. . Pope Pius iv denounced an Anathema against those that held it 
c Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 4. . And certainly neither do these Divisions take their Rise from the reading of the Bible by the common People.  
3. The Learned Romanists are divided among themselves in all those Points of Doctrine, in which they are divided from Protestants. I shall instance in some, viz. The Pope's Infallibility and Universal Pastorship; his Power over Princes, and Dominion in Temporals; the Canon of Scripture, and Traditions of the Church; the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Communion in one kind; the Worship of Images, and Invocation of Saints; the Doctrines of Purgatory and Indulgences; to which I shall add but one more, viz. Transubstantiation: Tho they seem pretty well agreed to burn or hang those that deny it, yet there is not one question about it, in which they are at an agreement among themselves. To borrow the Words of a learned Bishop of the Church of Ireland. No sooner, says he, was this fatal Sentence given (he means the Definition of Transubstantiation in the Lateran Council) but as if Pandora's Box had been newly set wide open, whole swarms of noisome Questions and Debates did fill the Schools. Then it began to be disputed by what means this Change comes; whether by the Benediction of the Elements, or by the repetition of those Words of Christ, THIS IS MY BODY? Then was the Question started, what the demonstrative Pronoun HOC signifies in these Words, THIS IS MY BODY? Whether this thing, or this Substance, or this Bread, or this Body, or this Meat, or these Accidents, or that which is contained under these Species, or this Individuum vagum, or lastly (which seems stranger than all the rest) this nothing? etc. Then it began to be argued, whether the Elements were annihilated? Whether the Matter and Form of them being destroyed, their Essence did yet remain? Or the Essence being converted, the Existence remained?— Then the Schoolmen began to wrangle, what manner of Change this was? Whether a material Change, or a formal Change, or a Change of the whole Substance both Matter and Form? And if it were a Conversion of the whole Substance; then whether it was by way of Production or by Adduction? etc. 
(d) Bp. Bramh. Answ. to the Epist. of M. de la Militiere. . This is only a short taste of what the Reader may find in the Book quoted in the Margin.  
Nor do they only quarrel about the Manner, but some of their greatest Men do not believe, and others plainly deny the Article itself; as any one may see, who will but take the pains to consult the learned Preface to a Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, in the two great Points, etc. and a Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation. It is probable, that if all the Disputes, upon all Points controverted among Protestants, were put together, they would not amount to a greater number than those of the Papists, in this one Article.  
To conclude this: Let any Learned Romanist tell me, what his Judgement is, in any one Point controverted between them and us, and I will engage, upon short warning, to produce another Learned Romanist, who shall contradict him. And, are not Men so entirely united in Judgement among themselves, excellently qualified to upbraid Protestants with their Divisions!  
4. In that he says, To such Readers as St. Peter calls Unwary and Ignorant, Arianism may be as obvious in this Book as Christ's Divinity: It is a sign that he expected no other than such unwary and ignorant Readers. For he must be ignorant indeed in these Matters, who does not know, That not the Ignorant, but the Learned; not the Laity, but the Clergy, were the Persons to whom Arianism was in this Book so obvious; Witness the Councils of Sirmium, of Milan and Ariminum. I need not tell him, That one or two of the Bishops of Rome, either grossly dissembled, or Arianism was for a time, more obvious to them in this Book, than Christ's Divinity.  
And whereas he says, That when such an one (viz. one that is Unwary and Ignorant) undertakes the interpreting of this Book, 'tis a hazard, whether in the end he comes out Quaker, Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Independent, Muggletonian, Socinian, or Atheist. He had spoken nearer the Truth, if he had said, When such an one takes this Book as interpreted to him by a Popish Priest or Jesuit, in the disguise of a Quaker, Anabaptist, etc. We know who have been employed to sow and foment Divisions among us, to draw our People into separated Meetings, upon the pretence of a more pure and spiritual way of Worship. We can tell him of great numbers instructed in Handicraft Trades, trained up to dispute, one for Presbytery, another for Independency, a third for Anabaptism, sent over hither by order from Rome; so that when the deluded People have thought they had heard a gifted Tradesman, they have heard a Romish Priest in that disguise. We can acquaint him with those who have been detected exercising their Talents, in several sorts of Meetings.  
But that which follows is most surprising: That it is a venture, whether Cruelty, cutting of Throats, Oppression, Tyranny, dethroning of Kings, murder of Princes, shall not with him (viz. the ignorant Reader) become a necessary Duty, and a true serving of the Lord. This, I say, is most surprising; and doubtless, he rubbed his forehead hard, before he wrote it, since he knows, That all these have, for some hundreds of Years, been taught and practised by the greatest Men of his own Church; and therefore it is not a venture, but beyond all peradventure, that when Place and Time serve, they will be so again. He well knows what the great Cardinals, Bellarmine, Baronius, Perron, etc. What the Learned Jesuits, Suarez, Lessius, Azorius, etc. What his own Countrymen, Cardinal Allen, Father Parsons, Creswel, etc. have written for the deposing and murdering of Kings. He knows what Pope Gregory VII, Gregory IX, Innocent III, Innocent IV, Boniface VIII, Paul III, Pius V, Sixtus V, Gregory XIII, have not only taught, but acted in pursuance of these Doctrines. He knows there was a Holy League among those who had not the Bible in their Banners, as well as a Solemn League and Covenant among those who had. And he knows, or (at least) may soon know, if he please, That the chief Weapons of the Rebellion in Forty two, were fetched from Rome; I mean, the Arguments by which the People were stirred up to rebel, were transcribed from Popish Writers, particularly from Mariana and Parsons, out of whom he may see in some Books then published, whole leaves together translated. And therefore,  
5. The Divisions among the Vulgar, are very rarely in comparison owing to themselves; they are not to be imputed to the different Senses, which they themselves in their private reading put upon the Bible, but (for the most part) to the different Senses they receive of it from their Teachers. For the truth of which, I appeal to History, and to the common Observation of Mankind. If the Representer be not satisfied with this, I desire him to answer but this one Question: Whence came it to pass, that so many of the Vulgar in England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc. divided themselves from the Church of Rome, before they had the Bible in a Language they understood? That Division could not proceed from their reading of the Bible, which was made before they had ever read it. I cannot imagine what Answer he can give, but that they followed their Leaders, Wickliff, Luther, Zuinglius, etc. who first dividing from the Church of Rome, drew the People after them. The Division therefore took its Rise from the Learned, and from them descended to the Ignorant.  
The Trent Fathers therefore were miserably mistaken, in denying the Bible to the Laity only; they should have decreed in the first place, that no Clergyman should be suffered to read it, (that there might be like People, like Priest). And this the more prudent Bishops at Bononia were ware of, when they advised Julius III, not to permit any Mortal to read more of the Gospel, than that little which is contained in the Mass 
(e) Consil. de Rom. Eccles. stabiliend. apud Vergerium, Tom. 1. . I need say no more to expose the Falsehood of this Assertion, That the Divisions among Christians, proceed solely or chief from permitting the Bible among the Vulgar. But,  
2. If this were true, yet it would not be a sufficient Reason for denying the reading of the Bible to the Vulgar. For if it were so now, it would have been so heretofore; it would have been so in the early Ages of the Christian Church, when there were as many Sects and Heresies as there are now: It would have been so in the Time of the Apostles, for in almost every Church planted by them, Divisions presently sprang up: It would have been so in the Jewish Church, for they had their Sects as well as the Christians; yea, it would have been so from the very beginning, when the Scripture was first published.  
But when the Bible was first written, had this been a sufficient Reason, would God have caused it to be written in the Vulgar Language of that People to whom it was given, and laid his Command upon all without distinction, to apply themselves to the study of it. And in the succeeding Ages of the Jewish Church, yea after the Babylonian Captivity (though some new Sects than sprang up among them) so far was it from being thought a Reason, why they should not read the Law, that by the Laws of that Nation, every Man was obliged to write a Copy of the Law for himself, with his own hand. And if the Case had been altered in the days of our Saviour, would he not have told us? Would he never have reproved the prying Multitude, (as the Representer is pleased to compliment the People) for reading the Law and the Prophets? Nay, would he have put them upon the reading of them, as he plainly does, as oft as in his Discourses to the People, he quotes them for the proof of what he says. And had his Apostles after him thought this a fit Expedient, either for the Prevention or Cure of Divisions, when they wrote their Epistles to those Churches in which Divisions were already sown, (as the Churches of Corinth and Colosse) would they have addressed them to all without exception, and exhorted all, that the Word of God dwell in them richly? And when, in succeeding Ages, the Church was miserably rend with Schisms, do any of the Fathers prescribe this Remedy? Nay, though St. Jerome, St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, etc. sadly complain of the abuse of Scripture by Heretics, yet do they not exhort all sorts of Persons to read it? In a word, The Church of Rome itself, did not think this a fit Expedient, till it was so changed from what it was in the beginning, that if St. Peter, and St. Paul should have been raised again from the Dead, they would not have owned it for that Church which they at first planted. I have, I think, said more than enough, to the first Mischief.  
II. The second (which he gives as the main Reason, 
Mischief II.  why the Holy Scripture is not allowed to the Vulgar of his Church without exception) is this: That if this be allowed, there will be as many different Bibles among them, as there are Heads 
(f) Chap. 8. p. 54. : that is, The words of the Bible will be understood by them, in as many different senses as there are Men: For he thus explains himself; Tho the Book of the Scriptures does certainly contain the Word of God, yet to every Christian that reads it, 'tis the Sense and Meaning, and not the Letter, is more properly the Word of God. Now do You but reflect in how many different Senses the Letter of the Bible is understood, and so many different Bibles will you find multiplied by your Followers: And tell me, upon examination, whether this be much fewer than Heads 
g P. 54. ? So wonderfully pleased is he with this Conceit, that he presently falls into a fit of Raillery. Don't you think there would be a pretty variety of Bibles? there would be this Man's Bible, and that Man's Bible; such an one's Bible, and such an one's Bible; infinite number of Bibles. But I fear I shall quickly spoil his mirth.  
I shall not insist upon it; That every difference in sense, makes not a difference of Bibles, as long as there is an agreement in all things material, in those Points, which by all the differing Parties are acknowledged sufficient to Salvation. I need not beg this, because they themselves are forced to assert it in their own defence: For they acknowledge, that the Vulgar Latin Translation of the Bible, differs in many places from the Original; That before Pope Clement's Edition, there were many various Readins: That the Bibles set forth by Sixtus and Clement, are different each from other in many Places; and yet they say, they are not to be reckoned different Bibles, because they do not differ in any thing material to the Faith.  
This being premised, I return to his Argument, which in short is this: If the Holy Scriptures should be generally allowed to the Vulgar, without exception, they will every one understand them in a different sense 
h Ibid. . Therefore they ought not to be thus allowed.  
Now in that he says generally, and without exception, He supposes, That if they be allowed to the Vulgar, not generally, but with an Exception, they to whom they are so allowed, will not make them so many different Bibles: From whence it plainly follows; That if they should be allowed to all, without exception, yet many of that all, will understand them in the same sense; which overthrows his universal Conclusion, viz. That there will be as many different Bibles as Heads. But I pass this; Nor shall I stay to show; First, That the Antecedent is notoriously untrue. Secondly, That if it were true, yet the same Mischief will follow, if the Vulgar be taught the Bible by their Pastors, (as he says they are in the Church of Rome) because they may put as many different Interpretations upon their words, as upon the words of the Bible. But shall content myself to return these three things in answer to the Argument, which will sufficiently expose its absurdity.  
First; That it is of equal force against the reading of the Bible by the Learned, yea, of much greater. The Reason is plain, because the Learned are those especially, who expound the Bible to different Senses. The most zealous Papist, if he please to follow the Representer's Direction, shall find this as evident as Demonstration. Let him first ask twenty Laymen, what is the meaning of such a Text, and write down each Man's sense at length as he delivers it, in one Column; Then let him consult twenty of the most learned Popish Commentators, upon the same Text, and write down what each of them says in another; then let him compare all the Laymen senses together, and observe all the differences that are between them: Let him then compare all the Learned Commentators senses together, and observe likewise all the Differences between them; then let him compare the Differences between the Vulgar, with those between the Learned, and if he find not the former fewer and less material than the later, I shall own that I am mistaken.  
I add; That if the Understanding some places of Scripture in a different sense, makes different Bibles, then St. Cyprian and St. Stephen, St. Austin and St. Jerome, St. Cyril and Theodoret, yea, all the Learned Fathers of the Primitive Church, had different Bibles; and therefore (if this Argument signify any thing) ought not to have been suffered to read the Scripture. The absurdity of which will yet be more manifest, because,  
Secondly, Where the Vulgar are not permitted to read the Bible, there are as many different Bibles (in the Representer's sense) as where they are: Even in the Church of Rome, there are as many, I may truly say, many more than among the Protestants. The Thomists have one Bible, the Scotists another; the Franciscans one, the Dominicans another; the Jesuits one, the Jansenists another: The Scotists' Bible teaches, that Original Sin, is nothing but the Privation of Original Righteousness; the Thomists Bible teaches, it is more: The Franciscans find in their Bible the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; the Dominicans find no such Matter in theirs: The Jansenists Bible gives to God alone the praise of Converting Grace; the Jesuits Bible gives it to God, and themselves too. In many of their Bibles, Transubstantiation is as legible, as these words, This is my Body; in many others, no such Doctrine appears.  
Yea, the very Pope's themselves (in spite of their Infallibility) have Bibles not only different, but plainly contradictory. Pope Gregory's I. Bible, taught him, that the Emperor was his Lord; Pope Gregory's VII. that the Emperor was his Vassal. Yea, some of their Bible's have taught them to be downright Heretics; so did Pope Honorius', and John's XXIII. And which is yet worse, not only their Popes, but their Councils too, have had different Bibles, as might be showed at large, if it were needful. Yea if that be true which a great Cardinal has affirmed; That the Precepts of Christ may be changed by the Church, and at one time be interpreted to this sense, and at another time to that 
i Card. Cusan. Epist. 2. de usu Communionis ad Bohem. . Then the Church of Rome may, every Age or every year, have a different Bible.  
And whereas the Representer grants, that the Protestants have all the same Bible in their hands, though it be different in their Heads; Those of the Church of Rome have in their Hands in one Age one Bible; in another Age, another. In this and the Age next foregoing, the Books of the Maccabees have been part of the Bible in their Hands, which certainly were not so in the Age of Gregory the Great 
k Greg. Moral. Expos. in Job. l. 19 c. 17. .  
I further add, That their agreement about the sense of the Council of Trent, is as little, as about the sense of the Scripture. Soto's Council of Trent, and Catharinus' Council of Trent; Bellarmin's Council of Trent, and the Bishop of Meauxes Council of Trent, are so far from being the same, that they are in many things directly opposite. And therefore,  
3. To retort the Argument; How shamefully does the Representer delude the poor Vulgar, in persuading them, that though they do not read the Bible, yet the very same Word of God is delivered to them by their Teachers; whereas when it comes to be examined, it is not the Word of God, but their Teacher's Imaginations they are guided by. To convince him of this by his own experiment. Let him take all the different senses their Teachers put upon the Scripture, and carry them to any Licenser of his own Church in order to be printed and published as the Word of God, and Rule of Faith, and see if he can find any who will set them forward with an Imprimatur. What an  Imposture is it then, to let so many poor Souls go on with a secure confidence of following the Word of God, when what they follow is nothing better than the Imaginations and Dreams of their Priests! Let now the Representer judge, to whose shame the Droll is exposed, and if he please, let him still go on to upbraid the Protestants with their different Bibles.  
III. But the Representer will go farther with us. For 
Mischief III.  'tis not only thus, says he, in several People, but even the same Person many times has the faculty of multiplying the Word of God. For how many are there to be found among the Vulgar, who according to their different humours, as their Interest changes, according to the different Impressions they receive from Confidents, especially such as have gained their good Opinion, espouse different Doctrines and Persuasions, and run thorough as many Sects, as there are Divisions in the Nation? And yet in all their wind, they follow (as they imagine) the Scripture.— Don't you see how to these same Persons the Word of God is not always the same? It altars according to Seasons and Times, and it was one Word of God directed them the last year, another this, etc.  
Now suppose all this to be true of many of the Vulgar, is it not also as true of many of the Learned? yea of many of the most Learned in the Church of Rome? May it not as truly be said, how many may be found among your Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, who according to their different humours, as their Interest changes, espouse different Doctrines and Persuasions? Witness in elder times Pope Liberius and Vigilius, who were either Heretics or Catholics, as their Interest changed. And for later times, witness the Cardinal of Cusa; who, one while more zealous than he, for the Authority of a General Council above the Pope? But when he expected to be made a Cardinal, who more zealous for the contrary Doctrine? Upon which Richerius his Words are observable: By this, saith he, we are given to know, that very many who have defended the Truth in a state of Poverty, have deserted the same out of hope of Dignities, and a more plentiful Fortune; and especially out of an ambition of being made Cardinals 
(l) Hist. Concil. general. l. 3. p. 479. . Witness Aeneas Silvius, who vehemently opposed that Doctrine, when he was Pope, which he had before as vehemently maintained, when he was Clerk to the Council of Basil. And that it was interest that gave him this new Light, not I, but Richerius and Maimbourg plainly assert 
(m) Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. part. 1. c. 6. Maimb. Prerog. Of the Church of Rome. c. 25. p. 338. . Yea the Pope himself in his Bull of Retractation, says in effect as much; for speaking of the Disputes between him and Juliano Cardinal of St. Angelo, he confesses the Doctrine he forsook was the ancient, and that he embraced was new 
(n) Tuebamur antiquam sententiam, ille novam defendebat. . Witness the Cardinal of Lorraine: Does not he he himself confess, that his Interest being turned, he turned with it 
(o) Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. l. 8. p. 767. ? Was not his Persuasion different, according to the different Impressions he received from the Pope and the Queen of France? When he first came to Trent, how contrary his Sentiments in several Points were to those he had afterward, when the State of affairs in France was altered, and he had been caressed by the Pope, and his Holiness had gained his good Opinion, may sufficiently appear by comparing the places quoted in the Margin 
(p) Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. ps. 659, 692, 703, 704, 712, 733, 743, 744, 767, 782, 813. .  
It's too well known to need to be mentioned, how that Gardener, Bonner, and all the Popish Bishops (Fisher only excepted) espoused different Doctrines and Persuasions, as their Interests changed, and according to the different Impressions they received, either from the King or the Pope.  
And don't you now see, how to these same Bishops, Cardinals and Popes the Word of God was not always the same, but altered according to Seasons and Times? That it was one Word of God that directed Aeneas Silvius, while he was Secretary to the Council of Basil, another, while he was Pope. That in King Henry viii. and King Edward VI's. Reigns, the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs, was in Gardiner's and Bonner's Bibles: in Queen Mary's Reign, the Pope's was found instead of the King's. The Conclusion hence is unavoidable; That if all Men are to be denied the reading of the holy Scriptures, who according to their different Humours, as their Interest changes, espouse different Doctrines and Persuasions, they must be denied to many more than the Vulgar, unless their Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are to be placed in that rank.   

SECT. III.  
In the next place the Representer gives us his Reasons, why the Vulgar so differ in the sense of the Bible which are two; one of them employed, the other expressed. That which is employed is the Obscurity of the Scripture; That which is expressed is, the setting up every Man's private Reason to be Judge of Scripture 
(q) Chap. 9 p. 58. Reason I. .  
I. The Obscurity of the Scripture. For if it be so plain and easy, says he, how comes it there is so little agreement in the understanding it?  
When the Protestants affirm, that the Scripture is plain and easy, they mean it is so to those only who read it with honest Hearts, who sincerely desire to know the Truth, and to direct their Lives answerable to it; and they mean, that it's so, not simply in all things, but in all things necessary to Salvation. And when they affirm this, they affirm no more than St. Austin did: Believe me, saith he, whatsoever is in those Scriptures, (speaking of the Scriptures of the old Testament, which are more obscure than those of the new) it is high and Divine, they contain nothing but what is true, and that Doctrine which is most fit for the repairing and restoring of Souls, and so disposed, that there is no Man, but may draw thence that which is sufficient for him, provided he comes devoutly and piously affected, as true Religion requires 
(r) Quicquid est, mihi crede, in Scriptures illis, altum & divinum est: inest omnino veritas, & reficiendis instaurandisque animis accommodatissima disciplina: & plane ita modificata, ut nemo inde haurire non possit, quod sibi satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devotè ac piè, ut vera Religio poscit, accedat. De utilitate credendi. c. 6. . They affirm no more than what St. Chrysostom did; for he says, That all things necessary are manifest 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 3. in 2. ad Thess. . They affirm no more than what the Bishop of Rome did formerly. For the Holy Scripture, saith Pope Gregory, (as I find him quoted by the Authors of the Preface of the Mons Testament) is as a great River, which runs always, and which will run to the end of the World. The little Children and the Men of full Stature, the strong and the weak, do there find that living Water that springs up even to Heaven. It offers itself to all, and it suits itself to all. It hath a simplicity that abases itself to the most simple Souls, and a height that exercises and raises the most lofty 
† P. 9 .  
Nay they say no more than what many learned Romanists of this present Age have said. The Bishop of Vence, speaking of the new Testament, says, The Son of God hath in it taken care to teach us CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY, our whole Duty to him, as well as our whole Duty to our. Neighbour and ourselves. This is that which the Gospels contain; The Epistles of the Apostles are a Comment upon it, and an Explication more enlarged and distinct, which leave not any thing in the Christian Life we ought to live upon Earth, unexplained 
(t) Preface of Mr. Arnaud. . And Mr. Arnaud says, That the holy Fathers have noted, that one of those things which show the Divinity of the holy Scriptures, and in which they excel all the Writings of Men, is this, That they are equally accommodated to the Learned and the Ignorant, to little Children and to grown Men, to the weak and to the perfect, to the shallow and the more profound Wits 
(u) De la Lect de l'Ecriture sainte l. 2. c. 6. .  
But the Representer asks; If the Scripture be so plain and easy, how comes it there is so little agreement in the understanding it? How are there so many different and contrary Divisions, Sects and Persuasions in this one Nation? How comes it, that even in the essentials of Christianity, concerning the Trinity etc. there has been, and at present is so great diversity among those that read the Scripture? I answer  
1. That the agreement among Protestants is not so little as he pretends: That the Reformed Churches agree in all essential Points of Faith, any Man may be satisfied, who will take the pains to read over the Harmony of their Confessions. But,  
2. Let the Disagreement be more or less, it proceeds not from the Obscurity of the Scriptures. This is evident, because the Disagreement among those that read the Scripture, is as great in those things that are most plainly, as in those that are more obscurely delivered. Can anything be more plain, than these words of Christ concerning the Cup, Drink ye all of it 
(w) Mat. 26. 27. ? Or those of St. Paul, in which he applies this Drinking to the Lay-Corinthians 
(x) 1 Cor. 11. 25. ? Suppose it was Christ's Intention, that the Laity should partake of the Cup, as well as the Bread; would not those Men, who do not see it in these words, in whatsoever Words he had expressed it, have found out another meaning? It's plain then, that it is not the obscurity of the Text, from whence this diversity of Interpretation arises. But.  
2. To gratify the Representer, I'll plainly tell him what it is. 1. In those who have different Lusts and Interests to serve, 'tis their different Lusts and Interests with which the Scriptures must be forced to comply. 2. In those who are sincere, and do not profess contrary to their Belief, it is the different Prejudice or Principle they are possessed with. Tho the Scripture speaks never so plainly against the Doctrine and Worship of such a sort of Men, yet if it be inconsistent with that which they have laid for the main Principle and Foundation of their Faith, they can never persuade themselves that the Words are to be taken according to the most common and obvious sense, but must find out some other meaning for them. For instance: It is a Principle with the Romanists that their Church cannot err: Let therefore Scripture be never so express against the Worship of Images, against Transubstantiation, against Communion in one kind, against the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, against Prayer in an unknown Tongue, yet they must of necessity conclude, that it does not mean what it seems to say, because if it should, it unavoidably follows, that their Church hath gosly erred, which according to their Principle is as impossible, as that the Truth and Promise of God should fail. And that it is indeed this Principle, & not the Obscurity of the Scripture, that makes the difference in many Texts between them and us, is evident enough by this consideration, viz. That they cannot see that in the plainest words, that is contrary to their Principle; whereas in words not only obscure, but most remote and impertinent, they can see that which is agreeable thereto.  
1. They cannot see that in the plainest words, that is contrary to their Principle. If to worship an Image be unlawful, their Church hath erred; therefore they cannot see it is forbid in the Second Commandment; though it is hard to conceive that other Words can be used more full to that purpose. For be it graven Image, or graven Thing, or Idol that is forbidden, it matters not; since the Similitude or Likeness of any thing in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, etc. is forbidden also.  
2. But see now, how they can find that in the most remote and impertinent Text, that is agreeable to their Principle. Would you have a Scripture for the Worship of Images; Bellarmine gives you Mat. 5. 34, 35. Swear not by the Heaven, for it is God's Throne, nor by the Earth, for it is his Footstool 
(y) De Imagine. Sanctorum l. 2. c. 12. . If you think this not clear enough, take 2 Tim. 3. 15. Thou hast known the holy Scriptures from a Child 
(z) Ibid. . The Scriptures are called Holy Scriptures, therefore the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be worshipped. Here's a Demonstration as bright as Midnight. He must be stark blind, or shut his Eyes hard, who can avoid its light. I omit many other Instances which are ready at hand. By these now mentioned, it's manifest enough, that men's Disagreement about the Sense of Scripture, doth not proceed from its obscurity, but from the different Principles or Prejudices they are prepossessed with. Better would it be for the Church of Rome, were it more obscure in many Points than it is: And were it but as clear for them, as it is against them, they would not then complain of its Obscurity, or prohibit the Vulgar the reading of it.  
II. But the Protestants are for setting up every Man's private Reason to be Judge of Scripture. What? to be Judge of what in Scripture ought to be received, and what rejected, as the Socinians do? This is a very disingenuous Misrepresentation. Much more remote from Truth is it, That they are far worse in this, than the rankest Socinian in the World 
(a) P. 58. . The Protestant, he very well knows, being satisfied by his Reason concerning the divine Authority of the Scripture, he firmly assents to whatsoever he finds delivered in it, though he be not able to conceive how it should be. He indeed uses his Reason in judging of the sense of Scripture, which he must of necessity do, or else he can have no reason to believe it in a true, rather than a false sense: But having to the best of his understanding found out the meaning of it, he makes neither common nor private Reason the Measure of what is to be received, so as to admit nothing into his Faith, but what he is able fully to understand. Tho he meets with some things which are above his Capacity, yet he does not say as Socinus, speaking of Christ's Satisfaction, If the very word were in Scripture, not once, but often, yet I would not believe it; but thinks he has the greatest Reason in the World to believe them, because God has delivered them. And that some things in Scripture are above his Capacity; this he thinks is so far from being a discouragement, that it is rather a motive to his Faith; for he might be tempted to suspect the Divinity of the Scriptures, if he found nothing in them above the reach of his own little Understanding, either at first to find out, or afterward to comprehend.  
And if this be to make private Reason, the Rule of Scripture, we need not be ashamed to own it. For this is no more than what our Blessed Saviour allowed to private Persons. He frequently appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but he left it to every man's Reason to judge, whether they were for him or against him. Yea, did he not severely reprove the promiscuous Multitude, for not judging even of themselves what was right 
(b) Luk. 12. 57 ? For to the Multitude (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 54.) these words were directed. This is no more than what the Apostles of our Lord have laid as a Duty upon private Christians; St. Paul commands them to prove all things 
(c) 1 Thes. 5. 21. ; and thought the common Christians of the Church of Corinth wise enough to judge what he said 
(d) 1 Cor. 10. 15. : St. John requires them, to try the Spirits whether they be of God 
(e) 1 Joh. 4. 1. : And can they do this if they may not judge of the sense of the Scripture? This is no more than what St. Chrysostom frequently exhorted the People to, and sharply reproved their neglect of it.  
Yea, notwithstanding the loud cry they make against private Reason and the private Spirit, the Roman Clergy themselves are forced to appeal to it. For when to draw Men over from us to them, they produce so many Scriptures, and so many Reasons (such as they are) fetched from Scripture; Do they not make every Man's Reason Judge, whether these Scriptures and these Reasons are to the purpose?  
If they say, a Man must use his Reason to judge which is the true Church, but having once found it, he must then take the sense of Scripture upon the Church's word: nothing can be said more absurd: Because a Man must judge of thesense of the Scripture, before he can discern which is the true Church; since that can not otherwise be known than by those Characters the Scripture gives of it. Besides, one of their own Marks of the true Church, is the Holiness of its Doctirne 
(f) Bell. de Notis Eccles. l. 4. c. 11. : A Man therefore must know what the Doctrine of a Church is, before he can know it to be a true Church; and how shall a Man know this, but by first examining her Doctrine by Scripture? A Man must therefore know the sense of Scripture, before he can know the true Church. But if it should be granted, that when a Man once knows the true Church, he must then understand the Scripture as the Church does; yet tell me, why he must do so? Is it because he hath Reason, or no Reason, so to do? You will not say, because he hath no Reason, (for you yourself give Reasons why he must) And if it be because he hath Reason, he than makes his Reason Judge of the sense of Scripture, as well as the Protestant.  
But Christian Faith, he says, is but one; that's granted. And all Christians are directed to meet in this ONE Faith, to be of ONE SPIRIT and ONE MIND to say all the same thing. This is also granted. Now can you imagine it possible, says he, for all Christians to concur in the same Belief, while the Scripture being but ONE which they read, their private Judgements give differing and contrary Interpretations of it, and carry them several ways 
(g) Chap. 9 P. 58. ? And will it be possible for all Christians to concur in the same Belief, if the Scriptures be denied to the Vulgar? For do not the private Judgements of the Clergy give as differing and contrary Interpretations of it, and carry them as many several ways? And therefore are there not as many Divisions among yourselves (as has been showed) as there are among Protestants? And is it not ridiculous, so often to insist upon that as a sovereign Remedy of Divisions, which is so ineffectual, that the Disease is as prevalent, where it is used, as where it is not?  
The Representer may perhaps say, That their Differences are not in matters of Faith: If not, than neither are ours, since theirs are in matters as considerable as ours are. But the best on't is, if notwithstanding their Differences among themselves, they are still of one Faith; then the Protestants also may be of one Faith, not only among themselves, but with them too, and therefore are no Heretics; since Protestants differ no more from them, than many of them do one from another.  
Tho therefore it be the Duty of Christians to be all of one Mind, and to speak the same things; and though I see no reason to question, but God hath afforded such helps in order thereunto, which if they were not wanting to themselves in the use of, they might attain to this Unity: Yet we have already seen, that the withholding the Scripture from the Vulgar is none of those means; and though some who will be wiser than God, have thought fit to make trial of it, yet they have hitherto found it unsuccesful. And for those means which God hath vouchsafed, as little Reason have we to expect, that they should by all Christians be faithfully used and applied, and they thereby be brought to this perfect Unity, as to expect, that all Men should become sober, and just, and charitable, and devout, which God has made no less their Duty, and for the effecting of which, he hath vouchsafedas powerful means.  
But now let us again try, whether this long Harangue be not of equal force, against the reading of the Scripture by the Learned, as by the Vulgar.  
If the different Sects in Religion proceed from the reading of the Scripture by the Vulgar, how comes it that there are so many different and contrary Divisions, Sects and Persuasions among you Romanists? How comes it that even in those things, that by the differing Parties are reckoned Matters of Faith, there hath been, and at present is, so great Diversity? The business is, you suffer every Learned Man's private Reason to be Judge of Scripture, which when put to the test, proves in thousands and thousands to be no better than Passion, Prejudice, Interest, Imagination, Guessing, or Fancy. Don't you find by experience, that there's no Proposal made, but presently the Learned are divided about it? as they were in almost every Question in the Council of Trent; nor could the Controversies be decided by the Fathers, but they were forced to make many of their Decrees in such general Terms (for the gratifying of the contending Parties) as might be interpreted to contrary Senses? Don't you see again, That almost every Scholar's Reason is different, as their Capacity, Parts, Education, Temper, Inclinations, Impressions are different? That as every one has a Head of his own, so he has generally a Reason, or way of reasoning of his own? Nay, are not the Learned so inconstant even to themselves too, that what is Reason to them at one time, is unreasonable at another? How then can you permit a thing so slippery, so weak, various, wavering, changeable, inconstant, as you see the private Reason of the Learned is, to be relied on by them, as their Guide in expounding of Scripture? How can you imagine it possible for all Christians to concur in the same Belief, while the Learned, who read and expound the Scripture, give differing and contrary interpretations of it? For as long as the Scripture is no otherwise in their Heads and Hearts, than by the interpretation they make of it, their Faith must necessarily be as various as their Interpretation.  
And is not the Story of the Manna (which follows) as applicable to the Learned? For, was not the taste of the Manna as different to the Priests, as it was to the People? Did it not relish according to that kind of Meat, that was most grateful to every Priest's Palate? Now if the Priests in Canaan had received a Command of bringing forth that sort of Meat, whose taste should be like that of the Manna they eaten in the Desert, was it possible they should all agree in their Dish? Since though the Manna was the same they all fed on, yet the Relish was as different as their Tempers and Palates. Don't you therefore see, that Men will never be of one Spirit, and one Mind, until the reading of the Scripture be prohibited to the Learned? and not to some, but to all, his Holiness, as Infallible, only excepted? For if it be allowed to the Cardinals (notwithstanding their Eminences above others) together with his Holiness, they will never agree in the sense of it: For I can tell you of many Cardinals who have differed from his Holiness, and among themselves too, about the sense of it. Is it not then as plain as Demonstration, that there will be no end of Controversies, as long as the Scriptures are read, by any Man in the World, besides the Pope? And perhaps not then neither, for since he is not infallible but when he speaks from his Chair, (which seldom happens) at other times he may chance to contradict himself, and give one sense of Scripture this Year, another the next. It were therefore most advisable (could it possibly be effected) that the Book itself were utterly abolished.  
Let not any Man interpret this to the disparagement of Learning, since nothing can be more evident, than that the Learned have vast Advantages above the rest of Mankind, for attaining to the true meaning of the more obscure Texts of Scripture; provided they sincerely search after Truth, and are so humble, so sensible of their own liableness to mistake, that they daily implore the Divine Assistance: But if they be destitute of these Qualifications, they are not only as subject to err, but to err more dangerously than others.  
In the beginning of the 10th Chapter, the Representer talks again at the same impertinent rate; so agreeable to him is this way of reasoning, that he naturally falls into it, in every Chapter. But the Vanity of it lies so open, that it need not be further exposed. If any Man please to consult the place, I shall leave it to himself to judge, whether it be not every whit as applicable against permitting the Scripture to the Learned as the Vulgar.  
But the Representer may say, The Church of Rome does not allow the Learned to interpret Scripture according to their own private Reason: For the Council of Trent has decreed, That no Man presume to interpret Scripture, contrary to the sense of the Church, or the unanimous consent of the Fathers.  
And has not the Church of England, her Confession of Faith, contrary to which she allows none of her Members to interpret Scripture? Does she not admit all such Traditional Interpretations as can be derived from the Fountain? And for all such Texts as are obscure and doubtful, does she not direct the Vulgar to consult their Guides? Tho it is true, she does not command them to believe, that White is Black, or that Vice is Virtue, if the Priest says that it is. But however, the Church of Rome denies them the liberty of interpreting the Scripture in their own sense; it is certain, that they commonly take it; else how comes it, that they give such different senses of the same Scripture? How comes it, that many of the Learned expound the sixth Chapter of St. John, of the sacramental eating of Christ's Flesh; and many as learned as they, say, that no such matter is there intended? How comes it, when so many tell us, that these words, This is my Body, are so plain for Transubstantiation, that he must be quite blind who does not see it? that others, whose sight is as good as theirs, tell us, they are not able to see this in them? Do these Learned Men, in their Exposition of the Scripture, give us the sense of the Roman Church, or do they not? If not, they follow their own private Reason; if they do, their Church gives contrary senses of Scripture, and is as far from being one in this respect, as it is from being Catholic.  
He confesses, p. 63. That some of the Protestants, to keep up the Face of the Church, do speculatively contend for Authority and Guides: But then he says, In Fact they defeat all these their Pretensions. How do they in Fact defeat them? Because they own no Authority so great or safe, but it is to be subjected to the control of every private Examiner. They own an Authority so great, as to Matters of External Government, as to be subject to the control of no Man, who lives in Communion with the Church. But he means, an Authority so great, that whatsoever the Church commands and prescribes to be received, as the Truth and Faith of Christ, it ought to be received. But can the Church have no Authority, unless Men are bound to believe, without examination, whatsoever she prescribes to be believed? If so, then had she no Authority in our Saviour's and his Apostles days; no, nor for several Ages after them. For if any such Authority had been owned in the fourth Century, how came it to pass, that after the Nicene Council, the Arian Heresy spread more than it had done before?  
If this be to open a Gate to all the Fanaticisms and Quakerisms in the World, 'tis certain the Protestants did not first open it, but it was long before opened by our Blessed Saviour, when he gave this Command to his Disciples; Call no Man Father upon the Earth, for one is Your Father which is in Heaven; neither be ye called Masters, for one is Your Master, even Christ 
(h) Mat. 23. 9, 10. . As much as to say, There is none upon Earth, by whose sense a Christian is to be absolutely determined, his Faith is not to be resolved into any Man's Authority.  
But by the Creed, all Christians are bound to believe the Holy Catholic Church. Yes, That there is such a Church, and that this Church teaches all Truth's necessary to be known: But it is one thing to believe this, another thing to believe as the Church of Rome doth. And tho Protestants never refuse to yield assent to all such Doctrines as the Church truly Catholic hath in all Ages taught; yet they can see no reason to pin their Faith upon the Church of Rome; there being as vast a difference between the Church of Rome and the Church Catholic, as between the Church of York and the Church of England.  
But St. Paul, Heb. 13. 17. commands all to obey, and submit to those that are over them. 'Tis true, and I grant, that by those that are over them, he means Ecclesiastical Superiors. But does not the same St. Paul command Children to obey their Parents, and Servants to obey their Masters? Would he therefore have all Children and Servants, to take their Faith upon trust from their Parents and Masters? He also commanded every Soul to be subject to the Higher Powers; and yet I am pretty confident, that his meaning was not, that every Christian should then believe as the Roman Emperor did.  
But he commands to obey and submit, not only as to External Government, but as to Truth and Belief. Then those who had Arian Bishops (as a great part of the Church for some time had) were bound to believe, that Christ was not God; and those who had Donatist Bishops, were bound to believe that the Church of Rome was so far from being the Catholic Church, that it was not so much as a Part of it. But how does the Representer prove, That the People ought absolutely to submit their Faith to those that are over them? because the Apostle says, v. 7. whose Faith follow. And does he not say, Chap. 6. 12. Be ye Followers of them, who through Faith and Patience inherit the Promises? Are we therefore bound to believe, as every deceased Christian hath believed? In both places the Apostle speaks of Christians departed this Life: in the later of Christians indifferently, in the former of Christian Bishops; And the words should be rendered, Remember them which have had the Rule over You, which have spoken to You the Word of God (such, for instance, as James Bishop of Jerusalem, who had witnessed the Faith by his Death) whose Faith follow. And the meaning is this; Imitate them in their Constancy and Perseverance in the Christian Profession and Practice, notwithstanding all the Persecutions you meet with in the World.  
The Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3. 15. may relate either to Timothy himself, or to that Summary of Christian Doctrine that follows. But suppose it relate to the Church, that particular Church was primarily meant, in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself; and I think no Romanist says, That a Man is bound to believe as every particular Church believes.  
The words of Christ, Matth. 18. 17. (If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man, and a Publican) are also impertinent, because he speaks there, not of Matters of Faith, but of Fact, and directs what course is to be taken for the ending of private Quarrels between Man and Man; though had he spoken of Matters of Faith, they would not have been to the purpose; because by the Church, can be meant no other than that particular Church, of which the offending Brother was a Member. I need say no more, to show how unconcluding those Reasons are, by which he would persuade us to abandon our Reason, and to take the sense of Scripture upon trust from his Church.    

CHAP. IU.  
I Proceed now to the fourth and last Head, viz. The false Constructions (as the Representer calls them) which the Protestants make of this Practice of the Church of Rome, or the wrong Inferences they deduce from it. Which are these three;  

1. That the Vulgar Papists are deprived of the Word of God.  
2. That they take up all their Belief upon trust.  
3. That the Reason why they are not permitted to read the Bible, is for fear, lest they should discover the Errors of their Religion.   
Whether these are Misconstructions, or no, I shall leave the impartial Reader to judge, after I shall have considered those Reasons by which he endeavours to prove that they are so.  

SECT. I.  
The first Protestant Inference is: That the Vulgar 
〈…〉.  Papists are deprived of the Word of God, of the Food of their Souls 
(i) Chap. 6▪ p. 43, 44, 4●  To prevent Cavils and Evasions, I premise this: The Protestant does not say, that the Vulgar Papists have nothing of the Scripture allowed them. He very well knows, that some shreds of it are now and then given them in Sermons, and some small parcels in their Catechisms, and Manuals of Devotion. But what then? Will it hence follow, that it is false to say, they are deprived of the Scripture? Will not every Man say, That he is deprived of his Father's Will, who is allowed no more than the sight of here and there a Line transcribed from it? Or that a Man's Inheritance is detained from him, who has no more than a small Pension given him out of it?  
One may a little wonder, that this should be reckoned a false Inference. What! are they not deprived of the Word of God, who are not suffered to read it, or so much as to have it in a Language they understand? No, says the Representer; The Vulgar of our Communion have more of this Holy Food, than those of any other Persuasion whatsoever 
(k) P. 45. . This is yet more wonderful, That they should not be permitted to have it; and yet that they should have more of it, than those who have the whole of it in their Hands, and daily read it. How shall we unriddle this? Why, They are taught it by their Pastors. Be it so; Does it thence follow, that they have more of it than those of other Persuasions, who are taught it by their Pastors as well as they? For whereas he presently suggests, That the Protestants are for leaving their Pastors, that they may teach themselves: that's a Calumny. Tho the Protestants read the Scriptures themselves, yet they do not reject their Pastors; They do not think, the use of the one does render the other needless now, any more than it did in the first Ages of the Christian Church, when they both went together, and were both thought necessary. But that they who are taught it by their Pastors only, should have more of it than those who are both taught it by them, and have the whole of it in their own possession, is as true, as that a part is more than the whole.  
But the Representer will say; Their Pastors teach them all that is necessary for them to know. How shall the Vulgar know this? We can tell them of Pastors who have concealed from their People some of the most necessary Points of the Christian Faith; but I need not name them to the Representer. But how are the People assured, that what they teach them, is indeed the Word of God, and not their own Inventions, when they are not suffered to examine it? As it was foretold that false Teachers should arise, so every Age since hath seen that Prediction verified; and for this Reason St. John exhorts Vulgar Christians, as well as others, to bring their Teacher's Doctrines to the Trial 
(l) 1 Joh. 4. 1. . Is it necessary that every one that is commissioned to teach, should be so sincere, as to deliver nothing but what he believes to be the Faith of Christ? The Bishop of Minori in the Council of Trent thought otherwise, he was afraid there might be many Priests who were real Infidels 
(m) Hist. of the Counc. of Trent, l. 2. p. 241. . And if the Representer be not satisfied with this, we can produce those in this very Age, who have taught that as a necessary Article of Faith, which they were so far from believing necessary, that they could not persuade themselves it was true.  
But if the Priest be honest, is he also infallible? This the Representer must suppose, or else he reasons at an absurd rate: For thus he argues; Was Mary Magdalen deprived of the Word of God, who placed at her Saviour's Feet, heard it from his own most sacred Mouth? Were those People deprived of the Word of God, to whom the Apostles were sent to preach, for those several Years, before any of the Gospel was in writing? It is not writing, we know, that makes it the Word of God, for all that Word of God that is now written, was once unwritten. But pray Sir tell me; Is every thing taught by a Priest of the Church of Rome, as certainly the Word of God, as that which was taught by our Blessed Saviour, and his Apostles? Is every Parish Priest at length become Infallible? If so, what a shame is it that any Controversies are left among yourselves, when every Parish affords an infallible Interpreter of Scripture? If not, than they may teach that for the Word of God, which is nothing less. However, all that we contend for, is, That the Vulgar may be suffered to read that Word which Mary heard, for that she heard was the same that is now written; and had it been then written from Christ's Mouth, can any Man be so senseless as to imagine, that after he had done speaking, he would have forbidden her, under severe Penalties to read it?  
But let us now suppose, That every Roman Teacher is both able and sincere; will it hence follow, that the People may not read the Scriptures? Had St. Luke thought so, he would never have commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures, whether those things that were spoken by St. Paul were so 
(n) Act. 17. 11. . Had St. Paul himself thought so, would he have proved what he said by Scripture? (for in doing so, he put his Hearers upon the searching it) and thereby taught all succeeding Pastors what they ought to do? To which purpose the words of Origen are observable 
(o) In cap. 3. Epist. ad Rom. ; If such and so great an Apostle, did not suppose his Authority sufficient Warrant to his Say, unless he made it appear, that what he says is written in the Law and the Prophets, how much more ought we little Ones observe this, that we do not bring forth ours, but the Sentences of the Holy Spirit? Now I presume it will not be denied, but St. Paul was as faithful and able a Teacher as any in the Church of Rome. If it should, yet doubtless it will be granted that our Saviour may compare with the best of them; and he (as we have heard before) frequently sent his Hearers to the Scriptures. And if we consult the Ancient Fathers, especially St. Chrysostom, (who was as diligent a Pastor as any the Church can now boast of) we shall find, that notwithstanding his abundant pains in teaching, he vehemently exhorted the People to read the Scriptures themselves, and enforced his Exhortation by many powerful Arguments. Omitting many others, I shall reciet one Passage in his 10th Homily, on the first Chapter of the Gospel of St. John; Before I proved (saith he to his Hearers) to explain the words, I will ask one favour of you, which I beseech you not to deny me, for it is nothing burdensome, nothing hard to be done, which I ask, and much more profitable to you than to me. What is it then which I desire? That one Day in the Week, at least on Saturday, you take care to read that part of the Gospel which I am to explain to you, that every one take it into his Hands, repeat it often at Home, consider the Scope of it, mark what is clear, and what obscure, and what seems repugnant in it; and weighing all things beforehand, do you thus present yourselves to hear. This will bring no small profit both to you and to me. For it will be no great labour to me, to make you understand the force of the Gospel, when you have before rendered it, as to the words at least, familiar to yourselves at Home. And you will be not only more quick and ready to hear and learn, but also to teach others. There are many here present, who hear and endeavour to retain the words, and what I say upon them, who would receive no great benefit, though I should spend a whole Year in preaching upon them. Why? Because by the buy, and only for a little time here, they apply their minds to them, etc.  
I grant, It was Preaching, Teaching, and Instructing by word of Mouth, was the means appointed by Christ for planting his Gospel. But what then? doth it follow, that when the Gospel was written, it might not be read by the Vulgar? No more doubtless, than that it might not be read by the Learned; for that was the Means used for planting it among both. Nor can we well imagine, how it could at first be otherwise planted, because it was then to be confirmed by Miracles. And suppose it were true, that the Apostles who were thus commanded to preach, had never any Command to write; Is not this as good a Reason, why the Priests may not read the Gospel, as why the People may not?  
In the words following, the Representer sums up his Argument, viz. Since then the Papists are taught and instructed in the Word of God, the very same way that Christ himself taught all those that followed him; since they are instructed in it, the same way the Apostles themselves observed and commanded, by submitting to, and obeying those that are over them: Why do you say they are deprived of the Word of God? I answer. For these Reasons:  
1. Because that which they have of the Word of God is but very little, in comparison of what they are deprived of.  
2. Because much of that little, if taken with those glosses, and understood in that sense which they put upon it, is not the Word of God.  
3. Because much of that little, which in popular Discourse is delivered to them as the Word of God, is nothing less. This the Representer must be forced to grant, unless he can prove these two things.  
1. That both parts of a Contradiction may be true: For nothing is more obvious, than that those Propositions are, by many of the Roman Clergy, delivered as the Word of God, which are contradictory the one to the other. For Example: One says, the Wood of the Cross is to be adored; another, that Jesus Christ only is to be adored in the presence of the Cross. That the Pope has Power to depose Kings, one makes it Heresy to deny, another to affirm it.  
2. That that may be the Word of God, which is plainly contrary to what God hath taught in the holy Scriptures; for so are many things taught by many of their Pastors: For example; That the sacred Body of the Mother of Jesus is endowed with a superseraphical activity, whereby she can render herself present in a moment to all her devoties; vieweth all their Actions, Words and Concerns, and can aid them at whatever distance at all times, whatever their Calamities be &c. 
p Contemplations on the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary. p. 69. . When the Representer shall have proved these two Propositions: That Contradictions may be true, and that that may be the Word of God, that is plainly contrary to the Word of God, we may then perhaps be persuaded to believe, that the Roman Priests speak nothing but Oracles.   

SECT. II.  
That which is mentioned as the next Misconstruction, 
Inference II.  or false Inference of the Protestants, is this: That the Papist takes up all his Belief upon trust, he is led through all the Mysteries of his Religion by the hand, without seeing which way or whither he goes. All from beginning to end is Blindness and Ignorance, etc. 
q Chap. 7. p. 49. . And what says the Representer in answer to this? A Papist believes as the Church of God (that is the present Church of Rome) teaches. And does not he take all his Belief upon trust, who without examination, believes whatsoever his Church teaches? But how does he know what his Church teaches? his Priest tells him. Well, he believes as the Church teaches, he believes the Church teaches this or that, because his Priest tells him so; does he not then take his Church's Faith, and his own too, upon trust from his Priest? No: For he does not believe blindly, but knowingly and understandingly, so far as the littleness of humane Reason, and his own Capacity will give him leave. How does this appear? Because in order to this, his Church has provided him of variety of Learned Books, explicating to him the sense of the Scriptures, as likewise the Articles of his Creed, every Mystery of his Religion, the ten Commandments, the Sacraments, and the whole Duty of a Christian, and this in such numbers, both in Latin and English, and other Languages, etc. What? Learned Books for the Unlearned? and in Latin too, for those who understand not a word of Latin? May they not learn as much from the Latin Bible, as from a Latin Explication? Well may they believe understandingly, when their Church has provided them of such Books for that purpose, which are above their Understanding. But besides these, he has Books in English, and other Languages. In England he is better provided of Books, than in other Countries; But does he not take all these upon trust too, since he is not suffered to examine so much as one of them by the Scripture? Yea, is not his Belief of these Books, a plain Argument, that he believes blindfold? Because many such things are contained in them, which if he impartially examined, he could never yield his assent to. That I may not be thought to speak at random, I shall give a single Instance (out of that great number I could produce) in each of the Heads . 1. For the sense of Scripture; he must take it upon trust, who takes that Dominion ascribed to the Blessed Virgin, to be meant in these Texts quoted for it, viz. that God hath given her sovereign Dominion in Heaven over the Angels (the Queen stood at thy right Hand, Psalm. 44.) on Earth over Men (Kings reign by me, etc. Prov. 18.) and over Hell and the Devil; (she shall bruise thy Head Gen. 3.) 
r Jesus, Maria, Joseph. p. 167, 168.  2. For the Articles of his Creed: He believes upon trust, who believes Contradictions; and so does he, who believes, that by the Catholic Church in the Creed, is meant the Roman Catholic. 3. For the Mysteries of his Religion, I appeal to all Men, whether he does not take them upon trust, who takes them, as they are delivered in a Book lately printed 
s Contemplations on the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary. ; particularly this of the Nativity of the Mother of Jesus: That Holy Mary, being by a singular Privilege, (in regard of her Divine Maternity) perfectly innocent, holy, and full of Grace, Wisdom, and all Virtues, in the first positive instant, of the Infusion of her Soul, she from thence forth ever exercised the sublime Operations of the Contemplative and unitive Life, without recourse to Images of Imagination, or dependence on sense, by the help of abstractive Lights, divinely infused, representing, 1. The several Essences, Attributes and Motions of the whole Body of the Creation, in their several degrees and stations. 2. The Divinity of God, with its manifold Emanations, Operations, and unexplicable Comprehensions. 3. And the Humanity of Jesus, with all the Orders of Grace, Mysteries of Salvation, and extatick Loves of the Saints, whereby her great Soul was so completely actuated, even in the Womb of her Mother, that her Contemplations, Sallies of Love, and Unions with God were restless, ever increasing in their vigour, and still expatiating through the vast Motions and Methods of Mystical Love. Thus Divine Mary became still more acceptable to God, replenished with Grace, and absorbed in the Abyss of supernatural Perfection; which wonderfully increased the languish of Angels, Souls in Limbo, and of her holy Parents for the hour of her Birth 
t Ibid. p. 44, 45. . This is a Mystery, (and so are several others in the same Book) which, I fear, the Vulgar are not able to believe knowingly. 4. For the ten Commandments, he must believe blindly, who believes he has them entire in his Catechism, when so considerable a part is left out; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the Likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, etc. Or that he hath the fourth Commandment sincerely delivered in these words; Remember to sanctify the holy Days. We are told I know, in the Abridgement of Christian Doctrine, that the Church cannot be accused of the least shadow of omitting any parts of the Commandments 
u P. 113. . But how can that be, when it is before acknowledged, that a great Part of the Text is omitted? Because in no Catholic Bible, is there one Syllable left out. But what is this to the Vulgar, who are not permitted to read any Catholic Bible? who know no more of the Commandments, than what they find in their Catechism. 5. As to the Sacraments. Had he not need trust strongly, who believes, that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Order, in saying, Do this 
w Rheims Test. Annot. in Luke 22. v. 19 Abridgement of Christ. Doct. p. 184, 185. ? Behold here the Lights the Vulgar Papist enjoys! Is it not now as manifest as Light itself, That whosoever reproaches him with Blindness in the midst of so many Lights, may with as good Reason prove him to be in the dark, when Noonday shines upon him.  
Especially considering, That besides these Books, the Church hath given direction to all Parish-Priests, to explicate on Sundays and holidays, the Gospel, and some Mystery of the Faith, to such as are under their Charge, etc. But have we not reason to believe, that the Explications of their Parish Priests are answerable to those we meet with in their Books? and then notwithstanding these Helps and Assistances, not only some, but many of his Church, may believe without understanding; who cannot be condemned of Negligence and Sloth, in the use of those means their Church has provided for them. And if the Parish-Priests are generally as ignorant, as many Learned Men of the Church of Rome tell us they are, even they themselves believe without understanding, and therefore much more the People.  
But by what follows, the Vulgar Papists are very blame-worthy, if they know not the Scripture better, than the Vulgar of any other Communion. For it is an unquestionable Truth, that when a Book contains high Mysteries of Religion, Mysteries superior to all Sense and Reason, and those not delivered in expressions suited to every Capacity, but obnoxious to various interpretations, that the People is in all probability likely to have more of the true sense of this Book, and to be better informed of the Truth of the Mysteries it contains, who are instructed in it by the Learned of that Communion, and taught it by their Pastors, Prelates, and those whom God hath placed over them, to govern and feed the Flock; than any other People, who have the Book put into their own hands, to read it, and search it, and satisfy themselves.  
In answer to which I shall propose a few Questions to the Representer.  
1st. Whether it be an unquestionable Truth, that when a Book contains not only high Mysteries, but such things as for the far greater part, are not above the Capacity of the Vulgar; that he shall have more of the true sense of this Book, who is instructed in it by his Pastors only, than he who is instructed in it by them, and studies it himself too? In all Sciences there are some Mysteries; now is he likely to understand any other Science better, who takes only the Instructions of his Teachers, than he, who together with them, diligently studies it himself also?  
2. Suppose nothing but high Mysteries were contained in this Book; yet may not he as well understand these Mysteries, who is instructed in them by the Learned, and searches them himself, as he that trusts only to the Instructions of the Learned?  
3. Is it for the sake of these high Mysteries, that the reading of this Book is forbidden the Vulgar? If so, then, 1. Why was it not forbidden sooner? since these Mysteries were in it from the Beginning. 2. Why are other Books published for their use, in which are Mysteries superior to all Sense and Reason, and those not delivered in expressions suited to every Capacity, but such as may be wrested by the Unlearned and Unstable to their own destruction? Such I mean, as the Contemplations of the Life and Glory, etc. Jesus, Maria, Joseph, etc. And therefore,  
4. Is it not evident that it is not for the sake of the Mysteries, but of those things which are too plain and obvious to vulgar understandings, that the reading of this Book is prohibited?  
But he confirms what he says, both by Reason and Scripture.  
1. By Reason. Are not the Pastors more capable of teaching the People, than the People are of teaching themselves? An admirable Reason! Let us see how it will hold in other matters. Is not the Master or Tutor more capable of teaching the Scholar, than the Scholar is of teaching himself? He therefore will have more of the true sense of any Book in Logic, Physics or Metaphysics, that never looks into the Book himself, but only hears a Lecture once in a Week or Month from his Tutor, upon some part of it, than he that makes the Book his constant study.  
2. As admirable are the Proofs from Scripture. We know Moses gave the Book of the Law to the Levites to keep and read it every seven years to the People: And in King Jehosaphat 's Reign the Priests and Levites did read it, and teach the People; so did Jeremy by God's Command, so Isaiah, so Ezekicl. — And did not our Blessed Saviour take the Book of the Prophet, and read it, and expound it to the People? And was not this the Office of the Apostles and Deacons? etc.  
The Argument is this. The Priests and Levites read the Book of the Law, and taught the People; so did Jeremy, Isaiah and Ezekiel; Yea our Saviour and his Apostles read and expounded the Scripture to the People: Therefore they will understand more of the true sense of the Scripture, who never read it, than those who do. What pity was it, that Moses, and the Prophets, and our Saviour and his Apostles, did not understand the force of this Argument? for if they had, they would, no doubt, have forbidden the People to read the Scripture, and then we had never been pestered with those Sects and Heresies that spring from it: But they were altogether unacquainted with the Roman Politics. Tho therefore they read the Scripture to the People themselves, and read it in the vulgar Tongue; yet they left it free to the People to read it, and not only so, but laid it as a Duty upon them.  
He adds: For this intention was Ananias sent to Saul, Peter to Cornelius, and Philip to the Eunuch, who professedly owned, he could not understand the Prophet in so necessary a Point as that of the Messiah, without an Interpreter 
x P. 51. : None of which Instances make any thing for him, but that of the Eunuch makes much against him. For the Eunuch was reading the Prophet Isaiah, though he could not understand him; and St. Chrysostom 
y Hom. 35. in Genes.  and others 
z Non intelligebat Scripturae sensum homo prophanus & idiota; & tamen quoniam pio studio legebat, subito mittitur illi Philippus interpres, vertitur Eunuchus in virum, tingitur aquâ, & after aethiop's niveo agni immaculati vellere induitur; subitoque ex mancipio prophanae Reginae, fit servus jesus Christi. Eras. Epist. l. 29. Epist. 82.  observe, that God as a Reward of his Diligence and Piety, in doing what he was able, sent him a Teacher. And what follows hence? First, that they ought not to forbear the reading of the Scriptures, who do not understand them. Secondly, That they who thus read them with a pious Mind, shall be graciously accepted and rewarded by God. These Inferences are not mine, but both of them St. Chrysostom's.  
It follows; Since therefore the Papists, in delivering the Scriptures, come nearest to this method, commanded by God in the Old Law, prescribed and practised by Christ and his Apostles in the New, etc. If he mean, that this was the only Method commanded by God in the Old Law, and prescribed by Christ in the New, I have already showed it to be false. If he mean that this was one Method, then how widely remote the Conclusion is from the Premises, will appear only by setting them together. One Method commanded by God in the Old Law, was, that the Priests and Levites should read the Law, and explain it to the People: the like Method was prescribed and practised by Christ and his Apostles in the New Law: Therefore the Papists, in withholding the Scripture from the Common People, come nearest to the Method commanded by God in the Old Law, and prescribed by Christ and his Apostles in the New. Where lies the Connection? And yet I confess it follows as clearly as this, That the Scriptures were not in the Vulgar Tongue, because St. Paul said to Timothy, Thou hast learned the Holy Scriptures from a Child 
(a) Ledesma de Script. Divinis quavis lingua non legendis. c. 5. . I should have thought the quite contrary had followed, had I not been taught otherwise, by one that follows the guidance of the Infallible Church. Had the Representer spoken the whole Truth in the Premises, the Conclusion had been unavoidable for the Protestants, who in delivering the Scripture to the People, observe the same Method that God appointed under the Law, and Christ and his Apostles under the Gospel. What follows upon this Head, we have had before.   

SECT. III.  
That which the Representer reckons as another Misconstruction 
Inference 3.  of the Protestants, is this; That the Reason why the Vulgar Papists are not permitted to read the Bible, is for fear lest they should discover the Errors of their Religion 
(g) Chap. 8. p. 53. . 'Tis true, the Protestants assign this for one Reason; but when he brings in the Protestant saying, I can apprehend no other, he misrepresents them, because they assign others, though they take this to be the chief. Now this, he says, is a Misconstruction that lies so open, that there needs no more than a glimpse of Reason to discover it. Let us therefore see, whether there be so much as a glimpse in those pretended Reasons he brings to confute it; which are these two.  
1. That though the Vulgar and Unlearned of the Papists, have not in some Countries the Bible promiscuously allowed amongst them; yet that in those same Countries, and all others, there's no College, University, Community, or place of Learning, but where the Scriptures are publicly read and expounded 
(h) Ibid. .  
2. That there can be no ground for this Pretention, at least here in England, where the Bible in English, or the Rheims Testament, is to be found in most Catholic Families 
(i) P. 54. .  
1. That in all Popish Countries, there's no College, University, Community, or place of Learning, but where the Scripture is publicly read and expounded. Now if they (viz. the Protestants) should consider this, is it possible (says the Representer) for them to believe, that that Restraint is upon the Vulgar, for fear they should see into the Follies of their Religion? It is possible: and because we see a Papist can believe contrary to Sense and Reason, I add, that it is not only possible, but there is great Reason for Protestants to believe this. And that,  
1. Because even Papists themselves believe it. So did the Bishops that met at Bononia, to consult about the establishment of the Roman Church: For having given it as their last and weightiest Advice, to Julius III, That he labour to the uttermost, that as little as may be of the Gospel, especially in the Vulgar Tongue, be read in the Cities that were under his Dominions, and that that little might suffice which is wont to be read in the Mass. They add, This in short is the Book which, besides others, hath raised those Tempests and Whirlwinds which we are almost carried away with: And the truth is, if any Man shall diligently consider this Book, and then view in order one after another, the things which are wont to be done in our Churches, he will see that there is a very great difference between them, and that this our Doctrine is altogether divers from that, and ofttimes even contrary to it; which as soon as Men understand, being stirred up by some Learned Men of our Adversaries, they never give over clamouring against us, till they have rendered us odious to all Men 
k Hic ille est liber, qui praeter caeteros hasce nobis tempestates ac turbines concitavit, quibus prope abrepti sumus. Et sane si quis illum diligenter expendar, deinde quae in nostris fieri Ecclesiiis consueverunt, singula ordine contemplatur; videbit plurimum inter se dissidere, & hanc doctrinam nostram ab illa prorsus diversam esse, ac saepe contrariam etiam: Quod simul atque homines intelligunt, à docto scilicet aliquo Adversariorum nostrorum stimulati, non ante clamandi in nos finem faciunt, donec re tandem pervulgata nos invisos omnibus reddiderint. Consil. de Rom. Eccles. Stab. .  
Of the same Belief was Peter Suitor, as appears by these words; Since many things are delivered to be observed, which are not expressly in the Holy Scriptures; will not the Unlearned, observing these things, be ready to murmur, complaining that so great Burdens are laid upon them, by which their Gospel-Liberty is sorely abridged? And will they not be easily withdrawn from observing the Constitutions of the Church, when they shall see that they are not contained in the Law of Christ 
l Sed cum multa palam tradantur observanda, quae Sacris in literis expresse non habentur; nun Idiotae haec animadvertentes facile murmurabunt, conquerentes cur tantae sibi imponantur Sarcinae, quibus & libertas Evangelica ita gravicer elevatur? Nun & facile retrahentur ab observantia Institutionum Ecclesiasticarum, quando eas in lege Christi animadverterint non contineri. De Translat. Bibl. c. 22. Fo. 96. .  
To which may be added all those (which make a vast number) who (as the Cardinal Rodolpho Pio di Carpi) believe, that if the Bible be in the Vulgar Tongue, all Men will become Heretics 
m Soave 's Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. l. 5. p. 460. . For who do they usually mean by Heretics, but those who by reading the Bible, do first discover, and then renounce their Errors? Now tho, I confess, there are some things believed by Papists, which I think it impossible for a Protestant to believe; yet I doubt not but the Representer will grant, that the belief of this, is as easy to a Protestant as it is to a Papist: And that since it is believed by Papists, there is very good reason why Protestants should believe it.  
2. Since they allow the Vulgar the Ten Commandments in their own Tongue, what probable Reason can be given why they leave out this part, Thou shalt not 
Tho to stop their Adversaries Mouths, they now put these words into the English Catechisms.  make to thyself any graven Image, etc. but this; that they dare not let their Laity compare their Doctrine and their Practice, with this Scripture? It is, I know, commonly said, that this is done in compliance with the weak Memories of the People: But he must be of a weak understanding, who is satisfied with this Reason; especially considering, how tedious some of their Offices of Devotion are, which are composed for the use of the Laity.  
3. It is no Thanks to them that the Bible is not denied to the Learned, because it is impossible it should be kept from them, as long as it is suffered in any Language. But it is plain they are afraid of them, in that they do not allow them, however learned and pious; but at the Bishop's discretion, to read any Versions of the Old Testament; Nor do they give the Bishop leave to permit any Man, how learned soever, to read any Versions of the New, made by those who are censured by their Church, but confine them to the Vulgar Edition 
n Reg. 3. ● Trid. . And to make as sure of them as they can, they tie them up as close as they are able, from giving any such Interpretation of it, as may be prejudicial to their new Faith. And yet not trusting to this Security, they endeavour, as much as may be, to conceal from them those Scriptures which are repugnant to their Doctrine. Which is,  
4. A plain Argument, That it is the Bible itself they take to be mischievous to them. Why else, 1. Did they blot those words out of the Margin and Index of Rob. Stephen's Bible, which were the same with those in the Text? For Example; Abraham was justified by Faith. He that believeth in Christ, shall not die for ever. They that blotted these out of the Index, that the Reader might not thereby be directed to find them, would they not (if they durst) have blotted them out of the Text too? 2. Why else have they purged, not only out of the Ancient Fathers, but many late Learned Writers of their own Church, many Passages of the Scripture itself? 3. Why was it commended as a most meritorious Act in John Della Cava Archbishop of Benevento, That though he had not openly and expressly condemned the Gospel, yet obscurely and covertly he had? because in his large Catalogue of Heretics, he had reprobated a great part of that Doctrine, which is contained in the Gospel; especially some certain Heads which were most opposite to the Church of Rome 
p Consil. de Rom. Eccles. Stab. .  
The Representer proceeds; If their Religion be so contrary to Scripture as you pretend, is it not more likely the Learned should make this discovery in their reading the Bible, than the Vulgar if they had the like liberty? etc.  
To which I return these two Things;  
1. If the Learned are as free from Prejudice, Pride, Vainglory, Covetousness, and other evil Affections, which darken men's Minds, it is more likely they should make this Discovery than the Vulgar; if not, the Vulgar are better qualified to make it than they: For though Learning, when joined with a sincere love of Truth, is a great advantage for the discovery of it; yet when destitute of this, it is as great a hindrance. The Learned among the Jews, in the days of our Saviour, are a demonstrative Proof of this. Tho Moses and all the Prophets bore Testimony to him, yet the Scribes and Pharisees were not able to see it: Why? because they were prepossessed with the Prejudices of a Pompous Messiah, they sought Glory of Men, they had carnal Affections, and a worldly Interest to serve; though therefore all the Characters of the Messiah were visible in him, yet because he was not a Messiah for their turn, they could not discern them; I say, not only, they did not, but without first laying aside their corrupt Affections, they could not: And so our Saviour himself says; Ye cannot hear my Word 
q Joh. 8. 43. . And how can ye believe which receive Honour one of another 
r Joh. 5. 44. ? How wife and prudent soever they were in other Matters, they were not capable of the Truths of the Gospel; and therefore they were hid from them, while they were revealed to Babes 
s Mat. 11. 25. .  
Now how few in comparison of the Learned in the Church of Rome, have not some carnal Interest to serve? How few are not prepossessed with some such false Principle, that be the Scripture never so clear against them, will so blind their eyes, that they shall not be able to discern it? Should the Church of Rome teach Murder and Adultery to be Virtues, he who makes it a Fundamental Article of his Faith, that she cannot err, would not be able to see that they are Sins; but would find out some other sense of these Commandments than the words plainly import.  
In short; this Argument the Learned Jews made use of against our Blessed Saviour; Have any of the Pharisees believed on him? But this People who know not the Law, are cursed 
t Joh. 7. 48, 49. . As much as to say; Were he the true Messiah, the Learned Pharisees who study the Law, would certainly know it; since therefore they do not believe on him, no heed is to be given to the ignorant Multitude. Were therefore this Argument of force, it would have justified the Vulgar Jews in rejecting of Christ. But,  
2. Many of their Learned Men have made this Discovery. How many such were the chief Instruments of the Reformation, and they doubtless discovered the Errors of their Church, before they forsook it. How many continually since have forsaken their Communion, in spite of all worldly Motives to the contrary? How many who have not left their Communion, have given abundant Testimony by their Writings, that they were convinced of their Errors, some in one thing, some in another. Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal Contarenus, will be owned for as Learned Men as most of their Time; and they discovered the Error of Prayer and Service in an Unknown Tongue. Erasmus in the last Age, and Arnaud and his Brethren the Jansenists in this, have exposed to all the World the Error I now write against. The Learned Men of the Church of Rome, who have rejected the Apocryphal Books from the Canon of Scripture, are too many to be particularly mentioned; for that they are no part of the Canon, was Catholic Doctrine at Rome itself (as a Learned Bishop of our own Church has proved) but ten Years before the Council of Trent. And whosoever has read the History of that Council, cannot but see, that the denial of the Cup to the Laity, was discovered to be an Error, by many Learned Men of that Church. Yea, the great Article of Transubstantiation, many of their most Learned Men, both in the present and in foregoing Ages, could never persuade themselves to believe. How many more of their Errors, have been discovered and published to the World by, Cassander, Wicelius, Erasmus, Picus Mirandula, and many other Learned Men, who died in Communion with them, I shall not stay to mention: But shall only make this Inference, that the Representer would never have argued at this rate, had he not vainly thought, that the Protestants are as little acquainted with the Writings of the Papists, as the Papists generally are with those of the Protestants.  
What follows concerning Mechanics and Apron-strings, the Anvil, the Needle and the Ell, I suppose he did not intent for Arguments, but only for Ornaments and Embellishments, and therefore I pass them over.  
He adds; Is it probable, that every Man amongst the Papists, no sooner becomes Scholar, but he turns Atheist? No. That upon their search in the Bible; they plainly see all the Errors of their Religion, and yet are so bewitched as to go on boldly and jocundly to the Devil, without speaking a word, or moving a step to save their own Souls, or their Relations 
u P. 53, 54. . I will not say, that every Learned Papist sees [all] the Errors of their Religion: It may suffice, that many of them have discovered many of their Errors, & have written boldly against them. And for those who discover their Errors, and yet profess to believe them, it is not necessary they should be Atheists: I hope those Gentlemen are no Atheists, who for several years late passed, have believed with the Church of Rome, and professed with the Church of England, their Religion approves Equivocations, and mental Reservation: Tho I confess that very Argument is so great a Bar to my turning Papist, that I cannot at present imagine, that I can ever be reconciled to that Religion, which allows such gross Hypocrisies. I hope by this time the Representer sees, how weak and ill-grounded his own Arguments are.  
2. But he asks; What ground can there be for this Pretention, at least here in England, where the Bible in English, or the Rheims Testament is to be found in most Catholic Families? If it be so, who is to be thanked for it? Not their Churchmen: For though they are more indulgent to their People here in England, yet it is because they dare not be otherwise, since should they hold them to as strict terms here, as they do where they are in full possession, it might endanger their losing them. Besides, that it is impossible to keep the Bible here; from those who have a mind to read it; for if they have it not with their leave, they can have it without it. But yet, to keep them as much as may be from it, they endeavour to persuade them, that it is a sin to read it without leave; and many are so possessed with this Belief, that they acknowledge they dare not read it, nor any other Book offered to them by Protestants, without leave first obtained from their Ghostly Father: and were England as much in their Power as Spain and Italy are, a Bible in the Vulgar Tongue would be as rarely found in any Family here, as it is in those Nations; though I see no reason, but they may freely allow them the Rheims Testament, because they have so transformed it into their own likeness, that one would think, they need fear no danger from it.  
But if, says he, the prohibition of the Bible be, as you pretend in other Countries, for fear of the Vulgar discovering the Errors of their Religion; how comes it, that they don't make this Discovery here? Some may not make this Discovery, because of those invincible Prejudices they are prepossessed with: Others may not make it, because they do not see with their own Eyes, but leave it to their Priests to see for them: Yet 'tis strange the Representer should ask, How comes it they do not make this Discovery? as if none had made it; when, to the great grief of their Church, such vast numbers have long since made it. Does he not know, That one Objection against translating the Bible in in King Hen. VIII days, was, That if Laymen had the Bible in their Mother Tongue, it would make them all Heretics? Does he not know, how far the Event has answered the Prediction? that whereas before the whole Nation was generally of their Belief, so many have forsaken them since, that now perhaps one or two in an hundred, are as many as they can challenge?  
He says, Many have quitted that Communion upon other Motives, best known to themselves, but never any one could I meet with left them yet, by reading and following the Word of God. He has it seems, met with few who have left them; nor could it be expected he should meet with many; for so many had left them before his time, that few in comparison remained to leave them now. And those who left their Communion in K. Hen. VIII days, could not leave it upon worldly Motives, because, after he gave leave to print the Bible in English, and encouragement to all Men to read it, he not only continued a Member of the Church of Rome himself, but a zealous Persecutor of those who forsook it. But perhaps he meets with none who desert them now: If he does not, yet many others do; and I presume, those that forsake them now, their only Motive must be, to follow the Word of God.  
But if the reading the Scriptures is such a defeat to Popery as you give out; is it likely those who have been bred up to the reading of the Bible, and have made it their Study and Companion, should ever embrace that Communion? Not more unlikely, than that those who have been bred up to the reading of the Bible, should embrace divers other Opinions and Practices, that are utterly inconsistent with it; which we frequently see some Men do. Tho, I question not, but if he examine their Converts, he will find but few of them such as have made the Bible their Study and Companion. And for those who have been bred up to the reading it, but never concerned themselves to consider it, it is not more unlikely, that they should embrace Popery, though never so plainly contrary to it, than that those should, who never so much as saw it. I shall not pass a Censure upon their late Proselytes; but I am persuaded the Representer himself will confess, that some of them are such as they have no reason to boast of.  
FINIS.     

ERRATA.  
PAge 4. Marg. for Mandevent, read Mandement. P. 8. Marg. for Prosanes, r. Profanes. P. 11. l. 6. after that, add it. l. last, for Acaia, r. Achaia. P. 16. Marg. l. 4. for it, r. et. P 19 Marg. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2, and 3, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 30. after reading, add it. P. 53. l. 27. for gosly, r. grossly. P. 69. l. 7. for reci●●, r. reci●●. P. 80. Marg. r. contempletur.