New Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Concil Trid. Sess 22. c. 2. shewing evidently by the Future-Tense in which he puts the Verb which shall be shed that he attributes this effusion not to the Cup but to the blood of Christ which was shed some time after whereas the Chalice was shed at that very hour He ought then to apply the effusion to the blood of Christ and not to the Cup and to translate this passage thus This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you And they ought not to alledge that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is spilt is in another case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Blood the first being in the Nominative and the other in the Dative as the Grammarians speak For though this sort of Construction be extraordinary in the Greek nevertheless 't is in use in the Books of the New Testament as in the 8th Chapter of the Revelation Revel 8.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 1.5 the third part of the Creatures which were in the Sea and had life died where the Participle having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not agree with the Noun of Creatures in this Case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which nevertheless it it is clearly applied one being in the Genetive and the other in the Nominative and in the first Chapter of the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Jesus Christ the faithful Witness where these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful Witness which are in the nominative are applied clearly to the Name of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ though it be in the Genetive as all Interpreters acknowledg Those who understand the Greek tongue may remark other passages where these Divine Authors do construe alike the words different in Case and in number Luke 5.9 9.53 John 21.12 1 John 4.3 Mark 12.38 40. Apoc. 3.12 21. 1 Tim. 4.1 2. One may here then likewise without staying ones self so scrupulously to the Grammar construe the word shed with the blood and not with the Cup and translate This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Bazil Ethic. definit 21. and 't is just so that the holy Bazel reads it ancienter than us more than 1256 years where he mentions it in his Morals 5. But they make shew likewise to stand upon the words of St. 1 Cor. 10.17 18 21. Paul in the 10th of the first to the Corinthians comparing the Table of the Lord with the Altar of the antient Hebrews and with the prophane Altars of the Pagans For in doing this say they doth he not give us to underderstand that the Eucharist is a true and properly named Sacrifice as those which they offered upon the Altars of the Hebrews and the Gentiles But if this must be thus urged I will then conclude that the Eucharist is a bloody Sacrifice since those of the Jews Pagans with whom they pretend that it is compared were of the same nature Who seeth not that the Apostle in all these places doth not compare the action of the Hebrew and Gentile Sacrificers offering their Sacrifices with the action of Evangelical Ministers blessing the Eucharist But the action of the Hebrews and Gentiles every one eating the bread and drinking the Chalice of the Supper And that he compares them only in this point that as one was a publike protestation which the Hebrews and Gentiles did to participate with the Altars upon which had been sacrificed the flesh whereof they eat and to the Divinity to which they had sacrificed them so also the second was a solemn and authentique act the Communion of which the faithful have with Jesus Christ and of the part which they pretend in his flesh and in his blood So that since 't is impossible to have Communion with Jesus Christ and with the Devils together the Apostle concluding that to eat meats sacrificed to the Devil is a thing inconsistent with the marks and profession of Christianity behold how far he designe of the Apostle extends and no farther 6. Lastly They endeavour to establish their pretended Sacrifice upon this Divine Altar which we have saith the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of which those who serve at the Tabernacle have no power to eat Heb. 13.10 But the circumstances of the passage and even the most celebrous Writers amongst * Nic. de Lyra Thomas and others upon this passage our Adversaries teach us that the holy Apostle spake in that place of the mystical Altar of the Church Jesus our Priest our Victim and our Altar the vertue and life of which those who are yet under the shadow of Moses and the Service of his earthly Sanctuary have no part in as aforetime under the Old Testament Lev. 16.27 the Ministers of the Mosaical Tabernacle eat not of the flesh of the Victims sacrificed for sin CHAP. IV. That the pretended Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist is not taught in the Scriptures SO it appears that the pretended Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is not in the Scriptures it being as impossible to draw it from thence by Consequences as to read it there in formal terms Let us see if this marvellous change which they presuppose of the Substance of the Consecrated Bread into that of the body of Christ may be found more easily there First then Matth. 26.26 Macrk 14.22 Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.24 They seek it in the words which the Lord pronounced in his instituting the Eucharist for having taken and blessed it he said This is my Body From whence they conclude that the bread hath then lost the Substance of bread because otherwise it could not be the body of Christ But what necessity is there in this Consequence St. Paul said of the Church the same which is said of the bread of the Eucharist that she is the body of the Lord 1 Cor. 12.27 Eph. 1.23 1 Cor. 6 15. and saith particularly of the Corinthians that they are the body of Christ and nevertheless no one concludes from thence that the Church hath lost its first Substance nor the Corinthians theirs The same saith well that our bodies are the members of Christ and every one confesseth that they have not changed their Substance because of that And then why shall one conclude that the Eucharist is not bread because it is called the body of Christ Cajetan in Thom. q. 75. art 1. Scot. cite per Bellard l. 3. c. 23. of the Eucharist The Cardinal Cajetan one of the most famous Writers of the Church of Rome confesseth himself that there was no necessity for it there There appears nothing in the Evangelist saith he which constrains us to take the words literally Scotus holds it likewise And it will avail nothing to reply that the Lord said that it was his body which should be delivered for us which cannot be
excellent persons writing so many Books upon such a Subject should forget the principal as by a consort and common conspiration how happened it that in some place they did not speak to us of the Sacrifice of the Mass the pretended Soul of all Religion Of Transubstantiation which is the ground of it of the worshipping of the Host the heart of Devotion of the Veneration of Images of private Confession of the Invocation of departed Saints all exercises of Piety so exquisite and saving If you believe those of Rome Why have they not in some places commanded obedience to the Pope magnified his Authority the only hinge upon which their faith turns the life and Salvavation of humane kinde according to the Mximes of our Adversaries Now and some Ages pust there hath not been written any Book of Religion how little soever it hath been where these Doctrines have not always been met withal and indeed if they were of that importance which they make them it were to betray men to speak to them of piety without touching upon these Let then the Scriptures of the New Testament be if they please a Letter only of Credence an imperfect Rule and in sum what they will yet it consisteth of many Books of considerable bigness and it is no way credible but in some part or other there would have been some mention made of these Doctrines if these divine Authors had believed and taught them Secondly Above all if you consider that the particular designe of their Tracts and Disputes would evidently oblige them to speak of them in divers places where they say nothing of them For Example St. Paul making a long comparison between Christ and Melchisedec in the seventh Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews and treating almost of no other thing in all that Divine Epistle but of the Priesthood was not he evidently obliged to speak of the Sacrifice of the Altar and of the Species under which he was offered and so mysteriously figured so many Ages before by the bread and wine of Melchisedec and nevertheless he saith not a word of it What do I say that he said not a word of it he hath done more For instead of saying these things so necessary to his Subject according to the Hypothesis of Rome he sayeth others of it which shakes it so rudely that the Devoto's of his Sacrifice were all scandalized at it their Doctors sweating unprofitably to make these agree with their belief Thirdly In the eleventh of the first to the Corinthians the Apostle chastiseth the irreverence of the Corinthians in the celebrating of the Sacrament who mixed their meals with the Communion of the Lord could he alledge to them upon this Subject any thing more to the purpose than the Transubstantiation and Adoration of the Sacrament shewing them that it is not bread which we receive in the Eucharist that it is the Lord of Glory the very body which was crucified for us upon the Cross What Romish Doctor is there who being to treat of this Subject doth not use this reason at the beginning middle and end of his Dispute But the Apostle saith nothing of it and that which is altogether strange very far from speaking so in speaking of the Sacrament he calls it Bread three times Fourthly in divers places of his Epistles as namely in the 12 Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in the fourth of the Epistle to the Ephesians in the third of the Epistle to the Colossians and elsewhere he infers all along the duties of the faithful as well for their piety towards God as for their charity towards their Neighbours But he saith not a word of their secret Confession nor of their Invocation of Saints nor of their worshipping of Images nor of any such-like things Fifthly 1 Thes 4.13 In the first to the Thessalonians he speaks of our duties in the mourning which we use for departed friends but without speaking to us to pray for them which was the fittest place for it Sixthly In the first to the Corinthians he reprehends their divisions at the beginning but 't is without saying any thing to them of the Chair of St. Peter the only line of the Union of Christians as those of Rome say Sevently 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 In the twelfth of the same Epistle and in the fourth of the Epistle to the Ephesians he makes a Catalogue of the Charges which the Lord instituted in his Church he having given Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors How in such a place should he have forgotten the Pope if he had known him 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 8 9. Eightly In the first to Timothy and in the Epistle to Titus he writes at large the conditions requisite to to the Bishops and Deacons Tit. 1.6 How upon this point did he not speak of their not marrying if it were esteemed necessary in such charges Ninthly 1 Pet. 1.1 5.1 St. Peter in the beginning of his Epistle is qualified with the Title of the Apostle of Jesus Christ and in the last Chapter recommends to the Priests the duty of their charge and to make them value his admonition he alledges to them only that he is an Elder amongst them Why did he not take in such an occasion the name of Monarch of the Church or Of Servant of the Servants of God that is to say the first and highest of all the Officers of God which are in the world no body can be ignorant but that it would have been an imprudence near to stupidity of these holy Authors to have forgotten these things in such considerable places if they had believed them But their Writings although we knew no other things of them doth enough justifie to us their wisdom and dexterity in judiciously using every thing that might serve for their purpose Read St. Paul and the first Epistle of St. Peter and you will not demand other proofs for this It remains then that we say that their silence about these Doctrines of Rome so constant and so universal and even in places where it had been to the purpose to alledge them prove clearly that they did not know them 10. After all If it be not possible to shew by the Scriptures that these Doctrines have been revealed by the Lord and taught by his Apostles I do not see by what other means one can prove it For as for the Books of the Antient Doctors which they commonly call the Fathers their Authority is not great enough nor the testimonies which they render of these Doctrines evident enough to ground them upon and to oblige us necessarily to put them amongst the Articles of our Faith as we have in my Opinion sufficiently shewed in a Treatise which we have published upon this Subject And as to the Authority of the Roman Church which now is it is as doubtful and incredible as all the other Articles which they assert so that this cannot serve to prove that they
which these two parties should be agreed it is clear that their debates will never be decided since it hath its birth from that same thing which this method wants to determine it For if in their common principle there should be found any such decision of their controversies they would not enter into contest about it for example the Methodists will not let any one make use of any one thing in Scripture to prove that the Pope is not the head of Church if there be not some passage which saith expresly that the Pope is not the head of the Church Who sees not that t is to flie the decision of the controversie and desire the continuation of it for ever for to demand of me to determine it is a condition according to all the appearance of reason impossible to be done it being not credible that the adversaries who acknowledge with me the Divinity and truth of the Scriptures should bare me down that the Pope is the head of the Church though it denies it formally and in so many words If we desire then to end our differences we must absolutely renounce this Method and proceed that very way which they so unjustly condemn by proving all our conclusions by the principles so well known to both parties and those are by the grace of God the oracle of the old and new Testament determining doubtful things by certain clearing the obscure by evident and perswading those things which they reject as false by the connexion and dependance which they have one with another that they confess them true This is the true Method which one ought to follow in all disputes and which indeed all masters of all Sciences have followed those of Philosophy Civil-law Physick and others St. Augustin defended it a long time against the calumnies of the Donatists who because he took it upon himself to dispute against them accused him of being a Logician †Aug. contr Crecon l. 1. c. 13. and under this pretence shunned him as a dangerous man He shewed at large that the Lord * The same chapt and 14 17 18. Aug. tom 6. l. ◠cont Circon Gramat c. 15. G. and his Apostles made use of this Method and were Logicians if this is to be a Logician to reason and from a clear thing to prove a thing that is obscure and willing to propose to us a Pattern of a wise Disputant see how he describes him First he endeavours saith he not to be cheated himself for want of discerning truth from falshood and this he cannot obtain without the help of God Then being willing to unfould for the instruction of others that which he hath in himself he first considers what it is they already know for certain to the end that from thence he might conduct them to the things they know not or would not believe shewing them these follow from those which they hold either by reasoning or faith so that by the truths which they consent to they may be constrained to confess and approve those which they had denied and by this means the truth which seemed false to them at first would be discerned from the false being found conformable to the truths which they knew before Hitherto St. Austin who could not more clearly Authorise the procedure which these new Disputants now condemn with so much injustice and passion CHAP. VII That the procedure of the methodists is the same which the Arians and other Heretiques held formerly against the antient Fathers ANd though it be a thing most unworthy those praises which they give ordinaryly to antiquity to expose a novelty to the view of the world and that on the other side t is not much honour to be thought to be esteemed the father of an invention so impertinent and so contrary as well to the practice of the Lord of his Apostles and of the holy fathers as to the common sence and reason of men nevertheless to take from them in this place all subject of vain glory I will farther advertise the readers that those of our adversaries which at this day make use of this method are not the first authors of it For I find at the bottom of it that t is an old and superannuated wrangling of the Arians and other antient heretiques who to flie the searching and decision of the truth demanded of the Catholiques of their times in the same manner formal passages where the consubstantiality of the son and other points may be expressly read this we learn by the books of the fathers In St. Athanasius the question being concerning the word consubstantial used by the Council of Nice to express the truth of the eternal divinity of the Son say the Arians is not writ And in a dialogue printed among his works though in my opinion t is none of his leave these Sylogisms say they and give us a Demonstration by writing that the Son is the true God a Atha Ep. de Synod-Arim Seleue. T. p. 911 Part. ultim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dialog cont Arim. p. 126. In St. Austin the Count Pascentius an Arian by Religion pressed likewise this only Doctor with whom he had the presumption to enter into Conference to shew him the word consubstantial in the Scripture not suffering him to draw it from thence by reasonings b Ep. 174.178 Aug. St. Augustine having else where proved the Divinity of the Holy Ghost by these places of the Apostle which say that we are his temple so that if he were not God he would have no Temple Maximinus an Arian Bishop against whom he disputed answered that the truth is not concluded by arguments but proved by certain testimonies c Id con Mixim l. 1 6 fol. 444. G. and in a dialogue published under the name of S. Vigil but in my judgment t is certainly Pope Gelaz's the Arian who is brought in there disputes exactly as our Methodists do now He would have one shew him the word Consubstantial expresly and properly so writ and that it be proved not by any reasonings but by the naked and pure propriety of the words Let them read it to me saith he so properly laid down or let them depart from their Confession d Dial. inter Atha Sabell Arian inter Cassand opera p. 475. Eutichus the head of another Heresie who confounded the two natures of the Lord disputed in the same manner demanding in what Scripture t is set down that Jesus Christ hath two Natures e In Act. cont chalced p. 115. A. so that one ought not to wonder if Scholarius hath long since observed that many Heretiques made use of this praetext viz. desire that they would shew them all things expressly by the Scripture f Scholar orat Henet 3. concil flor p. 590 E. CHAP. VIII That the Fathers have rejected this pretended method as impertinent and that by their examples we can retort them upon our Adversaries WHat do the Holy Fathers
is that saith the Orthodox the sense and intention of the Scripture which hath moved them to use that word which is not writ or have they said it of their own Authority it is saith the Macedonian the sence of the Scripture which hath moved them to it Now answered the Orhodox this is also the sence and intention of the Scripture which teacheth that the Spirit being uncreated and subsistant of God inlivening and sanctifying is a divine Spirit Thus far Theodoret who knew not how to maintain more clearly that one could ground the articles of our Faith upon the consequences of Scripture and not upon words onely But this same Authour in two pieces which Photius warants us to be his although by some error they have printed them also amongst the works of St. Athanasius shews us that the Spirit of our Methodists reigned at his time in certain Hereticks whom he names not Pho. biblioth cod 46. P. 31 but who in my judgment were the Eutichians He saith that they would have every one receive the words of the Scripture simply without considering the things which they signifie under pretence that they surpass the understanding of all men b Theod. tract 16. secund Phot. T. 2. Op. Athan p. 308. that they be constrained to hear some words of the Gospel those which they think favourable to them but they will not suffer them to understand and interpret them religiously that one hear the words but not search the truth and convenient sence of them that they call Faith and inconsiderate not belief which without any examen imbraceth to its own ruin things not established by any demonstration e Id. tract 23. p. 325. d. that they command to believe without reason a Ibid. to believe simply that which is said without considering what is convenient and what is not so b Ibid Tit. tract 23. without examining whither the thing be possible useful seemly agreeable to God or convenient to nature whither it agreeth with the truth whether it hath any connexion with the design of the Author whether it doth not contradict the mystery whether it be not agreeable to Godliness c Ibid. D. that they would have c Ibid. their words believed without permiting any one to examine their Doctrine for fear they should be convinced d p 326. A. Are not these the same fancies with our Methodists who receive nothing but formal words who reject all expositions evidences and reasonings but now Theodoreâ— Dispates sharply against these men accusing them of overthrowing by this means all humane affairs and of making men irrationale e p. 903. of changing them into bruit beasts making them take their nature and habitudes of making all the intentions of the Prophets and Apostles unuseful who according to this reckoning of theirs beat our ears in vain with the sound of their words the hearers not carrying away any fruit from them nor profit in the Treasury of their hearts f Ibid. D. that their procedure confounds every thing and that he who follows this Method knows not how to make those things agree which seem to clash nor answer those who desire to ask him as we are all obliged to do to them a Ibid. 3. which he verifieth at large by the induction of divers passages of eternity and of the temporal birth of Christ which seems contrary b p. 310. D. so they expose the Scriptures to the mockery of the Infidels c p. 326.327.328 and for these and such like reasons he declares at the beginning of one of these Treatises that this invention is the worst of all the Doctrines which the Devils have introduced among men d 327. D. and give us a rule quite contrary wishing that in the interpretation of the Scriptures in stead of being tied to the words made naked by their sense they should seriously consider what belongs to God what is convenient for our purpose that which the truth carries that which agreeth with the Law that which hath a just correspondence with nature the Purity and the Liveliness of Faith the firmness of Hope the sincerity of Charity that which doth no wrong to Esteem that which is above Envy that which is worthy of Grace e Ibid. p. 325. A. and that he ought not to believe without reason nor speak without Faith Let them take the pains to read these two Treatises through for they are very short and most excellent Athanasius whom the Author of the Dialogue published under the Name of S. Vigil made to Dispute against the Arians follow exactly the precedure of Gregory and Theodoret against the Macedonians For he constrained the Arians to confess that one may prove by the Scriptures many things which are not expressed there alledging to him the words which the Arians held although they were not expressed in the Scripture as when they said against the Sabellians that the Father is impassible and against the Ennomians that the Son is like the Father and against Fotinus that the Son is the Light of the Light shew me said he to him where it is written Purely Nakedly Properly and in so many words that the Father is impassible or not begotten that the Son is God of God Light of Light or like the Father It is not enough that you say that the reason of Faith requireth it piety teacheth it the inference or consequence from the Scriptures obligeth me to the profession of this Name I desire that you would not alledge these things to me since you will not suffer me to alledge them for the proof of the word consubstantial Behold at this juncture of time the volume of Divine Books in my Hand read there the Names of the Words above said in so many syllables and in the same sences either shew us where it is written that the Son is like the Father or confess that he is unlike him there is no way for you to draw your selves out of this evil path being wraped up in your own objections 't is not in your power to unty the knots of this Proposition Give me leave then to prove the consubstantiality that is to say the belief of the one Substance of God by consequences where if you will not agree with me you must also renounce those things which you confess your self since you find them no where directly set down in any place in the Scriptures a Dialog in t Sabel Photar Athan. liter opera Cassandri p. 475. med then beating him with his own weapons he pressed him to bring him some passage which speaks formally the belief of the Arians viz. that there is three Substances in the Trinity Here saith he the arguments serve for nothing where one concludes the truth by the consequence of reason they demand proper and express passages read to us three Substances expresly so laid down in the Scripture do not come hither to argue that if the Father
even none of these new disputants the best Authors of their own party grant this It is saith the Bishop of Canaries a thing worthy of great and diligent consideration that we ought to hold for a part of the Catholick doctrine not only that which hath been expresly revealed to the Apostles but also that which is concluded by arguments and by evident consequences from two propositions one of which iâ— revealed the other certain by the light of nature a Melch Canus loâ— theolog l. 6 c. 8. Vega saith likewise that nothing hinders these propositions from being ranked amongst those of Faith b Vega 9 de justifie c 39. And Vasques makes the same judgement of it c Vasques in 1 Thâ—m q. 1. disput 12. art 8. c. 2. F. Ambrose Catharin at that time Bishop of Minory and since Arch-Bishop of Conza a most learned and a most celebrated person and one of those who appeared most at the the Council of Trent held this very opinion against Soto in a little book which he hath writ against him to prove that the faithful may be assured of being in the grace of God and produced Scotus for his Author I think also saith he speaking to Soto that what you say is false viz. that when one of the propositions is from Faith and the other from science or experience the conclusion which is drawn from thence is from science and experience and not from Faith according to that rule that the conclusion follows the weakest part Against this strange proposition which one may call truly inopiniable Scotus teacheth as you who are versed in the Scholastiques may have seen that when one takes two propositions one naturally evident and the other from faith the the conclusion which follows from it is of Faith see here the example which he brings as says he if one should say whosoever begets is really different from him whom he hath begotten which is as he holds a natural maxime and if one should add afterwards now the father hath begotten in divinity which is a proposition of faith the conclusion which follows from it viz. therefore the Father begetting in divinity is really distinguished from the Son begotten this conclusion say I is not natural but of Faith whereas if your hypothesis were true it ought to be natural since that according to you the natural propositions is the weakest now the reason of that is that in our judgment the proposition which is of Faith is the most uncertain of them and t is in this that you abuse your selves and abuse others d Ambros bath polit in expurgat ad Soto p. 250 257. 258 edit Lugd. An. 1551. See how Catharin turneth against Soto and the methodists this very maxim of logick which they produce to ground their error upon for the proposition of Faith being in our opinion there the least certain and by consequences the most weak since the conclusion follows the weakest part its evident that according to this rule it ought to be from Faith if any of the propositions from which one hath drawn it be of Faith But besides this subtil and ingenious consideration of Catharin I think for mine own part that this rule of logick that the conclusion follows the weakest part is ill alledged to the purpose by the methodists in this dispute for the Masters of Logick mean only by that that if one of the propositions be particular and the other universal or if one be negative and the other affirmative or if one be of a truth only probable and the other of a necessary the conclusion will not be universal but particular nor affirmitive but negative not necessary but probable we grant it very willingly in this sence and if it ever happens to us in disputing against our adversaries to conclude a proposition universal or affirmative from a particular or from a negative or pretend that from a truth only probable the conclusion should be necessary then we will submit our selves to the lash of their Logick But to stretch this maxim further and let it signifie that if of the two propositions which we use the one hath been revealed from God and the other taught by nature the conclusion ought to be put amongst humane maximes and not amongst the Divine Doctrines 't is a phancy so far from reason that I am assured that none of the Logicians have ever dreamed of it The End of the First part THE Positive and Affirmative ARTICLES OF OUR BELIEF Are proved by Scripture Second Part. CHAP. I. An exposition of the principal and most necessary Articles of our Faith THese thing are sufficient in my judgement to keep our sense and reason from the troublesome and unjust chains with which the new Methodists pretend tyrannically to bind them Let us come now to our design and briefly shew our Faith that we may prove every one of the Articles of which it consists by Scripture whether they be read there or evidently inferred from thence First then We believe that which heaven and earth teacheth us that there is one God eternal infinite incomprehensible soveraignly good wise powerful and just Who hath created the Universe and governs it by his Providence nothing happening in Nature or amongst Men without his Order or Permission We believe that this great God made Man in the beginning of the World according to his own image and likeness and put him into the Garden of Eden there to lead an immortal life and that Man fell from this happy condition by his own fault having disobeyed his Lord and that by this crime he and all his Off-spring remains out of the grace of God Slaves of Sin and Death We believe that God moved by compassion towards his own work hath sent his Son Jesus Christ into the World in the fulness of time who hath done and suffered all things necessary to draw men from perdition and to give them eternal Life that this Son is the same God with the Father of the same power and essence and subsisted from all eternity with him that he made himself man in time and took to himself our nature in the womb of the virgin Mary uniting it personally with his Divinity and after having preached his Grace to the people of the Jews he was at their accusation crucified by Pontius Pilate and being dead upon the Cross and then buried he rose the third day from the dead and after having conversed forty dayes with his Disciples he ascended into Heaven where the Father hath given him all authority and power We believe that he reigns there now in a Soveraign glory governing all the World according to his good pleasure and that one day he shall come to Judge it for the last time We believe that by his death he hath satisfied the justice of the Father in as much as he hath suffered the pains for the Sins of humane kind and that he hath acquired an eternal Salvation and that the
teacheth us Seventhly There remains now the Extreme Unction which with a visible Oyl accompanied with certain words pronounced by the mouth of the Priest in form of Prayer remits sins to a sick person who is in extremity And it is here that the Disciples of the Methodists commonly triumph alledging a passage of St. James upon this Subject very express as they pretend and they begin the most part of their Disputes by this last piece of their Devotion Jam. 5.14 Is there any amongst you that is sick saith St. James let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him and anoint him with Oyl in the Name of the Lord the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall heal him and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him But let Cardinal Cajet Cajetan upon this passage answer once more for us It appears saith he by these words of the Apostles and by the effects that these words were not spoken of the Sacramental Vnction nor of the Extreme Vnction but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel for the use of the diseased For the Text sayeth not Is any one sick unto death but plainly Is any one sick and sayeth that the healing of the sick is an effect of it and speaks not of forgiveness of sins but conditionally whereas this Extreme Vnction is not given but at the point of death and tends directly as its form signifieth to the remission of sins And besides St. James ordains that for one sick body they should call many Priests as well to pray for as to anoint them which is different from the Extreme Vnction CHAP. XIII The Scriptures doth not teach that Ministers should be exempted from the Subjection of Civil Powers nor that the Bishop of Rome hath any right over them in respect of Tempoporals I Do not see that they can reasonably draw from the Scriptures the exemption of their Clergy nor the Temporal Power of their Pope over the estates of Christians First That which they alledge the Lord said to St. Peter Mat. 17.25 26. Of whom do the Kings of the earth take Tribute and Imposts is it of their Children or of Strangers and St. Peter having answered of Strangers Jesus saith then are their Children free This I say doth not prove that the Clerks are of divine right exempted from paying Tribute to the Magistrates For first 't is not evident that the Tribute of the Drachmas of which the Question is was payed to the Magistrate and there is much more likelihood that it was the half Shekel which every Israelite at above twenty years of Age payed to God for the use of the Sanctuary according to the Ordinance of Moses in the 30th of Exodus Exod. 30.11 12 13 14 15 16. which is nothing like these Tributes which the Magistrates raised But although the same Question should be of a Civil Tribute 't is clear that the Lord exempted none from it not so much as himself Now since the Son of God even as he was Man was not of right subject to any Magistrate this is not to say that the Ministers of the Church have the same right seeing the great and infinite difference which is between their persons and his In a word although the Apostles ought to rejoyce in this liberty by the beneficence of their Master so long as he was on the earth it doth not follow that they since his Ascention into Heaven nor those who succeeded them in the Ministry of the Word ought always to enjoy the same exemption For so long as he was upon the earth they were his Family according to Civil Law following and serving him and as Domestiques had part in this his priviledge But since he is retired from the earth as to his humanity neither they nor we are any more of his Family according to Civil Law For as we are his Spiritual and Mystical Family in respect of Religion he gives us not this Priviledge For then one might say that all Christians must enjoy it since every one in this sense is of the Family of the Lord. Secondly As to this power let it be direct or indirect which those of the Court of Rome attribute to the Pope over the Estates of Christians even in respect of Temporals I think it not necessary to consider that which they alledge from the Scriptures to ground it upon since they are things so weak and so far from their purpose that the greatest and best part of our Adversaries themselves have rejected their Consequences and reject with us this pretended Authority of the Roman Seat namely in this Kingdom France where thanks be to God it hath not yet been established CHAP. XIV Resolution of that which the Adversaries pretend that the above-mentioned Articles have been taught by the Apostles although they are not contained in the Scriptures SO evident is it that none of the Articles of the Belief of Rome which we reject from ours can be shewen by Scripture First To which they will answer it may be that although it be so they have nevertheless been revealed by the Lord and taught by word of mouth by his Apostles the Scriptures not containing all the Articles of the Christian Doctrines of which many have been as they say given and preserved from hand to hand by a Tradition not written But I say first that to consider the thing exactly it seemeth to me that the silence of the Scriptures upon these Articles is sufficient to prove that they have been revealed neither by Jesus Christ nor received and believed by his Apostles nor by them given and commanded to their Disciples for Doctrines necessary to faith and Salvation For if at that time they had been kept in the list which Rome at this time gives them if they had been esteemed the principal Fundamentals of Religion and the most exquisite and important parts of the service of God why should not these holy men have made some mention of them in the many Books which they have purposely writ upon Divine things and which by the Providence of the Lord are come to us Why did the four Evangelists conceal them the Acts make no mention of them How comes it that St. Peter St. John St. James St. Jude and above all St. Paul in his fourteen admirable Epistles so full and so abounding every where in Christian Doctrine have not said one word of them I do not now urge that these Books are the Cannon of Faith that they have been set down in writing to the end the Doctrine of Religion should be preserved entirely there Let us suppose since Rome will have it so that they were written by chance and without the designe of giving to us the whole body of faith Yet one cannot deny but they have been written the most part of them upon matters of faith Now who will believe that so many