they would have us possess is real For to believe a thing which is not a possession but a dream and an error 't is the heritage of the wicked to whom the wise man gives nothing for his possession but the winde Truth is ample and specious and can receive possession Error on the contrary is a nothing which cannot properly be said to be possessed by any Untill then they do shew us the truth of the things which they believe 't is in vain for them to boast of their possessing them That which is not is not possessed The feild of which one alledgeth the possession in the Court is a thing which appears and of whose existence no body can doubt Here the purgatory the Sacrifice of the mass the all powerfulness and infallibility of the Pope the transubstantiation of the eucharist and in short all their pretended possessions are things which our sense perceives not and which our reason cannot find out That very thing then of which they pretend a possession obliges them to shew the truth of it by the Scriptures since it doth not appear in nature For to alledg the possession of a thing which one cannot make out to any one is evidently to mock the world 't is to pay it with illusions and chimaeras So 't is clear notwithstanding this allegation that our adversaries are obliged to ground the Articles which they lay down upon good and clear doctrins of Scripture and for us who will not receive them t is sufficient for the justification of our refusal that no part of them can be found in that authentique instrument of the revelation of God which both parties acknowledg to conclude then it remains that to prove our faith by the Scriptures we are only obliged to shew that the things we lay down and firmly believe in religion are taught in the scriptures and that those which we do not believe are not taught there CHAP. V. That the new method was unknown to the Lord his Apostles and the holy fathers and that it is contrary to the procedure which the Lord and his Apostles took in disputing with their adversaries BUt it behoveth us now to consider in the second place what proofs we ought to furnish our selves with to ground our belief upon the Scriptures For these Methodists dedemand of us formall passages these are their terms where that which we would prove be expressed in so many words If you produce any thing of it where the same thing is signified but in other words and from whence with the light of discourse 't is very easie to conclude it they cry that these are dreams and Chimaeras and in short they will not acknowledge any thing for the Doctrines of Scripture but what they read precisely there for example they do not think that the belief of the holy Trinity is a doctrine of the Scripture because they do not meet with the very word there though the thing which signifies it be evidently set down there This is all the cunning of this brave Method with which they boast to gagg the Ministers and subdue all the enemies of the Church but if this pretended meanes of overcoming the heretiques be as lawful and as powerful as they seem to believe it how comes it that neither Jesus Christ nor his Apostles nor the ancient Doctors of the Church have ever taught it their disciples or imployed themselves against those of their adversaries who disputed by Scripture Matt. 4.6 When the Tempter alledged to our Lord that verse of the Psalmes he shall give his Angels charge over thee to perswade him to cast himself down from a high pinnacle how comes it to pass that he answered him not according to this abridged method that the passage was not formal Matt. 12.2 3 4 5 6. and when the Pharisies imployed the ordinance of the Sabbath against his disciples plucking the ears of corn why he give himself the trouble to justifie their Action by the example of David and the priests why did he not tell them in one word that the passage was not formal how happens it that his Apostles in so many books which they have left us have not not given us at least some notice of so wonderful a secret Why did not the holy fathers make use of this to resolve those infinite reasons that the heretiques pretended they had drawn from the Scriptures Sabellius alledged I and the father are one Arius the Father is greater then I Eutychis the word hath been made flesh the first to prove that the person of the son is the same with that of the father the second to shew that the substance is different the third to establish the mixture of these natures The ancients were so shallow as to write great books to explain these passages and to resolve the sophisms of these heretiques Where was their judgment if they could as they pretend make voyd all the difficulty in one word only by saying that the passages are not formal and that the consequences are nothing but Phantasies Read the Books of Irenaeus against the Gnostiques of Justin against the Jewes of Tertullian against Marcion Apelles Hermogenes and others of Athanasius Hilarius Basil Gregory Chrisostome and an infinite number of others against the Arians of Cyril against Nestorius of Theodoret and Gelaze against Eutychus of Hierome Augustine Prosper against Pelagius and in short all the writings which the Christians have composed against the Heretiques sixteen hundred years since you will find that none of them have ever answered to any of the arguments propounded by their adversaries that which the methodists now a days answer to ours that the conclusion is not in formal terms in Scripture Who will believe that the Church hath been ignorant for the space of so many ages for so excellent a means of gagging its enemies and that these honest men whom one may call without offence not the most accomplished and learned of our age should alone be advised of that in our dayes which the lights of the world have not yet been able to discover and that poor truth should have sighthed so long in the bonds of consequences expecting its liberty onely from the sword of these new Alexanders But the Lord and all his servants hath not only permitted that to their adversaries which ours deny us viz consequences and reasonings upon Texts of Scripture but made use of it themselves to establish truth as well as to refute errors The tempter promising the Son of God all the Glory of the world if he would worship him the Lord checked his impudence by that Scripture which saith Matt. 4.9 10 6 7. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve and when he desired him to throw himself down from the pinnacle he answered as it is written thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God unusefully if you believe these methodists since neither the first of these passages denieth expressly in
the Son and the Holy Ghost are three it must of necessity be that they have in them three Substances For upon this account I can also reason more truely if the Father and the Son are one according to that which he saith himself I and the Father are one how is there more then one Substance but you have not been willing at all to enter into this way of Dispute in demanding of me a passage where the word Consubstantial was exactly and properly laid down 'T is then for you also by the same reason to read to us the three Substances properly and expresly set down in the Scriptures a Ibid. p. 476. infrmed And upon this debate of the manner of the proofs which should be used by both parties the Author of this Dialogue caused a good man whom they made arbitrator of their Disputes to pronounce this judgement In as much as it appears by your Dispute that you cannot shew formally and expresly in the Scriptures neither you the word Consubstantial nor you that of three Substances to the end then that we may not lose more time in a childish debate of superfluous things leave of demanding of one another a formal passage and gather from the authority of the Scriptures by the reason of consequences that there is either one or three Substances in the Trinity b Ibid. p. 477. ante med and at the beginning of the following Sessions repeating the result of the foregoing dispute he saith that they did agree to prove the confession of one or of three Substances by the consequence of Holy Letters passing by the demand of a passage where the word is found Properly and Nakedly laid down a Ibid. med Judge if this be not the very Image of the Disputes of our Methodists do not they demand of us as the Arians do of the Catholicks formal passages upon every point of our differences Do not they reject with the same importunity the consequence and conclusions drawn from the Scriptures Do not they reproach us with the same injustice that these are tricks in logick with which we endeavour to save our seves b Ibid. p. 475. fin Arius de Athan Do not they press us with the same opiniatrety either to read exactly what we believe or to quit the belief of it blessed be God that our cause is found to be like that of the ancient believers And the procedure of our adversaries like that of the old Hereticks Since they choose the method of the Arians let us keep our selves to the desence of the Holy Fathers and by their example let us put our Methodists upon their own rack You demand of us Gentlemen formal passages Let us then have the same liberty Shew us exactly and expresly in the Scriptures that the Pope of Rome is the spouse of the Church and the Monarch of the World that out of his communion there is neither Grace nor Salvation that his judgements are infallible oracles and that in matters of Faith 't is impossible he should err That 't is from his hand only that we ought to receive the Scriptures and that without the Testimony which he gives them they should have no more weight with us then Aesops sables or the Alcoran of Mahomet Shew us written in any one of the books of the Old and New Testament that there is a place bordering upon Hell where some souls sanctified by the blood of the Son of God are burned that there are Altars upon the earth where Jesus Christ is realy sacrificed by a mortal man for the remission of our sins Let us see a passage which saith expresly that we ought to render adoration to your Host which you Name Letrcia or that we ought to worship the Images of Saints departed and kneel down before them invoke their Spirits and acknowledge them for our Mediators I would not have you say that all this can be concluded from Scripture I demand according to your example precise and formal passages either permit me to prove my Faith by consequences or renounce yours full of so many things of which you cannot read one word in the Scriptures Here you have much more interest then I. For my Faith consisteth of less Articles then yours and the Articles which I believe are for the most part so clearly and expresly laid down in the Scriptures that I need no logick to draw them from it 'T is enough for our eyes to read them there In stead of which the beliefes which you and I contest about are so far from the words and sense of the Scriptures that the greatest logick in the world is not sufficient to draw them from it Here to unravel your selves from these straits you will not fail to alledge the authority of your Church But besides telling me of that you go about to perswade me doubtful things by that which is as much or rather more doubtful and by this you evidently renounce the procedure of them whom you call your Fathers for if the authority of the Church ought to decide matters here why did not they interpose it in their Disputes And if it be an ill proceeding to say either prove your Faith by express and formal passages of Scripture or suffer me to prove mine by consequences why did they use it against the Arians say what you please you cannot turn it so but it will manifestly appear to be a great precedent for me against you to prove that you Dispute like the Arians and I like the Holy Fathers CHAP. IX That that which is concluded evidently and necessarily from the Scriptures is veritable and Divine and is part of the Scripture NOw to come to the bottom what can one Imagine more unreasonable then this wilfulness of you the Arians Macedonians and and Eutichians not to receive for true and divine that which is concluded from the Scriptures For since from a truth nothing can be inferred but what is true confessing as you do the truth of the Scriptures is not this an intangling of your selves in an evident contradiction to make a doubt of what is drawn from the Scriptures is not this an offence either to the Scriptures in suspecting it to be alse in certain places or to the truth in accusing it to produce sometimes lyes and bring forth in a manner monsters That which one gathers out of the Divine Scriptures is there or not there if it be not there how could it be drawn from it since 't is not possible to draw from a subject any other thing but what is there nothing giving that which it hath not if it be not there why did our Lord say speaking of the Scriptures of the Old Testament that they bare witness of him †Joh. 5.3.6 and how could he declare by all the Scriptures biginning with Moses and so through all the Prophets the things concerning himself * Luke 24.27 and again how could his Apostles protest that he had said nothing
abide with you eternally viz. The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive because it neither seeth him nor knows him but you know him for he shalld well with you and be in you and verse the 26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name shall teach you all things and shall inspire into you all things which I have said Matt. 28.19 Teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This appears because he proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son When the Comforter shall come saith the Lord which I will send to you from my Father the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from my Father that shall witness of me John 15.26 If I go I will send to you the Comforter Joh. 16.7 and ver 13 14. When the Spirit of truth shall come he will teach you all truth for he will not speak of himself but will say all which he shall have heard and will tell you things to come he shall gloryfie me for he shall take of mine and shew it unto you 4. That the Holy Ghost is God Acts. 5.3 4. Peter said to Ananias Ananias why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost c. Thou hast not lied unto men but God This is proved evidently because the proprieties and works of the true God are attributed to him in the Scripture as first His presence in all places Psal 138 Heb 139. 7 8. Where shall I go back from thy Spirit or where shall I flee back from thy face if I go into heaven thou art there if I descend into hell thou art present there Secondly his presence in the persons of all the faithful Rom. 8.9 You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in you 1 Cor. 6.19 1 Cor. 3.16 Know you not that you are the Temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you 2 Tim. 1.14 The Holy Ghost dwells in us Thirdly His knowing all things 1 Cor. 2.10 11. The Spirit searcheth all things yea even the deep things of God for what is it in men which knows the things of man except the Spirit of man which is in him likewise no man hath known the things of God except the Spirit of God John 14.26 The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost which the Father will send in my Name shall teach you all things see also John 14.13 Fourthly His knowledge and prediction of things to come 1 Tim. 4.1 The Spirit saith expresly that in the last times some shall revolt from the Faith Fifthly His all powerfulness 1 Cor. 12.11 One and the same Spirit doth all things distributing to every one particularly according as he will Sixthly His right of having a Temple an evident sign of his Divinity 1 Cor. 6.19 Do not you know that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you the which you have of God Seventhly His vertue of creating Job 26.13 His Spirit hath adorned the heavens Job 33.4 The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life Luk. 1.35 The Angel answered and said to Mary The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Vertue of the Soveraign shall over shadow thee and therefore the Saint which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Eighthly That t is he which teacheth the faithful of Jesus Christ which is a work of God as it appears by Isai 54.13 alledged by the Lord John 6.45 They shall be all taught of God 1 Cor. 2.10 God hath revealed to us heavenly things by his Spirit and verse 12. and in John 16.13 The Spirit of truth shall teach you all truth Ninthly That he subsisted before the creation of all things Gen. 1 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the waters 5. That the Holy Ghost is that same God which is called the Lord or Eternal in Scripture This appears clearly For since there is no other God but the Lord Eternal as we have already proved by Scripture the Holy Ghost being God as we have shown it must necessarily be concluded that he is the same Lord eternal since otherwise he would not be God Moreover this is proved most evidently thus he who hath instructed sent and inspired the ancient Prophets of the Old Testament is the true eternal God worshipped heretofore in Israel as it appears through all their prophecies now it is the holy Spirit which hath instructed sent and inspired them 2 Pet. 1.21 The holy men of God being inspired by the holy Spirit have spoken 'T is he perticularly Acts. 1.16 who hath foretold that which we read in David Psal 40. Heb. 41. 10. 'T is he who spake by Isai Acts. 28.25 and commanded him to say that which we read in the 6 Chap. verse 9. of his prophecy 'T is he Heb. 9.1 8. who gave to Moses the ordinance which we read Levit. 16.2 'T is he Heb. 10.15 who spake in the 31 Chap. verse 32. of Jeremy 'T is he lastly Heb. 3.7 who saith in the 94 Psal Heb. 95. 8. that which we read there it follows then of necessity that he is the same Lord Eternal whom the Faithful under the Old Testament adored Thus have we clearly proved the Doctrine of the Trinity That there is three of them the Scripture teacheth it expresly 1 John 5.7 There are three which gives witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one Matt. 28.19 Teaching all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost 2 Cor. 13.13 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Communion of the Spirit be with you all Amen And when the Lord Jesus was baptized these three persons were manifested distinctly the Father crying from heaven this is my beloved Son in whom I have taken delight the Son receiving the baptism in his humanity the Holy Ghost descending from heaven upon hm in form of a dove Matth. 3.16 17. And that these three persons are one and the same divinity appears by what we have all ready said Now that the Father is the true eternal God adored by the Israelites all the Scripture saith it and the words alone of Jesus Christ John 17.3 sufficiently teacheth it were speaking to the Father this is life eternal saith he that they should know the only true God That Jesus Christ is likewise the true eternal God and that the Holy Spirit is so also we have proved here above Since then that all the Scripture professeth that this eternal Lord is one only God as we have also justified one must then of necessity conclude that these three blessed and glorious persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are but one and the same God which is that which the Church nameth the doctrine of the
Trinity CHAP. XI Of the Liberty Efficacy Effect and Constancy of the Grace of the Lord. 1. That God gives the Grace of his Spirit according to his good pleasure ROm. 9.15 16. I will have mercy saith the Lord on him on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on him on whom I will have compassion It is not then concludes the Apostle of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God who doeth mercy Eph. 1.5 God hath predestinated us into the adoption of his children by Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will Phil. 2.13 T is God which hath made in you both to will and to do according to his good will Matt. 11.25 26. O Father Lord of heaven and earth I render thee thanks that thou hast hid these things from the wise and understanding and hast revealed them to little children even so Father for as much as thy good pleasure hath been such 2. That those whom God hath enlighttened by his Spirit come unto him John 6.45 Whosoever hath heard of the Father and hath learnt he cometh to me Rom. 8.29 Those whom God hath before known he hath also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son c. And those whom he predestinated he hath also called and those whom he hath called he hath also justified and those whom he hath justified he hath also glorified 3. That God will give his Salvation to those who shall have-believed in his Son and lived according to his Gospel John 3.36 Who believeth in the Son hath eternal life Rom. 8.1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Jesus Christ who walk not according to the flesh see also verse 13. and 14. Joh. 5.11 12. God hath given us eternal life and this life is in his Son who hath the Son of God he hath life who hath not the Son of God hath not life 4. That he preserveth and comforts them by his Spirit dureing this life John 15.18 I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter to dwell with you eternally c. I will not leave you Orphans and adds Matth. 28.20 behold I am with you alwaies even to the end of the world John 17.11 Now I am no more in the world said the Lord upon the point of his passion but these are in the world and I come to thee Holy Father keep them in thy name those I say which thou hast given me to the end they may be one as we are c. And in verse 15. I do not pray that thou wouldest take them out of the world but that thou wouldest keep them from the evil and in verse 20. Now I pray not onely for them but also for those who shall believe in me by their word Rom. 8.32 God who hath not spared his own Son but gave him for us all how shall he not give us also all things with him and in verse 35.37 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ shall it be oppression or trouble or samine or nakedness or peril or persecution or sword c. But rather in all these things we are conquerrours through him who hath loved us 1 Cor. 1.8 9. The Lord shall preserve you unto the end that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ God is faithful by whom you have been called into the company of Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Cor. 10.13 God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted beyond what you are able so he will give you aid in temptation to the end you may be able to bear it CHAP. XII Of the last end of Men as well Faithful as Reprobate 1. That God gathers the Spirits of the Faithful into his Repose when they depart this life REvel 14.13 Blessed are the dead who die to the Lord from henceforth saith the Spirit that they rest from their labours for their works follows them 2 Cor. 5.1 We know that if our earthly habitation of this body were destroyed we have a building from God viz. a house which is not made with hands but eternal in the heavens and ver 6 7 8. Wherefore having always confidence and knowing that when we are in this body we are absent from the Lord for we walk by Faith and not by sight but we are assured and have a good will rather to be out of the body and to be with the Lord. 2. That God shall raise the Faithful at the last day and shall lead them into heaven to live and reign eternally with Christ in a Soveraign glory John 6.39 The will of my Father which hath sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that which he hath given me but that I should raise them up at the last day Rom. 8.11 If the spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal Bodies because of his Spirit dwelling in you Phil. 3.20 21. We expect from heaven a Saviour viz. the Lord Jesus Christ Who shall transform our vile bodie that it may be made conformable to his glorious body according to the efficacy by which he can even make all things subject to himselfe 1 Thes 4.14 If we believe that Jesus is dead and risen likewise those who sleep in Jesus ver 16.17 God will bring them with him Then in verse 15.16 For the Lord with the command and voice of the Arch-Angel and with the trumpet of God shall descend from Heaven and those who are dead in Christ shall rise first Then we who live and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds before the Lord in the air and so shall be always with the Lord. See the description the clearness and the history of all the Mystery of our last resurrection in the Chap. 1 Cor. 3. That life eternal is a gift and grace of God Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death and the grace of God is life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord. 2 Tim. 1.18 The Lord give to Onesiphorus to find mercy from God in the last Day 4. That the wicked and incredulous shall perish eternally 2 Thes 1.7 8 9. The Lord Jesus shall shew himself from heaven with the Angels of his power with a flame of fire doing vengeance upon them who know not God and who obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ who shall be punished with eternal punishments from the face of God and from the glory of his power Revel 21.8 But the fearful and Unbelieving and execrable and Murderers and Whoremongers and Poysonous and Idolaters and all Liars their part shall be in the lake burning with fire and brimstone which is the second death The End of the Second Part. FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures Where the Articles of our Faith are justified by the Scripture Negative and Exclusive of the Creeds of
LA FOY fondée sur les Saintes Escritures FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures Against the NEW METHODISTS by JOHN DAILLE Printed in French at Paris anno 1634. And now Englished by M. M. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.18 LONDON Printed for Benj. Tooke at the sign of the Ship in S. Pauls Church-yard 1675. AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER ALthough the French translation of the Holy Bible made by the Doctors of Louvain can by no means be comparable to the neatness clearness and faithfulness of that which is read among us yet to fit my self to the gust of our Adversaries I have drawn from their Translations and not from ours the most part of the places of Scripture which I make use of in this little book namely in the second and third parts to the end they might not wrangle with us about words as many of them doe and perticularly these new Methodists against whom I have composed this Treatise Onely let me inform you that in three or four passages which are nothing to our controversie I have taken the liberty to correct that in the Greek and Latine texts which these Gentlemen had too evidently turned false by in advertency as I am willing to believe and ignorance and not by malice As for example in the second part Chap. 4.3 pag. 124. I produce the first verse of the Gospel of S. John in these words the word was God and not as these Doctors have expounded it God was the word whereof the two construction which these words are capable of Deus erat verbum they chuse to follow that which is less to purpose and which besides the consusion which it brings to the contexture of the Apostles thoughts does manifestly overturn the words of the Greek text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot of necessity be the predicate but the subject of the propâ—sition as those who have any knowledge in the Laws and use of the Greek tongue know well enough So in the Epistle to Titus see how they translate the words of S. Tit. 2.13 Paul expectantes beatam spem adventum gloriae magni Dei Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi expecting say they the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ separating this God whose advent we expect from our Saviour Jesus Christ as if the Apostle should say we expect the coming of God and we expect also the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ an interpretation neither pertinent nor advantagious to the Church for first the Greek text cannot bear it which binds and ties up all these words great and our Saviour in the same bundle by means of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle put into their heads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obliging us necessarily to take them not as names of two persons one of which is called God and the other Jesus Christ but as two different qualities attributed to one onely and the same Jesus Christ which is altogether the same with the great God and the Saviour whose advent we expect but this same interpretation is also prejudicial for it takes away from the Catholicks a clear and invincible proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ for if you follow it suppose that Jesus Christ be our Saviour which the Samotosateniens and Arrians confess yet still he is not our God and this is that which they struggle for principally No body then can blame me for leaving the Louvain version in this place to follow the Greek Text in translating this passage Part 2. Chap. 4.3 pag. 124. where I produce against the hereticks expecting the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ That which I have changed part 2. Chap. 8. 1. pag. 106. in the second chapter of the first of S. Peter is less important Love the brotherhood instead of which our adversaries Bible saith Love brotherhood leaving out the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Greek So in the first of S. Luke I read and therefore that which is born of thee holy shall be called the Son of God Part 2. Chap 4. Sect. 7. pag. 92. therefore the holy one that shall be born of thee as they of Louvain have translated it contrary to the Faith of the Greeks who say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Latine which saith likewise quod nascetur ex te Sanctum not qui nascetur ex te Sanctus As for the small change of words in the 2 Cor. chap. 5. verse 8. where we say we have a good will rather to be out of the body and to be with the Lord instead of that which is in the Louvain bible I have a good will better to be out of the body we have done this only to sweeten the manner of speaking avoir bonne volonte meiux estre is rough and unknown in our language and the Greek and Latine texts do no way oblige us to interpret it so These are if my memory doth not cheat me all the passages in which I have varied from the Louvain version in divers other places I bear with its faults because they do no great prejudice to the justice and truth of my cause although there are some of them which testifie in these Doctors a passion unworthy of the quality which they take of interpreting the Word of God as among others when in Pet. 1.5 3. alledged part 2. ch 8. 5. pag. 109. they read having dominion of the Clergy of the People of God instead of the plainness of the Greek and Latine having dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cleris over the heritage being licensed to add the words and people of God and to hide by this means the sence which the Apostle gives in the word Clergy imployed to signifie the Christian people which is contrary to the use and pretence of those of Rome FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures Part I. CHAP. I. The Preface of the whole Work SOme years since certain Doctors started up who to render our Religion odious published that it could not be proved by the Scriptures which nevertheless according to us is the only thing capable to ground our Faith upon Their invention was found so plausible that many of our adversaries have reduced all their dialectiques to it thinking that to defeat us there needs no more but to demand some express and formal passages upon every Article of our Confession of Faith and whosoever can press that demand home he is the man that must overcome us This easie way of arguing hath increased Disputants among them and instead as at first of shunning conferences concerning Religion and not permitting any but Priests to discourse it now all sorts of people hunt after it even to the
them that we as well as our Doctors reject them formally and precisely and wish that they had never been spoken off and that they may be Aeternally buried in the cave of errors from whence they came For as Eating good meat is sufficient to preserve the life of man nor is it necessary for him to know Hemlock Aconite or Antimony or to know poysons 't is enough that he is not so unhappy as to eat of them even so 't is in Religion for to obtain salvation 't is sufficient for a man that he believe the holy and wholsome truths communicated to us by the Lord Jesus there is no need that he should know particularly the innumerable poysons which the enemy hath scattered in the World nor that he should know exactly to what degree every one of these false doctrines are poysonous 't is enough for him that he is so happy as to believe none of them To speak properly the express and formal rejection of an errour makes no part of Faith for then Faith would have been imperfect before the birth of the error Before Mahomet came into the World the Faith of Christians was intire and sufficient although it was ignorant of the seducements of that Impostor and though it knows nothing of Marcion of Manicheus of Arrius nor of Pelagius yet it is sufficient to salvation provided that it believes firmly that which Jesus Christ hath revealed There is then a great difference between those propositions which supposeth and affirmeth the truth and those which reject the error The reason why our Fathers have ranked them in the body of the same declaration was not because they were ignorant of this difference but another occasion obliged them to do it for being separated from the Church of Rome and afterwards having been calumniated of holding diverse very strange opinions vide Epist 10. the K. which is in the beginning of our Confession of the year 1559. in fine to make the King their master his subjects their fellow Citizens see clearly what their thoughts were about Religion they not onely declared the belief they had of Christianity and of every one of the articles of which it consisted but also what they thought of the doctrine and communion of the Pope from which they had withdrawn themselves We ought then to distinguish carefully these two sorts of articles which this reason joyns and mixeth together some affirmative and positive declaring that which we believe others negative and exclusive declaring that which we do not believe the first lays down that which is our Faith the second rejects that which is not so For example these are of the first sort that there is a God that he ought to be worshipped with all our affections that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God Eternal that he was made man that he hath taken our nature in the womb of the holy Virgin that he dyed to expiate our crimes that his blood hath washed and purged our souls from all sin that he is risen and ascended into heaven and there reigns at the right hand of the Father that sins are pardoned to men by the grace of God when they believe in the Gospel that believers are obliged to live holily that Charity is necessary for salvation that the Lord hath ordained that we should be baptised in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost for the remission of our sins and that he hath likewise commanded us to celebrate the memory of his death in taking eating and drinking the Sanctified bread and wine that this bread and this wine are the communication of his flesh and of his blood that those who believe and live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall have Aeternal salvation and that those who believe not in him shall perish But these following are of the second sort That we ought not to adore the Host of the Church of Rome nor invoke their dead Saints that the mass is not an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of men that the Pope is not the head and spouse of the universal Church that he hath no power neither directly or indirectly over the temporals of Kings and States of the world that neither he nor the Church which adheres to him have the right of never erring in the Faith nor are they the reason and grounds of our Faith that it is not for the merits of our works that our sins are forgiven us or that grace or life is given to us that the bread which we break and the cup which we bless in the Church loseth not their substance that none of those who communicate at his table ought to be hindred from drinking of the Cup of the Lord that neither the chrism nor the penitence nor the ordainor the marriages nor the extream unction are Sacraments that believing souls departed this life are not burned in the fire of Purgatory Since we believe the first Articles and that we preach and recommend them to men we are obliged to shew the truth of them and since the most part of them are so obscure that we have not natural light enough to discover and perceive them it remains that we prove that God hath revealed them to humane kind For these are the three sources of all our knowledge sence reason and the revelation of God now 't is neither the sins nor reason of man that demonstrates to us that Jesus Christ is the son of God or that those who believe his Gospel shall have the happy Aeternity We cannot prove the truth of it then but onely by the means of revelation Now all Christians and namely those of the Church of Rome with whom we dispute in this Treatise confess that the writers of the Old and new Testaments were inspired by God and did write by the revelations of the Spirit now we cannot more clearly ground the Truth of the Articles upon which our Faith consists then by shewing that they are taught in these divine writings T is for this we acknowledg our selves obliged and of which 't is most easie to acquit our selves as we hope to make appear in this book And as for the other Articles which are of the second sort it belongs to us to justifie and make appear that the holy Scripture teacheth no where to believe what it self rejects as it teacheth no where that there is a Purgatory or that the Pope is the Monarch of the Church or that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice For having once shewed that we shall have clearly justified that we have been obliged to exclude such opinions of our Faith since we hold that all the things which we ought to believe as necessary to our salvation are taught in the Scriptures for that if these be not found there Rome is in the wrong to believe and preach it as necessary and have reason not to receive it in our belief T is an unjust cavilling to demand this of us further that we
should furnish them with texts in which the second sort of Articles are contained where for example it is said expresly that there is no fire of Purgatory and that the Pope of Rome is not the head nor spouse of the universal Church and to say for want of this the holy Scriptures as we have it is not perfect is an impertinence fit onely to dazle the eyes of children for the Perfection of the Scriptures according to our supposition consists in that it teacheth all things that ought to be done and believed for salvation as the perfection of a book consists in containing all the Truths necessary to the science of which it treats Will you say that the bookes which Aristotle hath left us of Philosophy are imperfect because they do not expresly reject that which the Masters of the sciences have since his time opened or that the treatises of the antient writers upon eloquence are imperfect because they did not expresly contradict these new lights which the phantasie of our moderns boast of having discovered Error is an infinite thing for which the sciences cannot nor ought not to have a good esteem T is enough for their perfection to have shewed all the truth of the things of which they treat otherwise there would never be any thing perfect in this matter For upon this account the Mussilman will reproach our Scripiure because it hath not expresly anathematized his Mahomet Mareion and the Manicheans the David Georgists and all the other impostors will impute to it as an imperfection not to have made an inventory of all their follies What need was there that it should black its paper with their names and dotages so many ages before their birth 'T is sufficient to keep me from it that she hath said nothing of them The surest and shortest means to keep the right way amongst so many confuted ones is to dispise all that which the Scripture does not recommend and not to disdain to examine what she doth not disdain to teach us It speaks to me of God and of his Christ what he hath done for me and what he requireth of me It instructs and fills my soul with that wisdome which is necessary to Salvation It is enough for me to be saved I am contented with knowing so much As for what the Pope dogmatizes besides this let him shew it me in the Scripture and I will believe it as I do the rest but if it be not to be found there who can imagine but I must be ignorant of it and cannot believe it without danger faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 of which the Scripture is the first the most clear most certain and in my judgment the only infallible Doctrine CHAP. IV An answer to what our adversaries alledge that they are in possession of them BUt these new disputants make another stop here to oblige us to their pretended method saying that they have had them in possession many ages since thinking that sufficient for them without being obliged to produce any other titles or Doctrins of their Religion that it belongs to us who contest with them to make their wrongs appear by clear and inviolable proofs It is a word which they alwaies have in their mouths and which they believe cannot be answered But in truth we can say nothing more vain nor less pertinent for if this possession as they call it might be alledged in the case the Apostles of Christ would have wronged the Heathens about their Religion seeing they possessed it far long before the Jesuits would do wrong to the Chineses if they should endeavour to drive from their hearts the idolatry and worshiping of Pagods which they have possessed time out of minde truth and vertue should leave in mankind the error and vice which they found established there for fear of violating unjustly the right of their long possession The old man will have little to maintain himself against the new and philosophy ought not to yield to the Gospel upon this account we also ought to return under their yoak as that of our first and most ancient Masters But God forbid that a little word ill understood should ever make so enormous a prejudice to the right of God of his Christ and of his truth we confess clearly that where there is a question made about lands or houses or any one thing which is and which is seen in nature the possession may be alledged and that it belongs to him who turns out the possessor to shew that he held it unjustly and to make it appear by good titles that the things belongs to him in our contest with the Doctors of Rome there is nothing like this they press us to believe with them the Purgatory the Mass and other articles We desire them to shew us the truth of them of which we can yet see but little Instead of satisfying so just a request they alledge that they have them in possession and so consequently are not obliged to prove any of them certainly if they think to make the world believe things mearly upon their saying them without demonstrating the truth of them they propound to us a position evidently unjust and tyrannical For a man cannot believe before he knowes the thing to be veritable and he cannot without denying his nature yield an intire faith to that which is to him either sall or doubtful Those who will perswade him to any thing are necessarily obliged by the right of nature to demonstrate to him that it is true either by sense or reason and if the thing be above sense and reason let it be done by divine revelations it remains then that these gentlemen renounce this possession which they alledge to us since t is so contrary to the rights of our nature and that they make it their endeavour to demonstrate to us that which they desire to perswade us to They are in possession to demand belief of things doubtful and incertain and as for me I am in possession to believe nothing but those things the truth is of which they make appear to me My possession is evidently more antlent then theirs 'T is but reason then that they yield to my right and not that I submit to their usurpation Moreover in civil causes where this maxim hath place the possessor is sued and pressed to forsake that which he holds Here quite contrary there are pretended possessors which contend with us and press us to enter into possession with them for they would havee us believe what they believe and 't is this belief which they call their possession who sees not not then that Fundamentally 't is they properly who have begun this action with us and who ought by onsequence to shew us by good and lawful Doctrin that we have right to enter into this possession to which they call us we are ready to yield to them if they can make us see that that which
so many words the worshipping the Devil nor the second the casting himself down from the top of the Temple For in S. Matthew he alledgeth the law Mat. 15.4 honour thy Father and Mother and the ordinance he that curseth Father or Mother shall die the death against the traditions of the Scribes and Pharesies who hold that a child who is obliged by an oath or a rash vow not to give any assistance to its Father and Mother would not sin in refusing them the honour which is due to them And nevertheless neither of these two passages do formally and in so many words express what they would conclude from them To the Saduces who questioned him about the resurrection of the dead he produced that which God said in the Scriptures Mat. 22.32 I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the Saduces remained confused and all the multitude admired the force and strength of this proofe Our methodists laugh at it and demand a formal passage and say that the consequences are faulty The Apostles follow faithfully the tracts of their Master they prove the truth of the gospel against the Jews not by formal passages of the old Testament but by consequences and reasoning which they drew from it In this manner holy Peter shewed the sending and comming of Christ to the world by the words of Moses Act. 3.22 Deut. 18.15 Act. 2.27.29 30 31. Ps 16 10. Rom. 4. Ps 32 1 2. Gen. 15.6 a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like to me his resurrection by that of the Psalms thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption so St. Paul concludes that a man is not justified by the law but by grace in those words of the Prophet blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven Rom. 9.8 and from that which is written that Abraham believed and t was imputed to him for righteousness Thus he proves in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians Gala. 4.28 that 't is by faith and not by workes that we are justified and by the word of the Lord to Abraham Gen. 21 12. Rom. 9.15.16 Ex. 33.19 in Isaac shall thy seed be called and that the calling of beleivers is not of him that willleth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy from that which God sayed to Moses I will be gracito whom I will be gracious and I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy In the same manner he shewes the rejection of the Jews by these words of the Scripture Rom. 9.23.33 Hos 2 23. Rom. 14.10 11. Esai 45.25 behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and the calling of the Gentiles by this I will call them my people which were not my people and the last judgment by these other as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me What shall I say of his Epistle to the Hebrews all interwoven with proofs of his nature as when he sheweth the excellency of Christ above the Angels by the words of David Heb. 1.5 Psal 2.7 Heb. 5.7 tot thou art my son this day have I begotten thee his eternal preisthood by the History of Melchisedeck in Genesis the advantage of his alliance above the ancients by the oath set down in Psalms 21.10 the Lord hath sworn and well not repert of it Heb. 7.21 I must wholy transcribe the Epistles of this divine man if I would deny here all the examples where he furnisheth us with these sorts of proofs for he disputes every where thus and draws from the holy Scriptures by the force of reasoning thousands of conclusions which cannot be read there expressly And if one cannot prove by the Scriptures except it speaks in so many words as the new method pretends how did the same Apostle dispute by the Scripture against the Jews of Thessalonica that it behoveth that Christ must suffer Act. 17.2.3 Act. 18.28 and that he should rise from the dead and that this Jesus viz. he who was crucified in Judea was the Christ and how did the Apostles demonstrate the same proposition by the same Scriptures certainly this proposition that Jesus is the Christ is found couched in these terms in no places of the old testament as every one confesseth How comes it then that Paul and the Apostles shewed it by this ancient Scripture it is be cause they shewed divers things in the Scripture from whence it necessarily followed for they gathered together all the marks of Christ contained in the books of the old Testament from whence they formed this proposition he who has such and such qualities who is born at such a time and in such a place who doth suffers and teaches such and such things is the Christ this being once so put they consequently apply to their Jesus all the marks and qualities of the Messias proveing by clear and irrefragable witneses that he had exactly in him all that the prophets had attributed to the Messias from whence the conclusion follows of it self that Jesus is then the Messias this is that which S. Luke calls to declare propose in the book of the Acts Acts. 17.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 useing two words most proper for this subject the first of which signifies to open the second to put one thing neer another to tell us that the Apostles prove these conclusions by the Scriptures first in making the prophecies appear clear and shewing the true sence of them and then in examining them with the events and comparing the figures with the things and the shadow with the body from whence the light of the truths of the Gospel shine forth of themselves Since the Lord and his Apostles used this way we must acknowledg that a proposition is lawfully and valuably proved by the Scriptures when one showeth that it evidently follows from the things which are contained in it although it be not there it self expressly except one were so desperate as to accuse the Soveraign Wisdome and his most faithful and intimate Ministers of having imployed vain and frivilous Sophisms instead of good and sollid deemonstrations But besides their examples they have authorized this way of proof by their command For our Lord according to the exposition of the most parts of the antient and modern Interpreters commanded the Jews in the fifth of St. Joh. 5.39 John to search the Scriptures Why should he command that we should search for other things then those which are directly expressed there all the circumstances of the passage shew that he wisheth them to learn who is truly the Christ But this cannot be drawn from antient Scriptures but only by consequences It follows then that the Lord expects that we should learn not only that which it tells us directly but also that which may be concluded from it by good and valid consequences Mat. 22.29 31 32. And in Matt. 22. disputing
against the Pharises who denyed the resurrection from the dead you err said he to them not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God c. Have you never read that which was spoken to you by God I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead but of the living He blames them for not having learned the resurrection of the dead in this sentence of Scripture Certainly then they ought to have learned it there for he is too good to blame him who hath done his duty Now the sentence which he produceth saith nothing of the Resurrection of the dead expresly and directly he draws it only by the consequences of that which he layeth down We must confess then that t is our duty not only to learn and believe the things which we read in the Scriptures but also to draw from them and conclude those things which may be deduced from them although they are not read there in so many words and to embrace them with the same faith as we do the others and that without this weare ignorant of the Scriptures and are in danger of erring CHAP. VI. That the new method is contrary to the procedure and maximes of the holy Fathers in their disputes and favourable to the Heretiques and Infidels THe Holy Fathers following the command and example of Christ and his Apostles make use every where of this sort of proofs without any scruple esteeming they have sufficiently shewed their belief by the Scripture when they had drawn them from thence by good and clear consequences Those whom we have above named do not dispute otherwise injoying freely that right which they give their adversaries I should be too long should I here repeat all the examples of them as when they prove by the Scripture against the Sabellions that God the Father is not begotten and is without beginning * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and against the Arians that the Son is consubstantial with the Father †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and against the Nestorians that the Holy Virgin is mother of God * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and against the Eutichians that Jesus Christ hath two natures †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all propositions which are not found in the Scripture exactly set down in the same words and which nevertheless they profess to demonstrate by the Scripture as every one may see in their books are an evident sign that they have believed that t is a good and sufficient way to prove a belief by the Scriptures when one draws from it by reasoning although one cannot alledge any passage where it is formally and expresly set down In a word you must either forsake the cause of God and instructions and convictions of the Heretiques or proceed in this manner For otherwise how could the fathers dispute against them Let us give an Arian to one of our Methodists to be instructed or convinced which way will he take how will he prove the consubstantiality of the Son he cannot alledg one exact text for it for it is clear that in the whole Bible there is not one of that nature and he cannot take advantage of the texts which shew this truth since they do not exactly express it for the law of his Method forbids him the use of this sort of proofs Will he use the Authority of the council of Nice or of the Church which he pretends is Catholique but this would be to deceive himself and not to dispute this would be to alledge for proofe of the question the same thing which is directly in question For if the Arian should appeal either to the Nicean faith or to the authority of the Catholique Church he would not be an Arian That which made him renounce both these is the beleif that you will prove it to him You must necessarily then leave him in an error because your pretended Method hath divested you of all the means of drawing him out of it You can prevail no better against a Sabellion an Eutichian or in general against any of the Heretiques who denie the Church any of her positive beliefs not expressed in so many words in the Scripture Even the Jew will take advantage of your maximes and laugh by your example at all which you produce from the Old Testament to make him believe the New and will say as you do that the consequences are Chimeras and phancies and will protest not to yield unless that he hath a formal passage which saith expresly that Jesus Son of Mary born in Bâ—thlehem under Augustus Caesar is the Christ promised by the antient Oracles Concil Lateran sub 4. lex 3 cap. 24 Concil Lateran sub Innoc. 3. exped pro recup terr sanct p. 63. col 1.8 So he will find when all is done that your fine Method is the gagg of the Church and not Heresie and that it fortifies it instead of subdueing it And acquires to the Church nothing but losses and Funerals instead of victories and Triumphs which it promised her But if formally one hath judged them worthy of an Anathema and of the loss of liberty by the Council who should furnish these infidels with sword poinyard and cordage What thunderbolt and ex-Communication do the Fathers of this Method merit who as much as in them lies arme the Jews and Heretiques with a buckler Shot-proof and take from the Church the only arms which God hath put into her hands to scatter all sorts of enemies to wit his Holy word But this method doth not only deprive us of the use of the Scriptures against those who receive them either all or in part It renders likewise all truths unuseful to us the knowledge of which God hath imprinted in the nature of men taking from us discourse or reasoning without which it is not possible to explain them to be useful either for the instruction or conviction of the ignorant For according to these new maxims every one will demand formal proofs of that which one would perswade them and will hold himselelf obliged not to believe any thing beyond those very things which nature hath taught him The Pagans will reject the unity of the Divinity because it cannot be drawn but by consequences from our General notions he will receive none of the arguments which you will use to establish the Justice goodness and Power of God the truth of the Scriptures the Authority of the Church and other such like grounds of Christianity because you have taught him that these reasonings are but meer dreames and none of their conclusions is worthy of an assured beleif Briefly there was never any method so perplexing and troublesome as this which renders all the differences of philosophy and Religion Aeternal without leaving us any means to determine them For since that to make them agree it will not suffer us to imploy any other that an express and formaldecision by the Authority of
say then to this procedure of the Heretiques do they grant them that one ought to hold nothing but that for a doctrin of Scripture which we read there in so many words and not reading exactly there the words of which the question is have they recourse to the Church to defend by its authority that which they think cannot be proved by the formal words of the Scripture which is the point at which all the cheating blowes of our methodists aim They do nothing of all this They doe not put the infalibilitie of the Church in play They hold themselves to the Scriptures and use its authority but for the defence of their cause and confessing that the terms of their questions are not read there exactly they protest that t is enough that the thing it selfe is found there and that t is gathered and deduced lawfully from thence and prove upon discourse found upon diverse passages and after having so proved it conclude that they have demonstrated it by the Scripture T is no matter saith S. Athan. Ep. de Synod Arim. Seleuc. T. p. 913. D. Athanasius in one of his bookes above named whither the words which one makes use of be in the Scripture or not provided that the sense of them be Orthodox and in the treatise of the decrees of the Council of Nice c idem l. de decret Synod Nic. p. 270. B. although that the words saith he be not so laid down in Scripture t is no matter so long as they have a sence truly drawn from the Scripture as it hath been said before what can one call more contentious saith S. Austin answering to Pascentius then to dispute of the name when the thing is manifest a Aug. Ep. 17 T. 2. p. 150. F and a little after you see saith he to him that from those words which are not in the Scripture one may give such reason by which it may appear that they are truths b Ibid. O. Maximinus who pressed him to prove by express terms of the Scripture that one ought to adore the holy Ghost t is well said answered he as if from the things which we read there we could not learn certain other things which we do not read there c Id l. 3. contr Max. c. 3. and following this distinction he professeth elswhere to have said what he read in or understood by the Scriptures conforming himself to their authority and St. Chrysostome d Id. l. 15 de civit D. cap. 1. gives us this rule that we ought to hold those things for holy writ whose sence is found in the Scriptures although they are not found there in the same words e Chrysost Hom. 7. in 1 Cor. p. 380. S. Gregory of Nazianzen in his thirty seventh speech disputes against the Hereticks who denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost urged him with the same wrangling to produce them a passage of Scripture which testifieth it expresly a Greg Nazian c. col 37.599.605 edit paris an 1609. Our methodists would have yielded to this assault and would have granted them that there being no formal passage to shew this truth it could not be proved by the Scriptures But S. Gregory on the contrary makes to them this wise and judicious remarke with the Style and manner of the teaching of the holy Scriptures b p. 605. that there are things which are said there which notwithstanding are not there and there are other things which are not said there which nevertheless are not wanting there some others are not said there nor are they there in effect and in fine some others are there and are spoke there He puts in the first ranck sleeping wakeing and the motions of God in the second his impassibility and that he is without beginning for though the Scriptures say often that God sleepeth or that he awaketh or that he moves locally yet notwithstanding it doth not signifie so And though that be in these words 't is not in that sence And though it never sayes expresly that he is impassible or without beginning c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies it notwithstanding in divers places in other words Which the Divine made his adversaries confess who held that God was not begotten and without beginning and yet they could not produce any one passage which said it formally from whence he concludes that since by their own confession own may very well prove by the Scriptures that God is without beginning although it saith no where so expresly their procedure is altogether ridiculous for concluding that the divinity of the Holy Spirit cannot be proved by Scripture under pretext that t is not expressed there Shew me these things saith he that God is not begotten and without begining written in so many words or else we will reject them because they are not written a p. 606. And a little after how saith he dost thou keep thy self so closely to the letter and how dost thou side with the Judaical wisdome tying thy self to syllables and leaving the things if thou shouldst name twice five or twice seven and I should come and conclude from thence ten or fourteen or conclude that this thing which you call a mortal and rational animal is a man should I talk idly in thy opinion in discoursing after this manner but how canst thou think so fince I say but the very same things which thou saidst before For the determination is not more from who saith it then from him who doth oblidge necessarily to speak it b p. 606. D. viz. in saying things from whence it necessarily and inevitably follows See how this great man clearly establisheth the consequences which are drawn from Scripture Theodoret in a Dialogue printed with the works of S. Athanasius brings in one of these Hereticks which they call Macedonians from Macedonius their Author who alledged likewise that t is no where writ that the holy Ghost is God a Dialog contr Macedon tom 2. operum Athan p. 276 B. edit Paris An. 1627. To which the Orthodox Divine answered let us suppose that the name of God is not attributed to him in the Scriptures do but acknowledge that he hath the nature and operations of God and that satisfies me for the confession of his divinity But saith the other why do you say that which is not written 't is sufficient answers the Orthodox if you but only acknowledge his nature for though it were not written his nature of it selfe would consequenly draw this name from it For if once one confesseth that the holy Ghost is a person subsisting sanctifying and uncreated he of necessity is God though thou will not confess it Where is it that t is written saith the Macedonian that the Spirit is God even there answers the Orthodox where it is written that he is of the same essence And upon this Groand the Heretick having replyed that the Fathers had called the Son consubstantial
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
but those things which as well the Prophets as Moses had foretold that they would come to pass that it behooveth that the Christ should suffer †Acts 26.22 23. and finally how could he in another place assure the * 1 Cor. 15 34. Corinthians that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures that he was buried and that he rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures since it is evident that none of these propositions is literally and expresly so written in any of the Books of the Old Testament but only are gathered from thence by consequence Now if that which is drawn from the Scriptures by good consequence is really in the Scriptures why do you reject it since you confess with me that there is nothing in the Scripture but what is Holy True and Divine conclusions of Truth are not formally in their principles but one cannot deny them to be there in Vertue and Power so that admitting of a principle one admits also all things that can be inferred from it by that very act as for instance he who saith that we have four gospels saith also that we have two and two of them these numbers being evidently contained in that which he hath expressed And the Scripture saying that Jesus Christ is a man saith also by those very words that he hath a soul and body the two parts of the nature of mans 'T is very true that a man may sometimes lay down things the consequences of which he will not allow of but this proceeds from the weakness of his understanding which doth not see all the Lawful consequences which may be drawn from them God whose Wisdom is infinite never affirms any thing without Knowing all the consequences which can be drawn from it so that we need not fear that he will go back from his word or deny any Doctrine to be his that can reasonably be concluded out of his word Since then that all things that can be lawfully inferred from the Holy Scripture are unavoidably true and Divine it is clear that one doth sufficiently prove the truth and holiness of a Creed when he shews that it follows from the positions expressed in the Holy Scripture without any need as formerly the Arians and now the new Methodists pretend to shew it in so many words This is the first principle which Scholarius a Greek indeed but of the side of the Latins laid down at the beginning of his Dispute against those of his own nation concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost first a Scholar orat Henet 3. part Act. Conc. Flor. p. 580. then we must not exspect saith he to find all the proofs expresly and in so many words in the Scripture for this is an excuse which many Hereticks used to save themselves but if there be any thing that may be deduced from what is said in the Scriptures we must Also receive it with the same honour as the Scriptures it self Cardinal Bellarmin who alone hath more desert and reputation in the Roman party then all the Authors and defenders of this new Method have put them all together acknowledgeth this same truth That which one inferreth evidently from the Scriptures saith he is evidently true the Scriptures presupposing it b Bellar. l. 4. de Ec. c. 3. Melchior Canus c Can. loc Theol. l. b. c. 8. Bishop of the Canaries Vega d Veg. l. 9. dê justificat c. 39. Gabril Vasques e Vasques Tom. 1 in Thom. dispute 5.6 3. and disput 12. art 8.6 ◠Alfons Salmeron f Salmer T. 1 prolegum de Canc. 91. all very famous amongst our adversaries make the same judgment of it and the last especially speaks thus of it We ought to hold for Doctrins of Divine Authority and worthy to be received by Faith not only the things which are expresly contained in the Scriptures but those also which are inferred from them by an necessary and evident consequence Certainly 't is enough for us to prove to our adversaries the truth of our beliefs either that we read them in the Scripture or that we infer them from thence since they agree with us that 't is a book Divinely inspired CHAP. X. That this pretended Method takes away certitude from all humane Knowledge and plungeth Religion the Sciences and all the life of men into a horrible confusion But these men demand of us here how we can assure our selves that the consequences which we draw from the Scripture are good and lawful for say they reason is sometimes abused concluding from a principle that which cannot truely be inferred from it Arians and Eutichians who demand formal Passages of the Chatholicks did not they pretend to conclude their false and pernicious opinions from divers places of Scripture where notwithstanding they were not Nestorius Palagius and before them all Origen were deceived in the same manner and there is not perhaps any Heresie which hath not endeavoured to ground it self upon the Scripture by false and abusive discourse Reason then being faulty how can we be assured of the truth of the things which by its means we have discovered in the Scripture for since it is often deceived who can tell us that it is not so now I do not think it strange that an Atheist should make this objection to us since his impiety obliges him to confound all knowledge in an infinite and remedisess incertitude But that men who make profession of the Christian Religion and whose interest t is to preserve Faith Assurance and Credulity in the world should propose to us a discourse which rums all these things from top to bottome in my opinion 't is either an impudence or an extream passion For consider I beseech you how far this fine discourse goeth reason say they is faulty therefore we cannot be assured of the conclusion which it draws from the Scripture But if this consequence be good what assurance can we have First what will become of this so much bragged of certainty of the Catholick Faith which they have alwaies in their mouths it will be accounted to them no other then a meer in discretion For whether they will or no 't is our understanding which receives the things of Faith which considers them and is lead to believe them by the reasons of truth which it seeth in them If our understanding by mistakes and abuses sometimes makes its aprehensions and conclusions uncertain our faith must necessarily be so too The consent of the people the ancient and uninterrupted successions of the Bishop of Rome the Majesty and brightness of the power Beauty Order and pomp of the ministers the light of the divine protection and such like considerations may perswade you that Rome is truely the Church of Jesus Christ but I say how can you be sure of it since this reason to whose report you give credit is false and if it may be faulty in other things why not in this and
abstaining certain days from certain kinds of meats does oblige the Consciences of the Faithful And as to the Ministers of Religion in particular we do not believe as you do that they are obliged to abstain from Marriage which the Astle calls honorable believing that it is enough that they have the good qualities which is required in them in the first of Tim. and elsewhere Upon the Articles of the Sacraments we confess that Baptism and the Supper are sufficient for us not being able as you have ordained to receive for true and proper Sacraments of the Christian Religion your Confirmation Orders Extreme Unction Penitence nor Marriage nor do we believe as you do that the faithful are obliged before they communicate of the holy Eucharist to confess to a Priest all and every one of their sins in particular declaring to him the kinds and circumstances of them believing that it is sufficient that a man trie himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so eat of that bread and drink of that wine of the Lord as the Apostle prescribes In a word we cannot believe that your Clerks ought to be exempted from the Jurisdiction and Subjection of Princes and States in the Country in which they live nor that Princes and States should be subject to your Pope or to any other Ecclesiastical Minister in his Temporal Concerns as the Court of Rome holds which you acknowledge as the Mother and Head of the Catholique Church These are the Principle Articles of the Faith of our Adversaries which we will not receive Let us consider now as briefly as 't is possible whether they are found in the Holy Scriptures If we will follow their Principles it will be very easie for us to finish all this Dispute in one word For since according to the Maximes of their Method we ought to hold for Doctrine of the Scriptures nothing but what we read there precisely in so many words the Consequences being faulty and discourse deceitful abusive who seeth not but by their own Confession all the Articles which we have excluded from our faith are out of the Scripture and cannot be proved by it it being clear that one cannot read there any one thing expresly formally and literally in the same terms as they believe them and expound them and upon this account I should be already at the end of my task For since that according to us the Scripture is the only Principal of faith so perfect that we do not think that it is permitted us to receive into our Religion any Article of Belief which is not taught by the Scriptures and since on the other side none of the Articles which those of Rome lay down can be read there which is according to these new Disputers the only Method to justifie a Belief by the Scripture it follows clearly that my faith is all intire and most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures which is all the designe of this Treatise since that which it believes is found there and that which it doth not believe is not found there But God forbid that we should take advantage by the wrangling of our Adversaries We shall always acknowledge for true Doctrine of the Scriptures that which can be clearly and necessarily drawn from thence all that which they charge upon Reason being false and not to the purpose as we have shewed here above Let us deal honestly then and examine whether their Beliefs which appear no where in formal and precise terms in the Scripture may notwithstanding be concluded from thence by some evident and necessary Consequences We will recite here only those which seem to them to be most strong passing by a great number of them which though used by their Authors are so weak and if I may be permitted to say it so extravagant that whoever hears them will think them the idle talk of a sleeping man rather than the discourse of one that is awake For to what purpose should I go about to spoil Paper and lose time to copy the Arguments of those who conclude the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome from that which Jesus Christ said to St. Luke 5.4 Peter Duc in altum Go into the deep or the truth of Purgatory from that which David said Psal 129.1 Lat. 130.1 Hebr. De profundis clamavi ad te Domine Lord I have cried to thee from the deep places or that the Priests are obliged to a single life from that which St. Paul sayeth Rom. 8 8. that those who are in the flesh cannot please God or the worshipping of Images from that which is said the Lord made man after his own Image and the like Without lying if these Consequences and the works of our understandings were all of this nature these Gentlemen would have great reason to reject them We will produce as much as possible we can only those of their proofs which seem to have some colour and shadow of Reason although at the bottom any one may easily know in bearing but attention to them that they are nothing in effect CHAP. III. That the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass is not taught in the Scriptures FIrst To prove that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice truly propitiatory for the sins of men they alledge that Melchizedek the Type of Jesus Christ offered bread and wine Geu 14.18 But what appearance is there in this Consequence First the Sacred Text both in the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Original and in their own †Proferens Version signifieth that Melchisedek produced bread and brought out wine and not that he offered it and all these circumstances lead us to believe that it was for the refreshment of Abraham and his men being weary with fighting 2 Kings Hebr. 2 Sam. 17.28 and with the Journey by a humanity like to that which Berzillai the Gileadite hath since used to David and those who were with him Secondly though Moses did say that Melchisedek offered bread and wine not to refresh Abraham but in Sacrifice to God how can they prove that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice and not rather an action of thanks since under the Old Testament all the propitiatory Sacrifices had with them an effusion of blood Heb. 9.22 And in a word suppose that this pretended Oblation of Melchisedek had been a Sacrifice realy propitiatory how can they prove that it figured the Eucharist which is never called Sacrifice in the New Testament and not rather the death of Jesus Christ acknowledged for a true Sacrifice through out all the Scriptures and by all Christians where the Lord the true bread of life descended from Heaven hath been offered to the Father for the expiation of the sins of humane-kinde Secondly They produce Malachy Mal. 1.11 who prophesying the times of the New Testament saith that in every place they shall offer to the Lord an oblation pure or clean that is say they the Eucharist But first although it should be so how
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
receive us into eternal habitations where the Scripture saith that he doth a thing which is the reason for which he doth it although to speak properly and exactly he doth not do it Secondly They abuse also the words of the Lord where he saith that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven Matt. 12.32 neither in this age nor in the other that is to say add they neither in this life nor in Purgatory But why should not we rather say that by the age to come the Lord according to the Style of the Scriptures understands the Age which shall follow after the Resurrection from the dead and that it signifieth that God will never pardon this crime to the men who are guilty of it neither now nor at the last Judgment that he will never give them absolution for it neither in this life by the voice of his Spirit in their hearts nor in the other by the mouth of his Son Or why do not we say that he means that this sin shall be grievously and irresistably punished as well in this Age with temporal pains as in the other with eternal For as remitting or pardoning a sin signifieth not to punish so the not pardoning it signifieth to punish it yea to punish it grievously and certainly In that great day the Lord will also remit the sins to the faithful but not to impenitent sinners and besides what the thing saith of its self St. Paul testifieth it expresly where he prays God to have mercy on the house of Onesiphorus in that day 2 Tim. 1.18 Acts 1.19 20. and St. Peter where he exhorts the Jews to believe to the end that their sins might be blotted out in the time of the refreshment of the Lord. Thirdly 1 Cor 3.15 The most part of the Adversaries turn to the Service of their Purgatory that which St. Paul writes in the first to the Corinthians If the work of any one be burnt he shall suffer loss but he shall be saved yet as amidst the fire or rather by the fire pretending that this fire is that of Purgatory But first this passage by the common consent of Ancients and Moderns is reckoned amongst the obscure and Allegorical and by Consequence not proper to ground an Article of Faith upon Secondly I say that nothing can force us to take it for Purgatory For to leave the Expositions of Chrysostom of St. Augustin and of many others which take it otherwise why shall we not rather understand it of the Judgment which God shall make at the last day of the Doctrine of those Preachers who having retained the foundation of the Gospel have built upon it vain Beliefs which shall be reprehended by the light of the Advent of Jesus Christ but in such manner Amos 4.11 that losing the liking and praise of their own works they themselves shall not perish their works shall perish and not their persons which shall be saved but nevertheless as plucked out of the fire that is to say very hardly Paraphrase upon the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinth Gal. Eph. Printed by Touss du Bray An. 1632. with Priviledge and Approbation as if they escaped from a fire as a fire-brand rescued from the burning as Amos saith and in such manner that they shall hold their Souls for a prey being obliged only to the bounty and Divine mercy for not having been devoured together with their works by the heat of that consuming fire which shall trie all men as many Learned men expound it and even the Author of the French Paraphrase upon the Epistle to the Corinthians Published lately at Paris and approved by three Doctors of Sorbonne Fourthly They have also-recourse to the Old Testament and alledge that the Lord in Zechary promised Zech. 9.11 That he would draw his prisoners out of the lake in which there is no water These are say they the Spirits which suffer in Purgatory But this is to play and not to reason For what is there in the Text of the Prophet which obligeth us to take this Lake for Purgatory I leave the literal Interpretation which understands it to be the Captivity and calamity of the Jews deprived of the refreshments of the Divine word and of the exercises of their Religion If we must Allegorize why should not we rather bring this passage to the eternal redemption which the Lord Jesus hath acquired to us by his blood drawing his mystical Israel that is to say his Church from the sad and pitiful condition where it was naturally being a prisoner of the Devil a slave of sin and guilty of the wrath of God the true Lake where there is no water since in that state there is no confolation whereas the Souls which they shut up in their Purgatory notwithstanding their griefs have according to what they say Bellar. of Purgl 2. c. 4. an incredible consolation because of the certain hope of their Salvation CHAP. VII That Justification by Works is not taught in the Scriptures FIrst To the validity of the good works which the regenerate do such as they pretend as merit the remission of sins and life eternal it can no more be proved by the Scriptures than the precedent Doctrines It is true that the Lord said of the penitent sinner Luke 7.47 Many sins are forgiven her for she hath loved much But it is also clear both by the precedent similitude and by the opposition which the Lord adds in saying Ver. 41 42. that to him to whom less is forgiven loves less that he sheweth her love which she bare to him not as the meritorious cause but as the signe and argument of the Grace which he had done her So we say very often Ver. 47. the Sun is risen for it is high day to signifie that the clearness of the day is not the cause but the effect and signe of the rising of the Sun And so it is that the Jesuit Villalpandus understands this passage in his Commentaries upon Ezech. Villalp in Ezech. 19.10 where having remarked that quoniam because is taken very often in the Scripture to signifie therefore and he alledgeth this passage for an example of it Many sins are forgiven her for she hath loved much that is to say Behold why she hath loved much saith he for the Argument of the Lord drawn from the Parable of the Creditor required such an epiphonema as is evident to the Reader As to the rest that faith was the cause of the remission of the sins of this woman the Lord shews it clear enough saying to her in the two Verses following Thy faith hath saved thee go in peace and that love to God Charity to our Neighbours and good works are the effects of the Grace which God doth us in pardoning us all the Scriptures teacheth clearly and namely Saint Paul Eph. 2.10 where he saith That we are the work of God created in Jesus
Christ to good works which God hath prepared to the end we might walk in them Secondly I confess that St. James writes James 2 21. that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his Son Isaac upon the Altar But 't is clear that he understands not by this word that Abraham did receive from God the pardon of his sins by the merit of this his work since the Scripture saith as St. Paul reports it that before the birth of Isaac Gen. 15.6 Rom. â— 23 the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness St. James disputes in this place not of the manner or condition by which man is absolved from his sin before God but of the quality of the faith by which he is received into Grace viz. that it is efficacious in good works and not barren and unfruitful as that of which the Hypocrites boast And to prove it he alledges amongst other reasons the example of Abraham who indeed was absolved and received into Grace by faith but 't was by a lively faith and effectual in good works as he is justified by the admirable obedience which he rendred to God in offering his only Son to him in Sacrifice Then was clearly accomplished the Scripture which giveth him the praise of having believed in God it appears then that what is said of him is most true James 2.22 Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness His saith was finished or accomplished saith the Apostle that is to say 2 Cor. 12.9 it shewed its perfection and accomplishment by works in the same manner as St. Paul saith That the strength of the Lord is made perfect or accomplished in weakness that is to say that it sheweth his valour and perfection in our infirmities and afflictions 1 Tim. 3.16 This is that then which St. James means when he saith that Abraham was justified by works that is to say he proved and demonstrated by his works that which was real as when St. Paul saith That the Lord Jesus was justified in Spirit that is that he proved and demonstrated by his great and admirable works that he is true God blessed for ever And it is in the same sense that we ought to understand that which St. James concludes Vers 24. You see then that a man is justified by works and not only by faith that is to say the man sheweth and proveth what he is not only in believing but also in well-doing if we confess voluntarily that we do detest from our hearts this phantasm of faith which vaunts of believing without producing any good fruit and confess that it is unuseful it is exactly that which Saint James lays down at the beginning Vers 4. as the subject of all his designe What will it profit him if any one sayeth that he hath faith and hath not works faith or rather this faith can it save him CHAP. VIII That the Holy Scriptures doth not teach us that works merit eternal life 1. THat if the good works of the faithful merit not the remission of their sins much less can they merit eternal life To prove it is so they heap up divers places of the Scripture which shew that God will give eternal life to those who have lived holily as the following and other-like places Rom. 1.6 7.10 God shall render to every one according to his works viz. to those who with patience and well doing seek for glory honour and immortality eternal life But to those who are given to contentions and agree not to the truth but give themselves to iniquity shall be indignation and wrath Whosoever shall give to drink a Cup of eold water only to one of these little ones in the name of a Disciple Mat. 10.42 verily I say unto you that he shall not lose his reward Mat. 25.34 Then shall the King say to them on his right hand Come ye blessed of my Father possess the Kingdom which hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world for I was an hungred and you gave me to eat I was thirsty and you gave me to drink I was a stranger and you took me in c. But neither these passages nor any like to them * As Mat. 5.12 16.27 2 Cor. 5.10 Heb. 6.10 10 25. 1.26 2 Tim. 4.8 Apoc. 21.7 22 12. Prov. 11.10 Esa 3.10 which are found in many places in the Holy Scriptures can prove that is in Question viz. that the dignity and the excellencie of the works of the faithful are such as are worth eternal life and that there is a certain proportion and equality between them and the Glory to come which precisely requireth that it should be given to them for reward God being there obliged even by the justice of the same thing and consequently cannot fail of it without violating the Justice which is between him and man This is that which the merit of works signifie which we denie and our Adversaries maintain Bell. de Justif l. 5. c. 17 18. All that one can lawfully infer from these passages is that God hath promised to give eternal life to those who live well and holily that one day he will accomplish perfectly this his promise on this condition eternal life is a consequent an acknowledgment and a reward of holiness and good works which the faithful who labour and persevere in their vocation may and ought to expect from God But who doubts of any of these truths all that we say is that we must expect this reward only from the Grace of God who hath promised and will give it because he is most good and not for the value and excellencie of our works which how good soever they be are but our duty with which we acquit our selves to God incapable by consequence of meriting any thing it being clear that he who doeth that which he ought and to whom he is obliged acquits himself only and doth not merit Secondly They alledge that the Lord speaking of the happy Luke 20.35 saith That they who shall be made worthy to obtain that life and the resurrection from the dead Rev. 3.4 and elsewhere that the faithful of Sardis should walk with him in white clothing because they are worthy of it and that St. Paul saith speaking of the Thessalonians that they were afflicted to be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God 2 Thes 1.5 But I answer that this word worthy signifieth the disposition and convenience of a thing and not its merit As when St. John exhorts the Jews to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance Mat. 3.8 that is to say convenient for the repentance which it answereth and not which it merits for this would be ridicule it is then in this scuse that the truly faithful who live holily and persevere constantly in piety are worthy of the Kingdom and white Vestments of the Lord that is to say
Heb. 13.18 the Ephesians the Colossians the Thessalonians and the Hebrews and therefore why should not we demand the same office of the Saints departed But first who seeth not that although this reason should be pertinent it always concludes much less than that they would have it for it hints only that it behoveth to pray to the departed Saints as S. Paul prayed the Romans the other faithful whilst they lived Now he prayed them only to pray to God for him He did not kneel down before them although absent to make this request to them he erected no Statues to them he constituted no Images to them he did not prostrate himself before their Representations nor did he offer them lighted Tapers or make Vows to them nor did he pray them to command our Redeemer to defend him against the Enemy to receive him at the hour of his death and to heal the inaladies of his nature nor is there any wise Christian that will do or demand such things of a living man upon this account it will follow that all the Prayers where our Adversaries demand these things of the Saints departed are unlawful their own Reasons as much esteemed as they are permits them only to require the Saints to pray to God for them But in the second place who seeth not the extreme impertinence of this discourse We pray the living Saints to pray to God for us we may then use the same towards them that are dead I pray you what is it that gives them ground to argue so What! is there not a difference between these two we see the one we speak to them and hear the answers they make to our requests whereas the other are separated from us by a great and almost infinite distance without being able to know for certain whether they hear any of our words without having any mutual and reciprocal commerce with them We do not doubt that as we thank God for their happiness they pray for ours wishing the triumph of the Church which they know fights yet upon the earth under the Ensigne of their Christ But 't is to mock the world to conclude from hence that we may and ought to speak to them as we do to persons here below which are of our acquaintance That which Elisha knew by the revelation of God concerning what his Servant Gehazi had done being absent 2 King 5.16 and Daniel that which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamt Dan. 2.19 Acts 12.34 And St. Peter what Ananias and Saphira had contrived sheweth that the Lord can if he pleaseth discover the thoughts of our hearts and the words of our mouths to the Saints who live in heaven that which we have called in Question but not that he will and doth it in effect which is the point of this Question whereof we ought to be assured to be able to address our prayers to them It cannot be proved by the knowledge which the Angels have of the repentance of sinners Luke 15.10 Heb. 1.14 For the Angels being ministring Spirits which God sends to serve because of those who shall receive the inheritance of Salvation 't is not strange that they should know that which happens to us whereas we read not any thing like this of the Souls of the faithful that are deceased Apoc. 14. but only that they rest from their labours And after all although we should be assured that the Saints should understand us there would always be indiscretion in these prayers since there is neither Command nor Example in the Scriptures for them Joyn to this the evident peril we should be put into by this practice of giving to the Creature that which appertains to the Creator For Nature hath her self imprinted this Opinion in our hearts that 't is a divine thing to penetrate into the secrets of men and to know what the absent do and say it is not possible for us to converse with the Saints whom we do not see without allowing them a kinde of Divinity as it appears but too much in the practice of the Adversaries the most part of whom and above all those of the minute people praying to the Saints have towards them incitements to devotion and a respect altogether like that which they have to God when they pray to him But 't is sufficiently seen that this praying to deceased Saints cannot be proved by the Scriptures CHAP. X. That Veneration of Images is not Commanded in Scripture nor any way taught there 1. AS for their Images and those of Jesus Christ and the holy Virgin it is still much less possible to establish the Veneration of them by Scripture Exod. 25.18 19 20. since instead of Commanding it they disprove and forbid the service of all Images and Representations in general Nevertheless let us see what Rome alledgeth for this designe She then alledgeth the Cherubims which Moses made to cover the forepart of the propitiatory Numb 21.8 1 King 6.32 35. 7.25 29 36. and the brazen Serpent which he lifted up in the Desart and the Cherubims the Palm-trees and the Buds of Flowers spread which Solomon caused to be carved upon the Doors of the Temple and the Molten Oxen upon which he set the Laver of Brass and the Figures of Lions and other Creatures with wch he inriched its Basis Tertull. striking at Idolatry Tertul. de Idolol c. 5. in a Book which he hath expresly made objects the same thing in favour of them who defended it resolves the Question learnedly according to his ordinary custome But to keep my self to my business what doth all this make for the veneration of Images First they were not the Representators of God nor of any person whom he had imployed in any eminent Service of his Church Secondly These Images were made some for Types and sacred Symbols as the Cherubims of the Ark and the brazen Serpent the others for the ornament and inriching of the Temple only as the Palms the Oxen and the Lions of Solomon none to be honoured and worshipped which was so contrary to the intention of these Divine men that the people offering Incense to the brazen Serpent Hezekiah to stop the abuse 2 Kings 18 4. made no scruple to break it in pieces So all that one can lawfully conclude from the last part of this allegation is not that it is permitted or allowed to kiss the Images by devotion to be uncovered and prostrate before them and to render them worship in honor to Christ and his Saints which our Adversaries think and practice but that one may carve Pictures of Creatures and Flowers upon the Doors and other parts of the Temples to adorn and inrich them Council of Trent Dâ—utri 2 for which we never contested with any one But for the Cherubims and the brazen Serpent the instance they bring of it is quite out of our purpose First because that these Types have no place any longer in the Church Jesus Christ
having caused the shadow to vanish by the true body which he hath publikely shewed Secondly because God expresly commanded Moses that he should do them whereas he never ordained such-like Images in the Roman Church All that one can conclude from it is that since the Serpent made by the Command of God was nevertheless broken by Hezekiah when the people rendred to it a religious honour it would be very convenient also that Christian Princes and Bishops should take from Churches and publike places the Images of he and she Saints when men begin to worship them though they were neasted there not only as every one knows by humane Authority but Divine Institution But this Consequence doth not favour their Veneration CHAP. XI That the Scripture teacheth not that the Bishop of Rome is the Pontifical Spouse and Monarch of the Vniversal Church nor Authorizes any thing which is founded only upon the Authorities of the Pope 1. THe great and principal Article follows which they esteem alone capable and needful to maintain all the rest viz. the Monarchy and infallibility of the Pope of Rome They endeavour to prove by Scripture that he is the Head Spouse and Monarch of the Universal Church but by reasons so strange and far from all appearance that 't is very easie to finde that 't is their Passion and not their Judgment which hath conceived them For first they assert the Sovereign Pontifex which precided over all the Church of Israel during the time of the Old Testament and that this Type may have its accomplishment under the new Covenant they conclude that there is a Sovereign Pontifex in the Christian Church Heb. 3.2 4.14 5.5 6. 7.26 27. 8.1 2. 9 to the 11. and add that the Pope of Rome is the Monarch of it as if St. Paul the Apostle had not taught us that Jesus Christ is the Sovereign High Priest of his Church or as if this his Priesthood alone had not body and truth enough to accomplish all the figure of the Ancient and as if on the contrary the Unity of the Antient Pontifex did not evidently exclude the pretensions of Rome it being clear that if they have place there will be two High-Priests in the Christian Church against that which was figured in the Judaical where they had but one and finally as if this High-Priesthood ought to belong to the Bishop of Rome rather than to any other supposing that there was one in the Christian Church besides that of our Lord Jesus Christ They have also recourse to that which the Lord promised St. Peter Matth. 16.18.19 to build his Church upon him and to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and unbinding and that which he commanded him three times after his Resurrection John 21.15 16 17. to feed his sheep and to some advantages which he seemeth to have had above the other Apostles Matth. 10.2 Matth. 17.24 as that he is called the first and that the Lord payed Tribute-Money for him and from all this conclude that the Bishop of Reme is the Prince and Sovereign Monarch of the Catholick Church an ill and impertinent reasoning which supposeth falsities and concludes ill For to begin with the last that St. Peter was the Foundation and Monarch of the Church the Prince and King of the Apostles and in sum what you will what is this in common to the Pope at present or with any of his Bredecessours to conclude from one to the other Peter was the Head of the Church the Pope sitting now at Rome is therefore so How many Seas and Abysses must be filled before these two can joyn for they must first prove that St. Peter was at Rome Secondly that he was Bishop of the Roman Church Thirdly that he left the Bishop of Rome all the dignities that he had Now 't is evident that they cannot prove any one of these three Articles by the Holy Scriptures not so much as the first of these which is the important For let Rome be this Babylon from whence St. Peter dated his first Epistle 1 Pet. 5.13 there is no necessity obligeth us to believe it so that to be able to prove a Thesis by Scripture one must not according to them enter into any Proposition in the proof of it which is not in the Scripture it is perfectly clear that the power of the Pope cannot be found in the Scriptures And as for the other two Propositions one that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome the other that he left all his Dignity to the Bishop of Rome they are infinitely far from all appearance of truth and reason But it sufficeth us for the designe of this Treatise that it cannot be founded upon the Scriptures So then although it saith Thou art Peter and feed my sheep one cannot draw from thence the Monarchy of the Pope But I say moreover that what they presuppose in their discourse viz. that St. Peter was the Master and Prince of the other Apostles is false and cannot be proved by any of those passages which they alledge The Lord said to him Thou art Peter and upon this stone will I build my Church But in what Logick doth that signifie that he should be the Monarch of the Church and the Prince of the Apostles I shall pass by the belief which the most part of the Ancient Fathers and some of our Adversaries have of taking this Stone upon which our Lord promised to build his Church for the Lord himself the Rock or Stone of Ages confessed by St. Peter a August de verbis Dom. See Mat. Serm. 13. Tract 124. in John for his Faith and Confession b. Tract 13. in Epist John D. T. 9. Serm. 22. ex 40. Serm. edit a Serm. p 248. primals l. 2. in Apoc. p. 13.84 c. l. 5. p. 1456. C. Bibi pp. T. 1. Anselm in eum loc Gloss interlin Lyran. Joan. Arbor Theosophia l. 5. c. 5. Alliac concord l. 2. c. 13. c. Hilar. l. 6. de Trin fol. 30. b. col 2. Ambros 6. de Incar Dom. Sacram c. 5. in it Aug. tract 10. in ep John l. tom 9. Auctor and not for the person of St. Peter I will suppose that these words and upon this stone I will build my Church be applied to St. Peter What is it that gives him so much advantage about the foundation of it and upon the Prophets themselves which God raised up at the beginning of Christianity following that which St. Paul saith That we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone and what other thing doth it signifie except that in preaching the Gospel they have abolished the Synagogue and founded the Christian Church the new Republike of the Lord his Celestial Kingdom All the advantage which St. Peter had over the other in this respect was that he preached the first of
our selves than to consider the just value of that which is attributed to the Church in these places whether that this Infallibility and Sovereignty be pretended or real it is enough to resolve their Reasons to say that they can conclude nothing for themselves until they have proved that the Christians of Rome are the true Church of Jesus Christ which they can never prove by the Scriptures 6ly Now this Sovereign Authority which they give to the Pope and to the Church wch acknowledgeth him being impossible to be proved by the Scriptures it followeth that all the things which depend on it are not grounded there Such for Example is that distinction which they make between meats at certain days permitting the Christians to eat fish and not flesh in Lent and other-like times the establishing of Feasts the single life of the Ministers of their Religion the retrenchment of the Sacred Cup to all those who communicate except to him who hath consecrated the Eucharist and other-like things for which they alledge for the most part no other soundation than the Authority of the Pope and of the Church which depends upon him At least it is clear that they cannot prove by the Scriptures all that which any one of them affirm eth or useth for this purpose it being so slight and so far from their purpose that I do not think it worthy the relating CHAP. XII That the Scripture doth no where assert the five pretended Sacraments which Rome adds to Baptism and the Lords-Supper I Come now to the Sacraments the number of which they have increased adding five to the two which we allow of The first is the Ceremonie of the Confirmation where the Bishop anoints the person baptized with Oyl and Balm consecrated after a certain manner giving him a light box on the ear and making the signe of the Cross sayeth I signe thee with the Signe of the Cross and confirm thee with the Oyl or Chrysm of Salvation In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost All this to strengthen him that he may be the better able to resist temptations Where is it that the Scriptures orders or commands us this Ceremony Certainly it so little agreeth with the Scripture that Alexandre and Bonaventure two of the first and most famous Authors of their School held that it was instituted neither by Jesus Christ Biel in 4. Sent. dist 7. nor by his Apostles as Gabriel Biel witnesnesseth writing upon these Sentences Others seeing that it cannot be a Sacrament of the Christian Church unless it had been ordained by the Lord they wrack the Scriptures to finde it there Dominic a Sot in 4. dist 7. art 1. They produce some Testimonies such according to their own confession which without the Authority of their Church who were not capable of shewing and concluding their Opinion And first they remark that which is written in the Acts Acts 8.17 that the Apostles laid their hands on those who had been baptized in Samaria But what hath this in common with the Roman Confirmation Where is it there spoken of the Oyl which is the matter of it From these words I signe thee c. which are the form of it of the increase of Justifying Grace which is the end of it for it doth not appear that the Apostles anointed with Oyl or consecrated with the Signe of the Crose those upon whom they layed their hands And as to the end for which they layed their hands upon them Acts 19.6 it appears from the nineteenth Chapter which was to communicate to them the extraordinary Grace of the Holy Ghost as the gift of Tongues and other the like things which are very different from justifying Grace Secondly The Imposition of hands Heb. 6.2 of which there is mention made in the Epistle to the Hebrews not being accompanied with any anointing or visible Consecration can serve for nothing to establish the pretended Sacrament of the Roman confirmation of which these things are the two essential parts Thirdly Concerning Repentance we agree that it is necessary and that the Pastors have Authority to forgive sins to those who repent and to retain them to the impenitent according to that which the Lord said to his Apostles John 29.23 To all those to whom you remit their sins they are remitted or rather shall be and to whomsoever you retain them they are retained Only we deny that such an action is a Sacrament and there appears nothing in the Scriptures which obligeth us to believe it Fourthly For the Confession which they make part of this wonderful Sacrament we believe that every faithful one is obliged to prove himself before he approacheth the Table of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 For St. Paul orders it expresly But none of the Divine Authors prescribes to any Christian to go and reveal to a Priest all his sins yea even his most secret ones before he communicates at the Table of the Lord. 'T is true they alledge the words of St. James James 5.16 Confess your faults one to another But how far is this from their Auricular Confession Cajetan upon this passage The Cardinal Cajetan one of their most subtle and most famous Writers and a great Adversary of Luthers being sent Legat against him into Germany answereth there for us I speak not here said he commenting upon this passage in the City of Rome when he was above threescore years of age of the Sacramental Confession as it appears in that which he sayeth Confess you one to the other For the Sacramental Confession is not done mutually from one to the other but to the Priests only But of the Confession by which we discover our selves mutually one to another that we are sinners to the end they may pray for us and of the confession of faults committed of the one part and the other to appease and reconcile us one to another 5ly This same Cardinal confesseth ingeniously also Eph. 5.32 Cajetan upon this passage That that passage which he alledgeth in the 5 Chap. of the Epistle to the Ephes to demonstrate that Marriage is a Sacrament is nothing to the purpose Wary Reader saith Cajetan upon these words St. Paul doth not furnish you with any thing in this place to prove that Marriage is a Sacrament For he saith not this Sacrament but this Mystery is great viz. of the words which St. Paul in the preceding Verse alledged of Moses For this a man shall leave his father and his mother shall cleave unto his wife and they two shall be one flesh Sixthly 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 and 2 Tim. 1.6 As to the Orders we confess that the Apostles laid their hands upon those whom they established in charge and that this Ceremony is holy and praise-worthy and practised carefully amongst us in ordaining our Pastors But that this action is one of the common and properly-named Sacraments of the New Testament neither Scripture nor reason
her Judgment Mat. 18.15 6 17. If thy brother hath sinned against thee c. tell it to the Church and if he disdain to hear the Church let him be to to thee as a Heathan man and a Publican And elsewhere all it saith 1 Cor. 31.21 22. that all things belong to the Church and namely Paul Apollos and Cephas and in another place speaking of the Apostles in general it calls the Servants of the Church for the love of Jesus 3. Rome esteemeth St. Peter the Master and Sovereign Lord over the other Apostles How comes it then that the Scripture speaking of him doth not name in the first place or rank 2 Cor. 4.5 but in the second only James Cephas and John having known the Grace which was given to me How comes it that the other Apostles sent him to preach in Samaria Gal. 2.9 How comes it that St. Paul preached three years without communicating any thing of his designe to him How comes it that even Paul himself said boldly Acts 8.14 Gal. 1.17 18. that those who were in esteem added nothing to him and recounts very freely that he resisted St. Peter in Antioch to his face Gal. 2.6 Gal. 2.11 because he was to be blamed Are these the terms of a Subject to his Prince And would they suffer now adays that the Bishop of Hostia should treat so with the Pope or from him 10. Vpon the distinction of Meats Rome teacheth that the use of flesh is wicked and unlawful two or three days in a week and during all Lent 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3 4. The Scripture saith that every Creature of God is good that nothing is to be rejected when it is taken with thanksgivin and that God hath created food for the faithful and for those who have known the truth to use it with thanksgiving and calls the Commandment of abstaining from it a Doctrine of Devils and qualifies them who assert it with the terms of teachers of Lyes and deserters of the faith abusing themselves with lying Spirits telling us particularly that such will come in the last days 11. Of the unmarried state of the Ministers of the Religion Rome teacheth that for the Ministers of the Christian Religion to marry is an impure and unlawful thing The Scripture testifieth that some of the Aopstles were married as amongst the rest St. Peter Mat. 8.14 and where it propounds conditions necessary for a Bishop 1 Tim. 3.2 it requireth not that he be not married at all but only that he be the husband of one wife 12. Vpon the retrenching of the Holy Cup. Rome suffers none but him only who hath consecrated the Eucharist to drink of the Cup of the Lord denying the Communion of it to all others The Scripture saith to those who Communicate Mat. 26.27 1 Cor. 11.28 Drink all of it and St. Paul Let a man prove himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this Cup. 13. Vpon the Exemption of the Ministers of Religion The Scripture saith in general Rom. 13.1 Let every man be subject to the Higher Powers c. For the Prince is a Servant of God for thy good but if thou doest evil fear for he weareth not the Sword in vain 1. Pet. 2.13 14. Be subject to every order of man for the love of God be it to the King as Supreme be it to Governours as to them who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for praise to those who do well The Apostle Paul knowing this order submitted himself to it Acts 25.10.11 appearing before the Officers of the Emperorour and appealing to him Rome holds that all her Clerks even the least of them are exempted from this Subjection CHAP. XVI A Refutation of that which the Adversaries pretend to elude the passages of the Scripture contrary to their Beliefs by certain distinctions of their Invention WHosoever will diligently read the Scriptures will finde many other things there incompatible with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome But this little proof is sufficient for our designe I know our Adversaries endeavour to shun these blows and to that purpose use many distictions But for the most part so strange that 't is not possible to comprehend them they wrap up things in inexplicaple contradictions as 't is easie to be seen particularly upon the Subject of Transubstantiaon of the Sacrifice of the Mass of the service to Saints and their Images Secondly All of them presuppose their Opinion and live by the passion wch they have for it For example before ever they had established Transubstantiation the world never heard speak of a body which hath its quantity and not the manner of its quantity which should be in many places at a time which penetrates the dimensions of another body which hath all its parts confounded under one point and not distinctly extended the one out of the place of the other neither of Accidents which subsist without subject a roundness without any thing of a Circle a whiteness without any thing of white neither a changing of Substances where the terms in which they were confined was in its full and entire being fifteen or sixteen years before the change arrived So before they had established the Service and Prayers to the Saints humane-kinde had never heard that the Religious Services of God were distinguished into Latria Doulia and Hyperdoulia from whence it follows that before they imploy these distinctions they are necessarily oblig'd first to ground the Opinion which they have produced and out of which they cannot finde for them neither in Nature nor in Scripture any stay where they may be able to subsist I shew that the Eucharist is not a humane body because it hath not the quantity of it that it is not the body of the Lord because the body of the Lord is in Heaven To that these Gentlemen answer that the Eucharist hath the quantity of a humane body but it hath not the manner of it that is to say it is five or 6 foot long although all its length is not extended more than two fingers that the body of Christ is in Heaven indeed but according to its manner of natural existence and that it is in the same time substantially elsewhere in a certain manner of existence the which though it can hardly be expressed by words is nevertheless possible to God Now what light doth these distinctions carry to the Subjects where they are imployed Do not they confound all our thoughts Do not they redouble the darkness instead of dissipating it And indeed what other things do they except to repeat the same thing that is in Question for when a body hath its quantity and not the manner of it and that he should subsist in one place in one manner and in the same moment should be in an infinite other places in another manner this I say is not grounded but upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation without which never any of them would have thought to affirm things so inconsistent One ought then to begin by the proof of this pretended Doctrine For till they have grounded this well their distinctions are unuseful and our proofs clear and solid Now we have shew'd here above that they cannot prove by the Scriptures any of the places which they use to this end nor infer any thing like it There is then no need to examine their distinctions Since 't is thus 't is an injustice in them to make use of them and it would be lost time to me to stay to consider confute them In a word we have imployed this second means for the abundance of proofs and not by any necessity that obligeth us to it For although the Doctrines of Rome should not oppose as they do visibly so many truths of the Holy Scriptures it should be always enough for us not to receive them since they cannot be proved by Scripture Thus have we sufficiently in my Opinion justified our faith by the Scriptures having shewed that they teach clearly the Articles which we believe and that they assert neither directly nor indirectly but rather shake and destroy those of the Doctrine of Rome which we reject From whence it appears that it is against all reason and truth which some of our adversaries reproach us with that we cannot prove by the Scriptures no not one Article of our controversed faith instead of acknowledging that it is upon them that the blame falls Being evident that of all the Beliefs which they press us to believe with them they have not been able hitherto nor will they ever be able to ground any of them upon the Scriptures Pray God enlighten them and confirm us in the knowledge of his truth and give to both of us the spirit of Peace and Charity to treat our Differences with sweetness convenient to the Profession which we make of being Christians FINIS
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