could they conclude from thence that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice truly and properly expiatory The thanks which accompanies this action and gives it the name of Eucharist that is to say of an Action of Thanksgiving may be called a pure Oblation which one presents to the Lord for his goodness to us without being a propitiatory Sacrifice any more than Alms Prayers and the Preaching of the Gospel which are named also Sacrifices Secondly What necessity is there to assert that this pure Oblation predicted by Malachy should precisely be the Eucharist Heb. 13.15 16. Rom. 15.16 it's aim evidently enough is to fignifie that the Service of God should be no more as formerly tied to the Mountain of Zion but should be done in all places from the rising to the going down of the Sun not to the people of Israel only but communicated to all Nations For these Divine Authors very often employ the terms and things of the Church of their times to signifie the state and things of the Church to come as when Esaiah saith Esa 2.3 that the nations shall go up to the Mountain and Temple of the Lord to signifie that they shall make profession of his knowledge and shall serve him And when the Lord himself represents the estate of the Church to the Age to come in saying Mat. 8.11 that we shall be set at the Table with Abraham Isaac and Jacob terms which agree properly to the present Church Malachy in the same manner used the word Oblation which is properly a part of the Service which had place in the Church of his time to denote the Evangelical Service which succeeded him under the New Testament and to signifie it more particularly he called it a pure Oblation no more carnal and gross consisting of Fat and Oyl in Flower and in the blood of Beasts as heretofore but wholly spiritual and true this is the service St. Paul understands where making opposition of the Christians with the Jews he sayeth Phil. 3.3 Rom. 1.9 that we should serve God in spirit and speaking of himself he saith that he served God in his Spirit and sheweth elsewhere that his preaching was part of it where he saith Rom. 15.16 he applied himself to the Sacrifice of the Gospel of God to the end that the oblation of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost He describes it so in general in the 12th of the Romans That our service which he calls reasonable for the same Reasons for which Malachy names it pure is that we should present our bodies as a living Sacrifice holy and pleasing to God Rom. 12.1 Jesus Christ a long time since Malachy foretold exactly the same thing at the time of his complement John 4.20 23. The hour cometh saith he that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth no more in the mountain of Gerezim as the Patriarchs did nor in Jerusalem as the Jews but in every place as the Prophet said By comparing of these passages 't is easie to finde out that the pure oblation of Malachy is nothing else but the worshipping in Spirit and truth which our Lord saith and the oblation of our bodies as a living Sacrifice as St. Paul speaks and our service in Spirit as he saith and so consequently not the Mass Thirdly But they alledge from the New Testament that Jesus Christ in celebrating the Eucharist said to his Disciples Do this now to do signifieth sometimes to sacrifice but what necessity is there to take it so in this place Who seeth not that do this signifieth an action of which the Lord had spoken Now he had said nothing of sacrificing he spake not one word of that but of eating and drinking For after having given them the sanctified bread to eat the sanctified Cup to drink he adds do this in remembrance of me Wherefore then shall not we take these words do this to signifie to eat this Bread and drink of this Chalice St. Paul explains it clearly so when after having rehearsed these words of the Lord Do this every time and as oft as you drink of it in remembrance of me he adds for every time and as oft as you eat of this bread and drink of this Cup you signifie the Lords death till he come 2 Cor. 12.25 26. The connection of this Verse with the precedent evidently sheweth that to do this fignifieth eating of this bread and drinking of this Cup. Fourthly They produced also that our Lord in the 22 of St. Luke speaking of the Cup of the Eucharist saith Luke 22.20 that it is shed for us from whence they conclude that it is then an expiatory Sacrifice for our sins But I say first that although the words of the Lord in Saint Luke cannot be taken otherwise than in saying that the Holy Cup is shed for us nevertheless it doth not follow that the Eucharist is to speak properly a propitiatory Sacrifice What is not the Water of the Holy Baptism spilled for those who receive it Do you conclude from hence that Baptism is a propitiatory Sacrifice Many things make for us which nevertheless are not Sacrifices The Chalice of the Eucharist is it not useful and wholsome for us Is it not given us to communicate to us the blood of the Lord Grace and the remission of our fins It is enough to say truly that it is shed for us there being no need to change it into Sacrifice to explain this manner of speaking But without coming to this one may justifie this otherwise For since the Cup is the Sacrament of the blood of Christ which hath been truly shed as a Sacrifice on the Cross to merit the remission of our sins and since it is the custom to give to the Sacraments the qualities and attributions of the things of which they are Sacraments none ought to think it more strange that the Cup should be said to be shed for us than that which St. 1 Cor. â—0 4 Paul saith that the Rock in the Desart was Christ Secondly I say that it is not necessary to take the words of St. Luke in that sense which they produce them On the contrary it seemeth that their Belief and their Latin Interpretation licensed by the Council of Trent Council of Trent Sess 4. doth not permit them to take them so Their Belief For if the Cup of the Eucharist is shed for us since by the Cup they understand the blood of Jesus Christ contained in the Cup they must say that the blood of Christ is shed for us in the Eucharist which is directly contrary both to what they confess of the glorious and impassible state of the body of the Lord and to that which they expresly assert that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice not bloody and that Christ is offered there without the effusion of blood Their Interpreter For thus he translates these words This Chalice is the
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
of necessity and whither he will or no form it self * Id contr Crescon-Gram l. c. 20. Now every man who is in his right senses may know certainly if he gives a convenient attention whither the propositions which one first layes down to conclude something from whither I say those propositions be in the Scripture or not For as to the consequence of things themselves it is of necessity so evidently inevitable that no body can contradict it as for example since every man is composed of soul and Body if you grant that Jesus Christ is a man t is not possible but you must confess also that he hath a Soul and Body so if you know that the Scripture puts this proposition as 't is very easie to know whither it doth or not you cannot without renouncingsense and reason deny that the conclusion is also in the Scripture So all this fear which they give us of the incertitude of conclusions drawn from Scripture by reasoning is but a vain Chimera which passion alone hath made them produce to Authorise this redicule Method by which they pretend to reduce men not to discourse and without which they know well enough t is not possible for them to defend their Faith Dial. inter Sab. Pbot. ar and Athon p. 476. For to apply to them that which one of the Fathers above named said of the Arian they know very certainly that if rejecting their Method we would once prove our belief by consequence from Scripture t is very easie to overcome them and so the defiance and fears of this danger carries them to demand of us proofs consisting in Nude and formal words Shall I repeat hear the impertinent objections which they make to us upon this subject that if we believe that which our reason concludes from the Scriptures our Faith will then begrounded upon reason as if our reason in this dispute should declare the proposition from which we draw a conclusion and not the faculty of the spirit with which we draw it certainly upon this account one might say also that our Faith is grounded upon the sense of hearing since the Apostle teacheth us that Faith comes by hearing But where is there a child that doth not see that it is grounded upon the divine word which we hear and not upon the ear with which we hear the ear is the Organ which receiveth this word but the cause which moves us to believe it is the truth which is there and not the ear CHAP. XII That the faith which we add to the truths drawn from Scripture by reasoning is grounded upon Scriptures and not upon reason Rom. 10.17 REason in like manner or to use another tearm less equivocal understanding seeth in Scripture that which is there that conceives discerns and believes it But that which makes it believe it is the Authority of the Scripture in which it hath seen it and not the action which it hath made use of to see it As when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ is a man you conclude then that he hath a Soul the ground of your conclusion is the saying of the Apostle and not the faculty or act of your reason All that your reason hath done is that it hath found in the Apostles words that which is really so Now this is not to give us Faith but to receive it and to do that which is not onely permitted but commanded If it teacheth any thing of its own growth if it makes its inventions pass for Oracles t is but just to be condemned For usurping that which belongs to God onely but if that which reason believes and perswades others to hath been taught by the word of God if that was there before she believed it that which she hath seen there and that which she hath done to the end that others might see it there cannot be imputed as a crime to her as if she attributed to her self in doing this to be the foundation of our Faith This is all which we require for her in this place that she may have leave to open her eyes to mind and see that which God hath propounded in his word We do not pretend to the gift of revealing new secrets to humane kind nor the priviledge of making articles of Faith We only beg that they would not take from us that which nature hath given to all men the faculty of seeing that which is exposed to our eyes and to understanding that which is said plainly to us and from thence conclude that which evidently follows Rom. 3.10 11 12. Hebr. 4.15 John 3.16.18 It seemeth to us that one may very well judge though he be not altogether a prophet that the Scriptures which tells us that all men have sinned except our Lord saith also that John James and Peter have sinned and that which tells us that all those who believe in Jesus Christ shall not perrish hath also said to us that Paul and Peter presupposing that they believe shall not perish Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 Exod. 20.14 and that which sayeth that cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words written in the law sayeth also to us that he who commits adultery is cursed by the law since 't is written thou shalt not commit adultery Our adversaries will pardon us if we say that to deprive us of the judgment of such consequences t is to endeavour to take from us not onely the light of the Prophesie or the Spirit of perticular revelation things to which we never pretended any thing but the sense and nature of men and to transform us into Geese CHAP. XIII That t is sufficient that one of the propositions be in Scripture to infer a conclusion of divine truth BUt they produce another difficulty upon this point let it be so say they let the consequences take place then when that is done we can receive no conclusions for divine but those which one draws from two propositions both of which are layed down in Scripture if one be not drawn from the word of God but from sense or humane reason we cannot receive that which follows from it unless it be for a humane truth that is to say doubtful and uncertain because in arguing the conclusion alwaies follows the weakest part as Logicions have observed for example if you dispute thus he who hath created the heavens and the earth is the true and eternal God worshiped heretofore by the Isrealites Now Jesus Christ hath created the heavens and the Earth he is then the true God worshiped heretofore in Israel they will make no difficulty perhaps to receive this conclusion for a Divine truth and worthy of an intire and certain belief because the two propositions from which it follows are both of them in the Scripture as we shall see hereafter But if you reason thus a Body which is in heaven is not at that time in the earth now the Body of Christ is in heaven therefore it is not