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
excellent persons writing so many Books upon such a Subject should forget the principal as by a consort and common conspiration how happened it that in some place they did not speak to us of the Sacrifice of the Mass the pretended Soul of all Religion Of Transubstantiation which is the ground of it of the worshipping of the Host the heart of Devotion of the Veneration of Images of private Confession of the Invocation of departed Saints all exercises of Piety so exquisite and saving If you believe those of Rome Why have they not in some places commanded obedience to the Pope magnified his Authority the only hinge upon which their faith turns the life and Salvavation of humane kinde according to the Mximes of our Adversaries Now and some Ages pust there hath not been written any Book of Religion how little soever it hath been where these Doctrines have not always been met withal and indeed if they were of that importance which they make them it were to betray men to speak to them of piety without touching upon these Let then the Scriptures of the New Testament be if they please a Letter only of Credence an imperfect Rule and in sum what they will yet it consisteth of many Books of considerable bigness and it is no way credible but in some part or other there would have been some mention made of these Doctrines if these divine Authors had believed and taught them Secondly Above all if you consider that the particular designe of their Tracts and Disputes would evidently oblige them to speak of them in divers places where they say nothing of them For Example St. Paul making a long comparison between Christ and Melchisedec in the seventh Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews and treating almost of no other thing in all that Divine Epistle but of the Priesthood was not he evidently obliged to speak of the Sacrifice of the Altar and of the Species under which he was offered and so mysteriously figured so many Ages before by the bread and wine of Melchisedec and nevertheless he saith not a word of it What do I say that he said not a word of it he hath done more For instead of saying these things so necessary to his Subject according to the Hypothesis of Rome he sayeth others of it which shakes it so rudely that the Devoto's of his Sacrifice were all scandalized at it their Doctors sweating unprofitably to make these agree with their belief Thirdly In the eleventh of the first to the Corinthians the Apostle chastiseth the irreverence of the Corinthians in the celebrating of the Sacrament who mixed their meals with the Communion of the Lord could he alledge to them upon this Subject any thing more to the purpose than the Transubstantiation and Adoration of the Sacrament shewing them that it is not bread which we receive in the Eucharist that it is the Lord of Glory the very body which was crucified for us upon the Cross What Romish Doctor is there who being to treat of this Subject doth not use this reason at the beginning middle and end of his Dispute But the Apostle saith nothing of it and that which is altogether strange very far from speaking so in speaking of the Sacrament he calls it Bread three times Fourthly in divers places of his Epistles as namely in the 12 Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in the fourth of the Epistle to the Ephesians in the third of the Epistle to the Colossians and elsewhere he infers all along the duties of the faithful as well for their piety towards God as for their charity towards their Neighbours But he saith not a word of their secret Confession nor of their Invocation of Saints nor of their worshipping of Images nor of any such-like things Fifthly 1 Thes 4.13 In the first to the Thessalonians he speaks of our duties in the mourning which we use for departed friends but without speaking to us to pray for them which was the fittest place for it Sixthly In the first to the Corinthians he reprehends their divisions at the beginning but 't is without saying any thing to them of the Chair of St. Peter the only line of the Union of Christians as those of Rome say Sevently 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 In the twelfth of the same Epistle and in the fourth of the Epistle to the Ephesians he makes a Catalogue of the Charges which the Lord instituted in his Church he having given Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors How in such a place should he have forgotten the Pope if he had known him 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 8 9. Eightly In the first to Timothy and in the Epistle to Titus he writes at large the conditions requisite to to the Bishops and Deacons Tit. 1.6 How upon this point did he not speak of their not marrying if it were esteemed necessary in such charges Ninthly 1 Pet. 1.1 5.1 St. Peter in the beginning of his Epistle is qualified with the Title of the Apostle of Jesus Christ and in the last Chapter recommends to the Priests the duty of their charge and to make them value his admonition he alledges to them only that he is an Elder amongst them Why did he not take in such an occasion the name of Monarch of the Church or Of Servant of the Servants of God that is to say the first and highest of all the Officers of God which are in the world no body can be ignorant but that it would have been an imprudence near to stupidity of these holy Authors to have forgotten these things in such considerable places if they had believed them But their Writings although we knew no other things of them doth enough justifie to us their wisdom and dexterity in judiciously using every thing that might serve for their purpose Read St. Paul and the first Epistle of St. Peter and you will not demand other proofs for this It remains then that we say that their silence about these Doctrines of Rome so constant and so universal and even in places where it had been to the purpose to alledge them prove clearly that they did not know them 10. After all If it be not possible to shew by the Scriptures that these Doctrines have been revealed by the Lord and taught by his Apostles I do not see by what other means one can prove it For as for the Books of the Antient Doctors which they commonly call the Fathers their Authority is not great enough nor the testimonies which they render of these Doctrines evident enough to ground them upon and to oblige us necessarily to put them amongst the Articles of our Faith as we have in my Opinion sufficiently shewed in a Treatise which we have published upon this Subject And as to the Authority of the Roman Church which now is it is as doubtful and incredible as all the other Articles which they assert so that this cannot serve to prove that they
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
them all and was the first that layed the foundation of the Church as well among the Jews as Gentiles for it was by his preaching that the three thousand Jews at Jerusalem and the family of the Centurion Cornelius in Cesarea believed the one being the first-fruits of Israel and the other the first fruits of the Gentiles who knoweth not but that is an advantage purely personal proper to St. Peter and incommunicable to any other consisting only in this that he had the honour to preach first the Gospel of Christ and to put his hand first to the building of this Celestial house That which he adds that he would give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that what he should bind on earth should be bound in Heaven and what he should unbinde on earth should be unbound in Heaven is but reason Serm. in Pentic inter opera Chrysost T. 6. p. 233. a. Chrysost Hom. 54. in Mat. p. 483. e. Hom. 21. lat 20. in Joh. p. 106. d. in Gal. 1. p. 961. f. Bazil Seleuc. Orat. 25. p. 142. 6. Vict. Atioch in Mark c. 3. p. 417. c. Bibl. PP T. 1. John Aurel. l 3. contr Claud. Taurin Bibl. t. 4. PP part 1. p. 586. à Carthusan Ferus Titelman Gorran in eum locum Apoc. 21.14 because he promised him For the honour of building the Church of Christ was founded upon the Apostleship which is writ in these words the which in my judgment signifieth only that he will eestablish Teachers in the Christian Church Eph. 2.20 Acts 2.14.41 Acts 10.5 34 47. to teach men what is truly lawful or unlawful commanded permitted or denied For the Key was the mark of Doctorship amongst the Jews and the Lord makes allusions to it where he saith Luke 11.52 That the Doctors of the Law entertained the Key of Knowledge and the Kingdom of Heaven signifieth every where in the Evangelists the Church of the Messias which is also the sense where this word is used by the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebrews both Antient and Modern So that these words I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promiseth to St. Peter the Charge and Dignity of Doctor or Master as the Jews speak not in the Synagogue but in the Church not in the earthly and carnal Israel but in the Spiritual and Heavenly This binding and unbinding which he adds are the functions of this new and heavenly Doctorship which he promised him For the style in which the Judaical Language runs in which our Saviour then spoke to binde signifieth to forbid something and to unbinde on the contrary to permit and declare that it is lawful from whence it comes that to say a thing is to defend or permit it the Masters of the Jews saying only * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is bound and that is unbound the Lord promised then in sum to St. Peter that he should have in the Kingdom of Heaven that is to say in his Church the Dignity of Doctor to proclaim and declare to the Nations what is truly lawful or unlawful holy or profane unbinding many things which Moses or the Priests of the Gentiles had bound and binding many other things which the vices and follies of men had unbound and all with a wisdom and Authority so ample that Heaven approved all his Doctrines and was the Protector of it Now this dignity is not the Power and Authority of a Monarch nor is it particular to St. Peter the other Apostles having had share with him as it appears clearly both by their Acts and Epistles and namely by the 18th of St. Matthew where the Lord said to them all that which he here said to St. Peter Mat. 18.19 Verily I say unto you all that you shall binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven and all things that you shall unbinde on earth shall be unbound in Heaven Neither can they pretend any particular for St. Peter in that which was commanded him of feeding the sheep of the Lord. For had not the other Apostles also as well as he the charge of feeding common by his testimony to all the Ministers of the word and the commission of all the sheep of the Lord 1 Pet. 5.2 Mark 16.15 2 Cor. 11.28 Preach the Gospel to all Creatures and the care of all the Churches comes upon me from day to day 't is true that the Lord made towards him and repeated this command three times Cyril upon St. John l. 12 64. but as some of the Fathers have very well observed to abolish the failing of his three denials very far from thinking by this means to establish the Monarchy of others Secondly As to this that the Lord being at Capernaum payed the Tribute-money for St. Peter and not for the other of the Apostles that doth not infer any Authority of St. Peters above them For it may be that it proceeded from some other consideration as that the others had already payed it or that they were not present when the Tribute money was demanded of our Saviour or that they were not Inhabitants of Capernaum as St. Peter was who had his family there In brief whatever it be 't is a wonderful Consequence to say Christ hath payed the Tribute-mony for St. Peter therefore St Peter was the Monarch of the Universal Church and the Prince and Lord of the Apostles Thirdly Neither can this be inferred out of that place where Saint Matthew numbring the Apostles saith The first is Simon who is called Peter For a President is the first in his Chamber and a Dean the first in his Assembly nevertheless none can conclude that the President is Lord of the Counsellors in his Chambers or the Dean the Prince of his Brethren I grant that St. Peter either for his age his capacity his zeal or some other consideration hath had the like advantage in the Company of the Apostles he might have been the first of them but yet not the Master much less the Monarch of them Fourthly And that sufficeth to shew that they cannot prove by the Scriptures this marvellous quality which they attribute to the Pope of not being able to err in matters of faith For since all the things which they alledge are grounded upon those things which regard St. Peter who seeth not that they infer nothing for the advantage of the Pope except they prove by the Scriptures that all the right of St. Peter belongs to the Pope that which I think they dare not so much as attempt to shew by the Scriptures Fifthly I say as much of the Opinion of those amongst them who attribute the Infallibility and Sovereignity not to the Pope as at this time the greatest part of their Doctors do but to the Roman Church assembled in the Universal Councel For all which they can draw from the Scriptures in favour of their Opinion speaks of the true Church of Jesus Christ without amusing