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
teacheth us Seventhly There remains now the Extreme Unction which with a visible Oyl accompanied with certain words pronounced by the mouth of the Priest in form of Prayer remits sins to a sick person who is in extremity And it is here that the Disciples of the Methodists commonly triumph alledging a passage of St. James upon this Subject very express as they pretend and they begin the most part of their Disputes by this last piece of their Devotion Jam. 5.14 Is there any amongst you that is sick saith St. James let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him and anoint him with Oyl in the Name of the Lord the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall heal him and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him But let Cardinal Cajet Cajetan upon this passage answer once more for us It appears saith he by these words of the Apostles and by the effects that these words were not spoken of the Sacramental Vnction nor of the Extreme Vnction but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel for the use of the diseased For the Text sayeth not Is any one sick unto death but plainly Is any one sick and sayeth that the healing of the sick is an effect of it and speaks not of forgiveness of sins but conditionally whereas this Extreme Vnction is not given but at the point of death and tends directly as its form signifieth to the remission of sins And besides St. James ordains that for one sick body they should call many Priests as well to pray for as to anoint them which is different from the Extreme Vnction CHAP. XIII The Scriptures doth not teach that Ministers should be exempted from the Subjection of Civil Powers nor that the Bishop of Rome hath any right over them in respect of Tempoporals I Do not see that they can reasonably draw from the Scriptures the exemption of their Clergy nor the Temporal Power of their Pope over the estates of Christians First That which they alledge the Lord said to St. Peter Mat. 17.25 26. Of whom do the Kings of the earth take Tribute and Imposts is it of their Children or of Strangers and St. Peter having answered of Strangers Jesus saith then are their Children free This I say doth not prove that the Clerks are of divine right exempted from paying Tribute to the Magistrates For first 't is not evident that the Tribute of the Drachmas of which the Question is was payed to the Magistrate and there is much more likelihood that it was the half Shekel which every Israelite at above twenty years of Age payed to God for the use of the Sanctuary according to the Ordinance of Moses in the 30th of Exodus Exod. 30.11 12 13 14 15 16. which is nothing like these Tributes which the Magistrates raised But although the same Question should be of a Civil Tribute 't is clear that the Lord exempted none from it not so much as himself Now since the Son of God even as he was Man was not of right subject to any Magistrate this is not to say that the Ministers of the Church have the same right seeing the great and infinite difference which is between their persons and his In a word although the Apostles ought to rejoyce in this liberty by the beneficence of their Master so long as he was on the earth it doth not follow that they since his Ascention into Heaven nor those who succeeded them in the Ministry of the Word ought always to enjoy the same exemption For so long as he was upon the earth they were his Family according to Civil Law following and serving him and as Domestiques had part in this his priviledge But since he is retired from the earth as to his humanity neither they nor we are any more of his Family according to Civil Law For as we are his Spiritual and Mystical Family in respect of Religion he gives us not this Priviledge For then one might say that all Christians must enjoy it since every one in this sense is of the Family of the Lord. Secondly As to this power let it be direct or indirect which those of the Court of Rome attribute to the Pope over the Estates of Christians even in respect of Temporals I think it not necessary to consider that which they alledge from the Scriptures to ground it upon since they are things so weak and so far from their purpose that the greatest and best part of our Adversaries themselves have rejected their Consequences and reject with us this pretended Authority of the Roman Seat namely in this Kingdom France where thanks be to God it hath not yet been established CHAP. XIV Resolution of that which the Adversaries pretend that the above-mentioned Articles have been taught by the Apostles although they are not contained in the Scriptures SO evident is it that none of the Articles of the Belief of Rome which we reject from ours can be shewen by Scripture First To which they will answer it may be that although it be so they have nevertheless been revealed by the Lord and taught by word of mouth by his Apostles the Scriptures not containing all the Articles of the Christian Doctrines of which many have been as they say given and preserved from hand to hand by a Tradition not written But I say first that to consider the thing exactly it seemeth to me that the silence of the Scriptures upon these Articles is sufficient to prove that they have been revealed neither by Jesus Christ nor received and believed by his Apostles nor by them given and commanded to their Disciples for Doctrines necessary to faith and Salvation For if at that time they had been kept in the list which Rome at this time gives them if they had been esteemed the principal Fundamentals of Religion and the most exquisite and important parts of the service of God why should not these holy men have made some mention of them in the many Books which they have purposely writ upon Divine things and which by the Providence of the Lord are come to us Why did the four Evangelists conceal them the Acts make no mention of them How comes it that St. Peter St. John St. James St. Jude and above all St. Paul in his fourteen admirable Epistles so full and so abounding every where in Christian Doctrine have not said one word of them I do not now urge that these Books are the Cannon of Faith that they have been set down in writing to the end the Doctrine of Religion should be preserved entirely there Let us suppose since Rome will have it so that they were written by chance and without the designe of giving to us the whole body of faith Yet one cannot deny but they have been written the most part of them upon matters of faith Now who will believe that so many
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
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
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
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
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
Religion which he hath given us to obtain this consists in Faith and Charity that the Father appeased by his Obedience receives to mercy all those who knowing their misery and repenting of their Sins do confide in his bounty and believe in his promises that he pardons them gratis all their faults and treats them as if they had never offended and these being animated and enlivened by Faith live afterwards holily and Christianly in Piety towards God and Charity towards their Neighbours according to the Gospel of Christ For he wills that all his Faithful love and serve God with one love and soveraign adoration and that they have a true Charity towards all men carefully keeping themselves from violating their dignity Life Chastity Estates or Honour neither in Deed Word nor Thought every one subjecting themselves to their Order and Laws of their Civil Societies and to the state of the Country where they live but that they entertain a particular amity with the rest of the Faithful cherishing them as their own Brethren uniting themselves to them that so there may be but one Body in Religion and that for this end there be amongst them Pastors and Supervisers who have the overlooking of their Communion administring to them as well the divine Doctrine as the holy Sacraments which the Lord hath left as tokens of his grace and marks and seals of his Covenant having commanded that his faithful Servants should be baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the remission of their sins and that they should eat the Bread and drink the sanctified Wine in commemoration of his Death and communication of his Flesh and Blood We believe that although the truth of these things is most clear yet men are so blinded by the Passion of their malice that they would never understand them if the HOLYSPIRIT true God eternally blessed with the FATHER and the SON did not inlighten their understanding opening their hearts that the light of this heavenly Doctrine may enter in and that God affords them this grace of his own good pleasure giving it when to whom and in what measure it seemeth good to him We believe that to those who shall have believed and lived according to this holy doctrine God will give his Salvation preserving them and taking care of them and when they depart this Life gather their Souls into his repose expecting the last day in which having raised their Bodies will lift them up with Jesus Christ their Head into an incorruptable Heaven there to live eternally in his Glory but the Wicked and incredulous shall perish being punished with the Devil and his Angels in the torments of Hell Reader if thou art conversant in reading the Holy Bible say in thy Conscience whether it be not too great a boldness to deny that these things are clearly contained there onely hearing them named do you not as soon perceive that these Divine Books and especially those of the New Testament are full of them How hard is it to find one verse which layes not down some of these instructions Nevertheless because they will have it so we verifie them Article by Article and to the end that they should not as t is their custome wrangle with us about words we will produce passages of Scripture in those very words into which the Interpreter of our Adversaries hath translated them and then say a little upon every point contenting our selves to mark the rest in the Margint For if we should gather together all the places of Scripture where these Doctrines are positively laid down or hinted we must transcribe almost all of them and as to the Scripture it self we suppose the truth of it without disputing it in this Treatise where the business is only to prove that the Articles whose belief we esteem necessary to Salvation are all found in the Book which we hold for the Rule and principle of our Faith For that is sufficient to bring to nothing the calumny of these new Disputants who to convince the Scripture of imperfection and constrain us by the same means to have recourse to the Authority of their Church crying incessantly that we our selves who make so much account of Scripture cannot prove by it all the things which we believe necessary to Salvation CHAP. II. Of the Essence and Nature of God Of his Qualities and Works 1. FIrst then as to the Article of the Essence and Divine Nature the Scripture layes down at the first word that there is one God in saying that he created the Heaven and the Earth in the beginning and speaks of him every where as of a thing whose being and subsistance every one knows and understands holding them not only for impious and irreligious but for meer fools and sense-less creatures who think there is none Psal 13. Heb. 14. 1. The Scripture makes him Act and speak in infinite wayes and manners from the beginning to the very end teaching not onely that he is but that there is none besides him who truly is all the rest not being but in him and by him So long then as there are passages in Scripture which attribute to God some quality action or word and of this kind there are an infinite number they are so much the stronger and evident proofes of this truth See Duet 4.39 6.4 â—sa 45.5.6.21 John 17.3 and many other places Heb. 11.6 It behoveth him that comes to God to believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him Act. 17.27 28. God is not far from any one of us for in him we live move and are 1 Cor. 8.6 We have one God who is the Father from whom are all things and we in him Exod. 3.14 The Lord said to Moses I am that I am then he said thou shalt tell the Children of Israel he that is hath sent me to you Esaiah 37.16 Lord of Armies the God of Israel who art set upon the Cherubims thou art alone God of all the Kingdoms of the earth thou hast made the Heaven and the earth Esaiab 43.10 11. There was no God formed before me nor shall be after me I am I am the Lord and there is none other Saviour but me Psal 89. Heb. 90. 2. Before the Mountaines were made and the earth and world were formed from age to age thou art God 2. That Godis Eternal Gen. 21.33 See Ex. 15.19 Job 36.26 Psal 9. Heb. 10 8.37 38. Heb. 90.2 Abraham c. called upon the name of God Eternal Psalm 101. Heb. 102. 27 28. The heavens shall perish but thou shalt be permanent and all of them shall wax old as a garment and thou shalt change them as a vesture and they shall be changed but thou art the same thou art and thy years fail not Rom. 16.26 Esai 41.4.43.10.44.6 and 48.12 1 Tim. 1.17 Re. 1.8 By the commandment of the Eternal God 1 Tim. 6.16 God onely hath immortality 3.
in the word of doctrine For the Scripture saith thou shalt not tie the throat of the Ox that treadeth out the corn and the work man is worthy of his hire 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Do you not know that those who do Sacrifices Gal. 6.6 eat the things which are sacrificed and they who are busied at the altar partake with the altar so likewise our Lord hath ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel See the verses 7 8 9 10. Of the same Chapter 8. That the Faithful ought to reject the Ministers who preach any other thing then the Gospel of Jesus Christ Gal. 1.8 If we our selves or an an Angel from Heaven should preach other wise then we have preached to you let him be accursed So as we have said before now also I say again if any one preach to you any thing but that which you have received let him be accursed 1 John 4.1 Beloved believe not all spirits but try the spirit whether they are of God For many false Prophets are come into the World 2 John verse 10. If any one comes to you and brings not this Doctrine do not receive him into your house nor salute him CHAP. IX Of the holy Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist 1. That Christians ought to be baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost MAt Mark 16.16 28.19 Go and teach all men baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Examples of this are common in the books of the New Testamentperticularly in the Acts of the Apostles where we read that those who believed the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and received it were baptized Acts 2.38 41. and 8.12 13. and 9.10 and 10.47 and 16.15 2. That Baptism gives remission of sins and the Grace of the Holy Ghost Acts 2.38 Peter said to them repent and be every one baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Rom. 6.3 Mar 6.16 1 Pet. 3.21 Ehh. 6.26 Know you not brethren that all of us who have been baptized in Jesus Christ have been baptized in his death for we are buried with him in death by baptisme so that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father we also should walk in newness of life Gal. 3.27 You all who were baptized in Christ have put on Christ Col. 2.11 12. You being circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of Flesh viz. by the circumcision of Jesus Christ being buried with him by baptism in which also you are risen together by the Faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead 3. That the Faithful ought to eat the bread and drink the sanctified wine in commemoration of the death of the Lord. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. I have received from the Lord that which also I give you that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread and having given thanks he brake it and said take eat this here is my Body which shall be given for you Mat 26 26 27 28. Mar. 14.22 23 24. Luk. 22 17 18 19 20. do this in remembrance of me Likewise also he took the chalice after he had supped saying this chalice is the New Testament in my blood I do this every time that you drink of it in remembrance of me For every time that you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice you will shew forth the Lords death till he comes c. Let a man then try himself and so eat of this bread and drink of this chalice 4. That the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the communication of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communication of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of the Lord. CHAP. X. Of the Holy Ghost Of the necessity of his light to have Faith Of his Nature and Person 1. That the malice of man is so great that of himself he neither understands nor believes the heavenly Doctrine preached by the Apostles of Jesus Christ nor can he live in piety according to the Gospel JOhn 3.3 Verily verily I say unto thee that who is not born again cannot see the Kingdome of God John 6.44 No one can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him Rom 8 7. The wisdome of the flesh is an enemy to God for it is not subject to the Law of God nor in truth can it be 1 Cor. 2.14 The Animal man doth not comprehend the things which are of the Spirit God for they are to him folly and he cannot understand them in as much as they are discerned spiritually 2. That the Spirit of God which gives to men the graceof understanding believing the Gospel and of living according to the Doctrine of the Lord. 1 Cor. 2.7 8 9 10. We speak the Wisdome of God which is a mistery which is hid c. Which none of the Princes of this World hath known for if they had known if they had never crucified the Lord of glory but as it is written the things which the eye hath not seen nor the ear heard and which are not entered into the heart of man are those which God hath prepared for those which love him but God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit Matth. 11.25 At that time Jesus answered and said O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth I thank thee that thou hast hid these things from the wise and understanding and hast revealed them to little Children Matth. 11.17 Thou art blessed Simon Son of Jonas for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God but my Father which is in heaven John 1.12 13. Those who believe in the name of God are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but are born of God Acts 16.14 The Lord opened the heart of Lydia to understand the things which Paul said Phil. 1.29 It is given to you for Christ not onely to believe in him but also to indure for him Phil. 2.13 'T is God that worketh in you to do and to will according to his good will Ezech. Jer. 31.33 and 32.39 11.19 20. And I will give them a heart and will put into them a new spirit and I will take away the heart of stone from their flesh and will give them a heart of flesh that they may walkin my commandments and keep my judgments and do them and that they be my people and that I be their God 3. That the Holy Ghost is a person distinct from the Father and the Son John 14.16 17. I will pray the Father saith our Lord Jesus Christ and he shall give you another comforter to
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