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
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
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
the Roman Church Part III. CHAP. I. The Antiquity Vniversality and Clearness of our Religion and from whence comes our difference with Rome THus have we shewn our faith by the Scriptures The Passages are clear and for the most part express and formal which Rome and Geneva equally acknowledge in their Version which the East and West North and South read in common since the first times of Christianity to this minute without their being able to reproach us that we have violated the Original abused the Pricks of the Hebrew or the Accents of the Greek The Consequences are of so evident necessity that Children are capable of understanding them So easie is it to prove that the Beliefs which we have just now demonstrated by Scripture are common to all Christians The Antients have explained cleared them in their Symbols and Councils The Moderns have retained them notwithstanding all the Changes which has happened in Religion All the Climates of the Christian world have received them with an universal consent Rome it self doth not contest with us about them she makes a Profession to believe them also There is but Sabellius Paul de Samosate Arius Fotinus Manicheusi Pelagius Nestorius and Eutyches every one of whom debate something of them with us all Heretiques being crushed by the Thunderbolts of the Catholick Church many hundred years since They alone demand proofs of us the others believe all with us From whence it appears by the way how false the Calumny of those is who accuse our Religion of novelty or particularity For what is there either more Antient or Universal among Christians than those Creeds of which it consists Who can deny that the Catholique Church hath had them in all Ages That Rome it self hath them not now Whether Antiquity hath had any Opinion which I have not it is another Question and upon which it falls out to consider First Whether this be a thing which hath been revealed by Jesus Christ and preached by his Apostles And Secondly ipresupposing it to be a truth that it is so necessary that one cannot without believing it have part in the Grace and Glory of God But as to my Religion that is to say this faith which I have proved by the Scriptures it is clear that all the true Christians both Antient and Modern are agreed in it who by confequence are all of my Religion although perhaps I am not of their Opinion in all other things They hold all my Beliefs only I confess 't is better that I hold not all their Opinions see the terms upon which we are with those of Rome For they profess to believe the Articles which we have explained All the difference springs from the Articles which they lay down to the confession of which they would oblige us and which we cannot receive This is all our Controversie From whence every one may see the injustice of the new Methodists who press us to prove by formal passages the points of our faith controversed between them and us Whereas the Points of my faith Gentlemen are not controversed but those of yours as for Example the Question is not whether we ought to worship God and Jesus Christ which is a Point of my faith but whether we ought to worship the Host which is an Article of yours The Question is not whether Jesus Christ is our Mediator or whether the Oblation of his death is a Sacrifice which are Articles of my belief but whether the Saints departed are our Mediators and whether the pretended Oblation of your Altars is a true a properly called Sacrifice which are the Points of your Faith We do not dispute whether we ought to call upon God or hope for Paradice and fear Hell which is my belief but whether we ought to Invogue the Saints and apprehend the fire of Purgatory which is your Doctrine 'T is you then ought to prove your saith not I mine Since to dispute well and lawfully one ought to prove not things which the parties are agreed on which would be a superflous labour but those about which they differ Nevertheless to content your humour we have proved our faith by the Scripture Let us see now if you can as easily finde yours there and that which you add to ours upon which indeed is all your contest CHAP. II. An Exposition of the Principal Beliefs of the Roman Church which we reject from our Faith FOr we confess voluntarily that we cannot believe neither that which you teach that Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world besides his being once offered upon the Cross is still every day immolated and truly and properly sacrificed upon your Altars under the Signes of Bread and Wine for the expiation of the sins of men nor that which you presuppose to this purpose that the body of Jesus Christ although it be in Heaven in Sovereign Glory is notwithstanding here below really and substantially under the Species of Bread and Wine which you consecrate intirely under every part of the Species of the Bread and the Wine loosing their first substance and being changed into that of his Body and Blood nor that which you conclude that all the faithful of the Lord are obliged without scrupling to render to your Sacrament the adoration * Cult de Latria worship and service due to the true God We reject also from our faith this which you assert in yours that the Souls of some of the faithful after having been washed in the Blood of Christ which cleanseth from all sin ought yet to be purged by I know not what subterranean flames in a place which you name Purgatory Nor can we perswade our selves to believe what you so firmly maintain that sinful men obtain the pardon of their Crimes not by faith alone as we all believe but also by the merits of their own works such as most of you say as they even merit Divine Grace and life eternal Neither can we receive that which you teach that besides this great God whom we adore we ought also to serve the Saints departed and besides the love and honour which we bare them as persons who have lived in the fear of God and who now rejoyce in his Glory we ought moreover to invoke them pray to them and have recourse to their aide and render as well to their Images as to those of Christ a certain Religious Veneration in kissing and saluting them uncovering our heads and prostrating our bodies before them Less yet do we think our selves obliged as you do to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for the Head and Spouse of the Universal Church besides Jesus Christ our Lord or to attribute to him a Sovereign and Independant Authority over all other Pastors and Bishops and even over Councils and an infallible Light in the Faith never erring in the decision of things which concerns it and therefore we do not believe that the Laws which he hath made of celebrating certain Feasts and of
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
our selves than to consider the just value of that which is attributed to the Church in these places whether that this Infallibility and Sovereignty be pretended or real it is enough to resolve their Reasons to say that they can conclude nothing for themselves until they have proved that the Christians of Rome are the true Church of Jesus Christ which they can never prove by the Scriptures 6ly Now this Sovereign Authority which they give to the Pope and to the Church wch acknowledgeth him being impossible to be proved by the Scriptures it followeth that all the things which depend on it are not grounded there Such for Example is that distinction which they make between meats at certain days permitting the Christians to eat fish and not flesh in Lent and other-like times the establishing of Feasts the single life of the Ministers of their Religion the retrenchment of the Sacred Cup to all those who communicate except to him who hath consecrated the Eucharist and other-like things for which they alledge for the most part no other soundation than the Authority of the Pope and of the Church which depends upon him At least it is clear that they cannot prove by the Scriptures all that which any one of them affirm eth or useth for this purpose it being so slight and so far from their purpose that I do not think it worthy the relating CHAP. XII That the Scripture doth no where assert the five pretended Sacraments which Rome adds to Baptism and the Lords-Supper I Come now to the Sacraments the number of which they have increased adding five to the two which we allow of The first is the Ceremonie of the Confirmation where the Bishop anoints the person baptized with Oyl and Balm consecrated after a certain manner giving him a light box on the ear and making the signe of the Cross sayeth I signe thee with the Signe of the Cross and confirm thee with the Oyl or Chrysm of Salvation In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost All this to strengthen him that he may be the better able to resist temptations Where is it that the Scriptures orders or commands us this Ceremony Certainly it so little agreeth with the Scripture that Alexandre and Bonaventure two of the first and most famous Authors of their School held that it was instituted neither by Jesus Christ Biel in 4. Sent. dist 7. nor by his Apostles as Gabriel Biel witnesnesseth writing upon these Sentences Others seeing that it cannot be a Sacrament of the Christian Church unless it had been ordained by the Lord they wrack the Scriptures to finde it there Dominic a Sot in 4. dist 7. art 1. They produce some Testimonies such according to their own confession which without the Authority of their Church who were not capable of shewing and concluding their Opinion And first they remark that which is written in the Acts Acts 8.17 that the Apostles laid their hands on those who had been baptized in Samaria But what hath this in common with the Roman Confirmation Where is it there spoken of the Oyl which is the matter of it From these words I signe thee c. which are the form of it of the increase of Justifying Grace which is the end of it for it doth not appear that the Apostles anointed with Oyl or consecrated with the Signe of the Crose those upon whom they layed their hands And as to the end for which they layed their hands upon them Acts 19.6 it appears from the nineteenth Chapter which was to communicate to them the extraordinary Grace of the Holy Ghost as the gift of Tongues and other the like things which are very different from justifying Grace Secondly The Imposition of hands Heb. 6.2 of which there is mention made in the Epistle to the Hebrews not being accompanied with any anointing or visible Consecration can serve for nothing to establish the pretended Sacrament of the Roman confirmation of which these things are the two essential parts Thirdly Concerning Repentance we agree that it is necessary and that the Pastors have Authority to forgive sins to those who repent and to retain them to the impenitent according to that which the Lord said to his Apostles John 29.23 To all those to whom you remit their sins they are remitted or rather shall be and to whomsoever you retain them they are retained Only we deny that such an action is a Sacrament and there appears nothing in the Scriptures which obligeth us to believe it Fourthly For the Confession which they make part of this wonderful Sacrament we believe that every faithful one is obliged to prove himself before he approacheth the Table of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 For St. Paul orders it expresly But none of the Divine Authors prescribes to any Christian to go and reveal to a Priest all his sins yea even his most secret ones before he communicates at the Table of the Lord. 'T is true they alledge the words of St. James James 5.16 Confess your faults one to another But how far is this from their Auricular Confession Cajetan upon this passage The Cardinal Cajetan one of their most subtle and most famous Writers and a great Adversary of Luthers being sent Legat against him into Germany answereth there for us I speak not here said he commenting upon this passage in the City of Rome when he was above threescore years of age of the Sacramental Confession as it appears in that which he sayeth Confess you one to the other For the Sacramental Confession is not done mutually from one to the other but to the Priests only But of the Confession by which we discover our selves mutually one to another that we are sinners to the end they may pray for us and of the confession of faults committed of the one part and the other to appease and reconcile us one to another 5ly This same Cardinal confesseth ingeniously also Eph. 5.32 Cajetan upon this passage That that passage which he alledgeth in the 5 Chap. of the Epistle to the Ephes to demonstrate that Marriage is a Sacrament is nothing to the purpose Wary Reader saith Cajetan upon these words St. Paul doth not furnish you with any thing in this place to prove that Marriage is a Sacrament For he saith not this Sacrament but this Mystery is great viz. of the words which St. Paul in the preceding Verse alledged of Moses For this a man shall leave his father and his mother shall cleave unto his wife and they two shall be one flesh Sixthly 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 and 2 Tim. 1.6 As to the Orders we confess that the Apostles laid their hands upon those whom they established in charge and that this Ceremony is holy and praise-worthy and practised carefully amongst us in ordaining our Pastors But that this action is one of the common and properly-named Sacraments of the New Testament neither Scripture nor reason
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
Sempstress and Scullion and so by this fine method become teachers in an instant But now to shut their mouths and to arm ours against their little punctillios I have undertaken briefly to prove our Faith by the Scriptures And that I may proceed as I ought before I enter upon the matter 't is necessary for me to clear two points The one is what those things are which we are obliged to prove and the other is by what means we are obliged to prove them CHAP. II. That we are obliged to prove by the Scriptures the things only which we believe and not those which we reject AS to the first point it is evident that our Faith is that which we have to prove that is to say the things which we believe true in Religion and by the beleif of which we hope to obtain Salvation As for other things which we do not believe and which are not included in our Faith we are not obliged to say any thing of them If any one believes them it belongs to him toprove them and to shew the truth of them by convenient reasons it sufficeth us who do not believe them to hear and then answer by good and pertinent arguments For in all disciplines it belongs to him that imposes an opinion and will oblige others to believe it to make the truth of that opinon appear it being evident without that no one is tyed to believe since reason does not oblige us to believe any but what is true From whence does already appear the extream injustice of those new Disputants who demand of us not onely a proof of that which we believe but also a formal rejection of that which we do not believe and when it is their part to shew the truth of that which they believe they desire us to produce some passages importing the falshood of what they believe for example they are not contented that we prove by Scripture that the Son of God is our Mediatour which is precisely that which we believe but they press us still to produce some passage in Scripture which rejects and condemns this proposition that the Saints are our Mediators which is that which they do and that which we do not believe They would have us not only to furnish our selves with passages which establish the Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ which we believe but with others too which formally rejects the pretended propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they believe and we do not Likewise they pretend that besides the passages which say that Jesus is the head of the Church which is one of the Articles of our Faith we ought to put in another which saith that the Pope of Rome is not the head of the visible Church which is as every one knows one of the Articles of their Faith and none of ours and because that is not produced they assert we are not able to prove our Faith by the Scriptures and therefore we are Obliged to embrace theirs Can any one imagine a more irregular piece of injustice The law orders that he that puts an action should be obliged to prove it It is enough for one that is accused to shew the nullity of the proofs of the adverse party No right no law no custome let it be never so injust hath ever obliged the accused to prove by affirmative witnesses that he hath not done that which they charge him with he is quitted so soon as it appears that the reasons and allegations of the accuser are nulled and from hence comes the proverb of the Lawyers evidently Grounded upon natural justice that it belongs to him who layeth the action to prove it for there is a respect to be had to the right of the action as well as to the action it self So as it belongs to him who supposes a fault to prove it so also it belongs to him who supposeth a right to make proof of it as for example if I suppose that according to the right of the Romanes a house should return to the vender after having been fifty years in the possession of the buyer it belongs to me to produce some Roman law expresly containing this deposition and if I cannot produce this clearly and expresly my pretensions will evidently come to nothing and no man will be obliged to believe it But if instead of doing this I should press the contradictors to produce me a passage of the right of the Romans expresly importing that the Sellor should not be put into the possession of the estate alienated by him and in case of his not producing such a passage of right I should protest against him Who has patience sufficient to bare such an impertinent procedure But nevertheless 't is this exactly which the Disputers of this age hold They pretend that 't is a deposition of divine right that the Faithful worship their Host that he partakes of the Sacrifice of their Altar that he acknowledges the Pope of Rome to be head of the Church And instead of producing some passages of divine right which say that their Host ought to be adored that the Mass ought to be our sacrifice and the Pope our head they press us to prove that this is not so and if we do not produce such proofs they protest that our Faith is not to be proved nor theirs to be refuted by Scripture What man is there so blind who seeth not that it belongs to them alone to prove what they believe what they preach and that which they would perswade me to and to me only to hear their proofs and resolve and in case they cannot produce pertinent arguments to conclude that their pretensions are vain CHAP. III. That the Articles of the Confession of our Faith are some affirmative and some negative of their difference and how they are proved by the Scriptures THE colour with which they paint so wicked a procedure is that our Churches in their Confession of Faith doth not onely propose that which we believe but joyntly rejects that which we approve not in the Romans belief These men take from thence an occasion to make the whole pass for Articles of our Faith and demand of us proofs from Scripture for both these points which is an artificial disguise it being evident that although these things be exposed in the same treatise nevertheless we do not hold them to be of the same rank and nature For as for those which we believe as revealed from God we esteem the knowledge of them necessary it being not possible that a man should be saved without believing as for example that there is a God that Jesus Christ hath suffered for us that we are obliged to live holily and righteously and other things of the like nature But as for those which we reject whither added or maintained by the Pope 't is onely necessary not to believe them for we are so far from thinking it necessary for us to have the knowledge of
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
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
of necessity and whither he will or no form it self * Id contr Crescon-Gram l. c. 20. Now every man who is in his right senses may know certainly if he gives a convenient attention whither the propositions which one first layes down to conclude something from whither I say those propositions be in the Scripture or not For as to the consequence of things themselves it is of necessity so evidently inevitable that no body can contradict it as for example since every man is composed of soul and Body if you grant that Jesus Christ is a man t is not possible but you must confess also that he hath a Soul and Body so if you know that the Scripture puts this proposition as 't is very easie to know whither it doth or not you cannot without renouncingsense and reason deny that the conclusion is also in the Scripture So all this fear which they give us of the incertitude of conclusions drawn from Scripture by reasoning is but a vain Chimera which passion alone hath made them produce to Authorise this redicule Method by which they pretend to reduce men not to discourse and without which they know well enough t is not possible for them to defend their Faith Dial. inter Sab. Pbot. ar and Athon p. 476. For to apply to them that which one of the Fathers above named said of the Arian they know very certainly that if rejecting their Method we would once prove our belief by consequence from Scripture t is very easie to overcome them and so the defiance and fears of this danger carries them to demand of us proofs consisting in Nude and formal words Shall I repeat hear the impertinent objections which they make to us upon this subject that if we believe that which our reason concludes from the Scriptures our Faith will then begrounded upon reason as if our reason in this dispute should declare the proposition from which we draw a conclusion and not the faculty of the spirit with which we draw it certainly upon this account one might say also that our Faith is grounded upon the sense of hearing since the Apostle teacheth us that Faith comes by hearing But where is there a child that doth not see that it is grounded upon the divine word which we hear and not upon the ear with which we hear the ear is the Organ which receiveth this word but the cause which moves us to believe it is the truth which is there and not the ear CHAP. XII That the faith which we add to the truths drawn from Scripture by reasoning is grounded upon Scriptures and not upon reason Rom. 10.17 REason in like manner or to use another tearm less equivocal understanding seeth in Scripture that which is there that conceives discerns and believes it But that which makes it believe it is the Authority of the Scripture in which it hath seen it and not the action which it hath made use of to see it As when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ is a man you conclude then that he hath a Soul the ground of your conclusion is the saying of the Apostle and not the faculty or act of your reason All that your reason hath done is that it hath found in the Apostles words that which is really so Now this is not to give us Faith but to receive it and to do that which is not onely permitted but commanded If it teacheth any thing of its own growth if it makes its inventions pass for Oracles t is but just to be condemned For usurping that which belongs to God onely but if that which reason believes and perswades others to hath been taught by the word of God if that was there before she believed it that which she hath seen there and that which she hath done to the end that others might see it there cannot be imputed as a crime to her as if she attributed to her self in doing this to be the foundation of our Faith This is all which we require for her in this place that she may have leave to open her eyes to mind and see that which God hath propounded in his word We do not pretend to the gift of revealing new secrets to humane kind nor the priviledge of making articles of Faith We only beg that they would not take from us that which nature hath given to all men the faculty of seeing that which is exposed to our eyes and to understanding that which is said plainly to us and from thence conclude that which evidently follows Rom. 3.10 11 12. Hebr. 4.15 John 3.16.18 It seemeth to us that one may very well judge though he be not altogether a prophet that the Scriptures which tells us that all men have sinned except our Lord saith also that John James and Peter have sinned and that which tells us that all those who believe in Jesus Christ shall not perrish hath also said to us that Paul and Peter presupposing that they believe shall not perish Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 Exod. 20.14 and that which sayeth that cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words written in the law sayeth also to us that he who commits adultery is cursed by the law since 't is written thou shalt not commit adultery Our adversaries will pardon us if we say that to deprive us of the judgment of such consequences t is to endeavour to take from us not onely the light of the Prophesie or the Spirit of perticular revelation things to which we never pretended any thing but the sense and nature of men and to transform us into Geese CHAP. XIII That t is sufficient that one of the propositions be in Scripture to infer a conclusion of divine truth BUt they produce another difficulty upon this point let it be so say they let the consequences take place then when that is done we can receive no conclusions for divine but those which one draws from two propositions both of which are layed down in Scripture if one be not drawn from the word of God but from sense or humane reason we cannot receive that which follows from it unless it be for a humane truth that is to say doubtful and uncertain because in arguing the conclusion alwaies follows the weakest part as Logicions have observed for example if you dispute thus he who hath created the heavens and the earth is the true and eternal God worshiped heretofore by the Isrealites Now Jesus Christ hath created the heavens and the Earth he is then the true God worshiped heretofore in Israel they will make no difficulty perhaps to receive this conclusion for a Divine truth and worthy of an intire and certain belief because the two propositions from which it follows are both of them in the Scripture as we shall see hereafter But if you reason thus a Body which is in heaven is not at that time in the earth now the Body of Christ is in heaven therefore it is not
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.
14 and the Verb hath been made flesh and dwelt amongst us Phil. 2.6 7. Jesus Christ being in form of God he hath not reputed it rapine to be equal with God so he became nothing himself having taken the forme of a servant made in the likeness of man found in figure as a man he did I say abase himself 2 Cor. 8 9. You know the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord viz. that he made himself poor for you though he were rich that by his Poverty you might be rich John 8.58 Jesus said to them verily verily I say unto you before Abraham was made I am 3. That the Son sent for us is God St. John in the beginning of his Gospel speaking of the word which hath been made flesh vers 14. saith in the beginning was the Verb and the Verb was with God and the Verb was God Rom. 9.5 Christ who is God above all things blessed eternally Titus 2.13 We expect the happy hope and coming of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ 1. 1 John 5.20 He that is to say the Son is the true God and life eternal This is proved clearly thus he who hath created heaven and earth and who now preserveth them is the true God as Esay teacheth who makes the Lord speak thus I am the Lord who makes all things alone expanding the heavene rendring the earth from Esa 44.24 From whence it comes that the Scripture very often gives the quality of a creature to God as an elogy which doth not agree with him but only to distinguish him from all other things as in Esay these things saith the Lord God who hath created the heavens and stretched them out who hath conformed the earth and the things which spring from it Esa 42.5 and likewise Esa 45.12 and 48.13 and 51.13 Now the Son of God sent for us hath created the heavens and the earth and all the things which are in them and governs and sustains them by his power and wisdome St. John speaking of the Verb made flesh for us all things have been made by him saith he and without him nothing hath been done that hath been done John 1.3 and to vers 9 and 10. he is the true light which enlightens every man coming into the world he was in the world the world hath been made by him Col. 1.15 16. The Apostle speaking of the Son of Gods love who is the image of the invisible God first born that is to say Lord of every creature adds in him have been created all things in heaven and in earth visible and invisible be they thrones governments principallities or powers all things I say are created by him and in him and he was before all things and all consist by him Heb. 1.2 3. God hath spoken to us in these latter dayes by his Son whom he hath constituted heir that is to say Lord of all things by whom also he hath made the ages which Son being the splendour of the glory and figure of the substance of him and maintaining all things by his powerful word having made the purgation of sins is set at the right hand of Majesty in high places and vers 10 11. The Apostle appropriates to him these words of the Psalmist Lord thou hast founded the earth from the beginning and the Heavens are the works of thy hands They shall perish but thou art permanent and all shall grow old as a garment and thou shalt change them as a vesture and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years fail not it follows then that the Son sent for us is the true God 2. He who by his intelligence knows the thought of humane hearts truly is God as Solomon teaches 3 Kings Heb. 1 Kings 8.39 2 Chr. 6.20 Where speaking to God thou alone saith he knoweth the hearts of all the Sons of men now the Son of God knoweth the secrets of the hearts of men Reve 2.23 where he sayeth I am he who examine the reins and hearts and will give to every one of you according to his works One must then confess that he is the true God 3. He whomay and ought to be served and worshipped with a soverain worship properly so called is God for the Scripture teacheth us that this worship appertaines but to God alone Mat. 4.10 thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Now the Son of God ought to be worshipped by men and angels with a Soveraign worship John 5.22 23. The Father hath given all judgment to the Son to the end that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father he who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him Heb. 1 6â— when he bringeth his first begotten Son into the world he saith and let all the Angels of God worship him Phil. 2.9 10. God hath Soverainly lifted up Jesus and hath given him a name which is above all names to the end that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those who are in heaven in the earth and under the earth 4. That the Son of God is the same God who was worshipped heretofore in Israel and who is called the Lord or the Eternal in the books of the Old Testament 1. This appears first from what we have already shown that the Son is God For all the Scripture teacheth us that there is no other God but the eternal Lord known and worshipped in Israel Deut. 4.35 The Lord is God and there is no other besides him Deut. 6.4 Hear Israel the Lord our God is God alone Deut. 32.39 See now that I am onely and there is no other God but me Now Christ is God as we have shewn by the Scriptures It follows then that he is the same Lord or eternal who was worshipped heretofore by the Israelites 2. He whose glory Isaiah saw in the sixth chapter of his revelations is truely the Lord eternal worshipped by the Jews I see saith he the Lord sitting upon an High Seat and lifted up and this appears in the 3 5 7 and 11. verses now Jesus is he whose Glory Isaiah saw as S. John in the 12. Chapter of his Gospel witnesseth vers the 41. where having alledged some words of this passage of Isaiah he adds these things said Isaiah when he saw the glory of him viz. of the Lord Jesus and spake of him It follows than that Jesus Christ is this same eternal worshipped by the ancient people 3. The Lord of the Temple of Jerusalem is the eternal since the Templâ— hath not been consecrated to any but him as it appears through all the Old Testament Now Christ is the Lord of the Temple of Jerusalem as it appears by the Prophet Malachy who foretelling the coming of the Messias the Governor whom you demand saith he and the Angel of the Covenant whom you desire shall come to or into his Temple Malachy 3.1 Christ is then the very eternal
abstaining certain days from certain kinds of meats does oblige the Consciences of the Faithful And as to the Ministers of Religion in particular we do not believe as you do that they are obliged to abstain from Marriage which the Astle calls honorable believing that it is enough that they have the good qualities which is required in them in the first of Tim. and elsewhere Upon the Articles of the Sacraments we confess that Baptism and the Supper are sufficient for us not being able as you have ordained to receive for true and proper Sacraments of the Christian Religion your Confirmation Orders Extreme Unction Penitence nor Marriage nor do we believe as you do that the faithful are obliged before they communicate of the holy Eucharist to confess to a Priest all and every one of their sins in particular declaring to him the kinds and circumstances of them believing that it is sufficient that a man trie himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so eat of that bread and drink of that wine of the Lord as the Apostle prescribes In a word we cannot believe that your Clerks ought to be exempted from the Jurisdiction and Subjection of Princes and States in the Country in which they live nor that Princes and States should be subject to your Pope or to any other Ecclesiastical Minister in his Temporal Concerns as the Court of Rome holds which you acknowledge as the Mother and Head of the Catholique Church These are the Principle Articles of the Faith of our Adversaries which we will not receive Let us consider now as briefly as 't is possible whether they are found in the Holy Scriptures If we will follow their Principles it will be very easie for us to finish all this Dispute in one word For since according to the Maximes of their Method we ought to hold for Doctrine of the Scriptures nothing but what we read there precisely in so many words the Consequences being faulty and discourse deceitful abusive who seeth not but by their own Confession all the Articles which we have excluded from our faith are out of the Scripture and cannot be proved by it it being clear that one cannot read there any one thing expresly formally and literally in the same terms as they believe them and expound them and upon this account I should be already at the end of my task For since that according to us the Scripture is the only Principal of faith so perfect that we do not think that it is permitted us to receive into our Religion any Article of Belief which is not taught by the Scriptures and since on the other side none of the Articles which those of Rome lay down can be read there which is according to these new Disputers the only Method to justifie a Belief by the Scripture it follows clearly that my faith is all intire and most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures which is all the designe of this Treatise since that which it believes is found there and that which it doth not believe is not found there But God forbid that we should take advantage by the wrangling of our Adversaries We shall always acknowledge for true Doctrine of the Scriptures that which can be clearly and necessarily drawn from thence all that which they charge upon Reason being false and not to the purpose as we have shewed here above Let us deal honestly then and examine whether their Beliefs which appear no where in formal and precise terms in the Scripture may notwithstanding be concluded from thence by some evident and necessary Consequences We will recite here only those which seem to them to be most strong passing by a great number of them which though used by their Authors are so weak and if I may be permitted to say it so extravagant that whoever hears them will think them the idle talk of a sleeping man rather than the discourse of one that is awake For to what purpose should I go about to spoil Paper and lose time to copy the Arguments of those who conclude the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome from that which Jesus Christ said to St. Luke 5.4 Peter Duc in altum Go into the deep or the truth of Purgatory from that which David said Psal 129.1 Lat. 130.1 Hebr. De profundis clamavi ad te Domine Lord I have cried to thee from the deep places or that the Priests are obliged to a single life from that which St. Paul sayeth Rom. 8 8. that those who are in the flesh cannot please God or the worshipping of Images from that which is said the Lord made man after his own Image and the like Without lying if these Consequences and the works of our understandings were all of this nature these Gentlemen would have great reason to reject them We will produce as much as possible we can only those of their proofs which seem to have some colour and shadow of Reason although at the bottom any one may easily know in bearing but attention to them that they are nothing in effect CHAP. III. That the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass is not taught in the Scriptures FIrst To prove that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice truly propitiatory for the sins of men they alledge that Melchizedek the Type of Jesus Christ offered bread and wine Geu 14.18 But what appearance is there in this Consequence First the Sacred Text both in the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Original and in their own †Proferens Version signifieth that Melchisedek produced bread and brought out wine and not that he offered it and all these circumstances lead us to believe that it was for the refreshment of Abraham and his men being weary with fighting 2 Kings Hebr. 2 Sam. 17.28 and with the Journey by a humanity like to that which Berzillai the Gileadite hath since used to David and those who were with him Secondly though Moses did say that Melchisedek offered bread and wine not to refresh Abraham but in Sacrifice to God how can they prove that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice and not rather an action of thanks since under the Old Testament all the propitiatory Sacrifices had with them an effusion of blood Heb. 9.22 And in a word suppose that this pretended Oblation of Melchisedek had been a Sacrifice realy propitiatory how can they prove that it figured the Eucharist which is never called Sacrifice in the New Testament and not rather the death of Jesus Christ acknowledged for a true Sacrifice through out all the Scriptures and by all Christians where the Lord the true bread of life descended from Heaven hath been offered to the Father for the expiation of the sins of humane-kinde Secondly They produce Malachy Mal. 1.11 who prophesying the times of the New Testament saith that in every place they shall offer to the Lord an oblation pure or clean that is say they the Eucharist But first although it should be so how
New Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Concil Trid. Sess 22. c. 2. shewing evidently by the Future-Tense in which he puts the Verb which shall be shed that he attributes this effusion not to the Cup but to the blood of Christ which was shed some time after whereas the Chalice was shed at that very hour He ought then to apply the effusion to the blood of Christ and not to the Cup and to translate this passage thus This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you And they ought not to alledge that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is spilt is in another case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Blood the first being in the Nominative and the other in the Dative as the Grammarians speak For though this sort of Construction be extraordinary in the Greek nevertheless 't is in use in the Books of the New Testament as in the 8th Chapter of the Revelation Revel 8.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 1.5 the third part of the Creatures which were in the Sea and had life died where the Participle having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not agree with the Noun of Creatures in this Case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which nevertheless it it is clearly applied one being in the Genetive and the other in the Nominative and in the first Chapter of the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Jesus Christ the faithful Witness where these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful Witness which are in the nominative are applied clearly to the Name of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ though it be in the Genetive as all Interpreters acknowledg Those who understand the Greek tongue may remark other passages where these Divine Authors do construe alike the words different in Case and in number Luke 5.9 9.53 John 21.12 1 John 4.3 Mark 12.38 40. Apoc. 3.12 21. 1 Tim. 4.1 2. One may here then likewise without staying ones self so scrupulously to the Grammar construe the word shed with the blood and not with the Cup and translate This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Bazil Ethic. definit 21. and 't is just so that the holy Bazel reads it ancienter than us more than 1256 years where he mentions it in his Morals 5. But they make shew likewise to stand upon the words of St. 1 Cor. 10.17 18 21. Paul in the 10th of the first to the Corinthians comparing the Table of the Lord with the Altar of the antient Hebrews and with the prophane Altars of the Pagans For in doing this say they doth he not give us to underderstand that the Eucharist is a true and properly named Sacrifice as those which they offered upon the Altars of the Hebrews and the Gentiles But if this must be thus urged I will then conclude that the Eucharist is a bloody Sacrifice since those of the Jews Pagans with whom they pretend that it is compared were of the same nature Who seeth not that the Apostle in all these places doth not compare the action of the Hebrew and Gentile Sacrificers offering their Sacrifices with the action of Evangelical Ministers blessing the Eucharist But the action of the Hebrews and Gentiles every one eating the bread and drinking the Chalice of the Supper And that he compares them only in this point that as one was a publike protestation which the Hebrews and Gentiles did to participate with the Altars upon which had been sacrificed the flesh whereof they eat and to the Divinity to which they had sacrificed them so also the second was a solemn and authentique act the Communion of which the faithful have with Jesus Christ and of the part which they pretend in his flesh and in his blood So that since 't is impossible to have Communion with Jesus Christ and with the Devils together the Apostle concluding that to eat meats sacrificed to the Devil is a thing inconsistent with the marks and profession of Christianity behold how far he designe of the Apostle extends and no farther 6. Lastly They endeavour to establish their pretended Sacrifice upon this Divine Altar which we have saith the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of which those who serve at the Tabernacle have no power to eat Heb. 13.10 But the circumstances of the passage and even the most celebrous Writers amongst * Nic. de Lyra Thomas and others upon this passage our Adversaries teach us that the holy Apostle spake in that place of the mystical Altar of the Church Jesus our Priest our Victim and our Altar the vertue and life of which those who are yet under the shadow of Moses and the Service of his earthly Sanctuary have no part in as aforetime under the Old Testament Lev. 16.27 the Ministers of the Mosaical Tabernacle eat not of the flesh of the Victims sacrificed for sin CHAP. IV. That the pretended Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist is not taught in the Scriptures SO it appears that the pretended Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is not in the Scriptures it being as impossible to draw it from thence by Consequences as to read it there in formal terms Let us see if this marvellous change which they presuppose of the Substance of the Consecrated Bread into that of the body of Christ may be found more easily there First then Matth. 26.26 Macrk 14.22 Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.24 They seek it in the words which the Lord pronounced in his instituting the Eucharist for having taken and blessed it he said This is my Body From whence they conclude that the bread hath then lost the Substance of bread because otherwise it could not be the body of Christ But what necessity is there in this Consequence St. Paul said of the Church the same which is said of the bread of the Eucharist that she is the body of the Lord 1 Cor. 12.27 Eph. 1.23 1 Cor. 6 15. and saith particularly of the Corinthians that they are the body of Christ and nevertheless no one concludes from thence that the Church hath lost its first Substance nor the Corinthians theirs The same saith well that our bodies are the members of Christ and every one confesseth that they have not changed their Substance because of that And then why shall one conclude that the Eucharist is not bread because it is called the body of Christ Cajetan in Thom. q. 75. art 1. Scot. cite per Bellard l. 3. c. 23. of the Eucharist The Cardinal Cajetan one of the most famous Writers of the Church of Rome confesseth himself that there was no necessity for it there There appears nothing in the Evangelist saith he which constrains us to take the words literally Scotus holds it likewise And it will avail nothing to reply that the Lord said that it was his body which should be delivered for us which cannot be
which they cannot infer from it although one should grant them what they could draw from it it being clear as we said before that the body and blood of the Lord may be present in the Eucharist and the bread and wine not change their Substance But I say lastly that this which they would conclude from it cannot lawfully be inferred For if because we eat the body of the Lord and drink his blood in the Supper it follows that the substance of his body and his blood is really present there then in the same manner it will follow also that it is present in the Souls of all those who believe in him since that according to many Fathers and the most part of the Doctors of Rome to believe in Jesus Christ is to eat his flesh and drink his blood Eph. 2.17 and since according to St. Paul it is by faith that Christ dwells in our hearts it will follow that the Substance of Christ is really present in our Baptism since that those who are baptized put on Jesus Christ Gal. 3.27 Rom. 6.3 and are buried with him in his death it will follow that the Substance of his blood is really present in the Souls of all the truly faithful chosen according to the Providence of God since they are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.2 Apoc. 7.14 and in the Souls of those who are come from tribulation since they have washed their long robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Now if one can eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in believing and have him dwelling in his heart and put him on and be buried with him and be sprinkled with his blood and be washed and made white in his blood and nevertheless not touch really the substance why may not one in the like manner eate his flesh and drink his blood in the Eucharist without his being there bodily Who seeth not that these ways of speaking signifie only vertue of the death of the Lord in them to whom he communicates himself by faith and the Spirit giving them the same effects in respect of the spiritual life which Meats Vestments Liquors and Water with which one is cleansed in respect of the temporal life gives us sustaining and preserving us making sin die in us covering the nakedness of our Souls fortifying our hearts cleansing and purging us from all spiritual filthiness let us conclude then that this famous Transubstantiation the principal piece of the Roman Religion is neither expressed nor presupposed in Scripture it being not less impossible to discover it there by the light of Reason than by that of Sense CHAP. V. That the Adoration of the Consecrated Eucharist is not taught in the Scriptures FRom whence it follows that the Adoration of the Host the Sovereign Service of their Religion cannot be proved by Scripture since it hath no other ground than Transubstantiation it being clear that they should not adore this Substance covered with the Accidents of Bread and Wine if they believe it to be a true Substance of Bread and Wine and not that of the body and blood of Christ Jesus CHAP. VI. That the Scripture doth not teach in any part of it the fire of Purgatory 1. LEt us come now to the fire of Purgatory where they will have the Souls of the faithful satisfie for the temporal punishment of their sins before they enter Heaven 'T is sad to see them sweat to finde in the Scripture something wherewith to blow up light and maintain this fire For this Opinion impassions them in such a manner that they that see it in all the places where a Pit a Lake a Prison a Goal a Fire purging refining a refining pot c. are spoken of The Lord proposing to us the form of the true Sancitification required in his Church in the 5th of St. Matthew Matth. 5.25 26. Commands us amongst other things to have a heart clean from all hatred malice anger towards our neighbours threatning them with grievous torments who shall never so little offend them protesting that nothing ought to be in more commendation than to live in concord and good friendship with them adding Agree thou with thine adversary quickly whilst thou art in the way with him for fear that thine adversary should deliver thee to the Judge and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer and thou be put into Prison verily I say unto thee that thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing This Prison say they is the Purgatory But who seeth not that this is to suppose not to prove it For why should we understand Purgatory by this Prison rather than a true properly named Prison where the wicked Pay-masters and Cheaters are often put for their stubborness with much loss and scandal which they might escape in agreeing lovingly and betimes with their Adverse-party Chrysost Theophyl Euthym. upon this passage Barrad Harmon Evang. T. 2.1.7 c. 17. as our Lord Commands in this place and the Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians St. Chrysostom and many others take it simply so and even this Jesuit Barradius But if one would take the passage Allegorically as an Image of the Judgments of God against them who will not use charity towards their Brethren why should not we understand by this Prison either the chastisements in which our Lord locks up sometimes men in this life for having neglected the duties of Charity towards their Neighbours or even the pains of Hell in which he will confine for ever after this life all those who have not used mercy towards their Brethren Maldon Mat. 5.25 To let in Luke 12. Annot. 86. 89. Jansen Concord Evang. c. 40. Stella in Luc. T. 2. c. 12. See also Salmeron T. 5. Tractat 37. as the Jesuit Maldonat Cardinal Tolett Bishop Jansenius expound it who confess ingeniously that this place cannot be urged for Purgatory and the Cordelier Stella confessing that which is indeed most evident that these words Thou shalt pay the last farthing simply signifie Thou shalt be punisht to the rigour they shall not pardon thee any thing so that they do not infer by any means that the Criminal of whom this dispute is ought at any time to go out of prison but they suppose only that he shall go out if he pays the last farthing of his debt and by consequence he shall never go out if he cannot pay it And as as to that which is said that he to whom we have not used Charity shall be our enemy and shall deliver us to the Judge 't is the same manner of speaking like that in the Proverbs and repeated in the Epistle to the Romans that he who doth good to his enemy Prov. 15.21 Rom. 12.20 Luke 16.9 heaps coals of fire on his head and like that in the fixth of St. Luke That those to whom we give alms
Heb. 13.18 the Ephesians the Colossians the Thessalonians and the Hebrews and therefore why should not we demand the same office of the Saints departed But first who seeth not that although this reason should be pertinent it always concludes much less than that they would have it for it hints only that it behoveth to pray to the departed Saints as S. Paul prayed the Romans the other faithful whilst they lived Now he prayed them only to pray to God for him He did not kneel down before them although absent to make this request to them he erected no Statues to them he constituted no Images to them he did not prostrate himself before their Representations nor did he offer them lighted Tapers or make Vows to them nor did he pray them to command our Redeemer to defend him against the Enemy to receive him at the hour of his death and to heal the inaladies of his nature nor is there any wise Christian that will do or demand such things of a living man upon this account it will follow that all the Prayers where our Adversaries demand these things of the Saints departed are unlawful their own Reasons as much esteemed as they are permits them only to require the Saints to pray to God for them But in the second place who seeth not the extreme impertinence of this discourse We pray the living Saints to pray to God for us we may then use the same towards them that are dead I pray you what is it that gives them ground to argue so What! is there not a difference between these two we see the one we speak to them and hear the answers they make to our requests whereas the other are separated from us by a great and almost infinite distance without being able to know for certain whether they hear any of our words without having any mutual and reciprocal commerce with them We do not doubt that as we thank God for their happiness they pray for ours wishing the triumph of the Church which they know fights yet upon the earth under the Ensigne of their Christ But 't is to mock the world to conclude from hence that we may and ought to speak to them as we do to persons here below which are of our acquaintance That which Elisha knew by the revelation of God concerning what his Servant Gehazi had done being absent 2 King 5.16 and Daniel that which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamt Dan. 2.19 Acts 12.34 And St. Peter what Ananias and Saphira had contrived sheweth that the Lord can if he pleaseth discover the thoughts of our hearts and the words of our mouths to the Saints who live in heaven that which we have called in Question but not that he will and doth it in effect which is the point of this Question whereof we ought to be assured to be able to address our prayers to them It cannot be proved by the knowledge which the Angels have of the repentance of sinners Luke 15.10 Heb. 1.14 For the Angels being ministring Spirits which God sends to serve because of those who shall receive the inheritance of Salvation 't is not strange that they should know that which happens to us whereas we read not any thing like this of the Souls of the faithful that are deceased Apoc. 14. but only that they rest from their labours And after all although we should be assured that the Saints should understand us there would always be indiscretion in these prayers since there is neither Command nor Example in the Scriptures for them Joyn to this the evident peril we should be put into by this practice of giving to the Creature that which appertains to the Creator For Nature hath her self imprinted this Opinion in our hearts that 't is a divine thing to penetrate into the secrets of men and to know what the absent do and say it is not possible for us to converse with the Saints whom we do not see without allowing them a kinde of Divinity as it appears but too much in the practice of the Adversaries the most part of whom and above all those of the minute people praying to the Saints have towards them incitements to devotion and a respect altogether like that which they have to God when they pray to him But 't is sufficiently seen that this praying to deceased Saints cannot be proved by the Scriptures CHAP. X. That Veneration of Images is not Commanded in Scripture nor any way taught there 1. AS for their Images and those of Jesus Christ and the holy Virgin it is still much less possible to establish the Veneration of them by Scripture Exod. 25.18 19 20. since instead of Commanding it they disprove and forbid the service of all Images and Representations in general Nevertheless let us see what Rome alledgeth for this designe She then alledgeth the Cherubims which Moses made to cover the forepart of the propitiatory Numb 21.8 1 King 6.32 35. 7.25 29 36. and the brazen Serpent which he lifted up in the Desart and the Cherubims the Palm-trees and the Buds of Flowers spread which Solomon caused to be carved upon the Doors of the Temple and the Molten Oxen upon which he set the Laver of Brass and the Figures of Lions and other Creatures with wch he inriched its Basis Tertull. striking at Idolatry Tertul. de Idolol c. 5. in a Book which he hath expresly made objects the same thing in favour of them who defended it resolves the Question learnedly according to his ordinary custome But to keep my self to my business what doth all this make for the veneration of Images First they were not the Representators of God nor of any person whom he had imployed in any eminent Service of his Church Secondly These Images were made some for Types and sacred Symbols as the Cherubims of the Ark and the brazen Serpent the others for the ornament and inriching of the Temple only as the Palms the Oxen and the Lions of Solomon none to be honoured and worshipped which was so contrary to the intention of these Divine men that the people offering Incense to the brazen Serpent Hezekiah to stop the abuse 2 Kings 18 4. made no scruple to break it in pieces So all that one can lawfully conclude from the last part of this allegation is not that it is permitted or allowed to kiss the Images by devotion to be uncovered and prostrate before them and to render them worship in honor to Christ and his Saints which our Adversaries think and practice but that one may carve Pictures of Creatures and Flowers upon the Doors and other parts of the Temples to adorn and inrich them Council of Trent Dâ—utri 2 for which we never contested with any one But for the Cherubims and the brazen Serpent the instance they bring of it is quite out of our purpose First because that these Types have no place any longer in the Church Jesus Christ
are Divine and Apostolique Since then that the Articles of our faith are in the Scriptures and those of Rome are not there it is clear that our Religion is certain and assured as founded upon the most authentick Instructions of Christianity and that it cannot be rejected without denying Christianity it self and that of Rome on the contrary in that wherein it differs from ours is doubtful and uncertain and cannot be imbraced with a full and intire faith 11. But I say in the second place that all this Dispute is out of our way For my designe is only to shew that our Beliefs are in the Scriptures and that those of Rome which we reject are not there to destroy the accusations of the Methodists who pretend that to establish our faith we are obliged to have recourse to other Principles than Scripture Whether the Beliefs of Rome be found in other Documents of Christianity as in Books of the Fathers or no 't is another Question 'T is sufficient at present for me that they are not found in Scripture Now this being so it is clear that I have had reason to reject them from my Confession since I receive nothing into it but what is taught in Scripture And this is sufficient as all may see to justifie our Faith by the Scriptures CHAP. XV. That the Articles of the Belief of Rome which we receive not into ours are contrary to the Scriptures and very far from being taught there BUt to fill up the measure of our proofs I will add in the last place that the Doctrines believed by the Church of Rome and rejected by ours besides their not being found in any part of the Scripture shake it divers ways destroying certain things which the Scripture lays down and laying down other things which it destroys This is so clear that whoever will consider the whole without passion and prejudice will incontinently perceive it 1. Vpon the Point of Sacrifice 1. ROme saith that Jesus Christ is and will be every day crucified in an infinite of places even to the end of the world The Scripture saith Heb. 9. â—5 26 27 28 7.27 That he hath not offered himself more than once and that he hath been once offered to take away the sins of many So as 't is ordained for men once to die Secondly Rome saith That Christ is now offered for our sins without suffering The Scripture saith Heb. 9.26 that if he hath been offered many times he must have suffered more than once Thirdly Rome saith That the remission of sins is obtained in his pretended Sacrifice Heb. 9.22 John 19.30 Heb. 1.3 9 26. without the effusion of blood The Scripture saith that without shedding of blood there is no remission Fourthly The Scripture saith that Christ dying on the Cross all was accomplished and before his Ascension into Heaven he himself hath purged away our sins and abolished them How then ought he still as Rome saith to be every day sacrificed for the same thing Fifthly The Scripture saith That none takes the honour of High Priest Heb. 5.4 and possesseth it but he who is called of God as was Aaron How is it then that the Priests of the Roman Church pretend this Dignity since they cannot make appear that God hath called them to it Sixthly The Scripture saith that Jesus Christ is eternal High Priest Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.6 7.3.24 25 28. that he lives eternally that he hath a perpetual Priesthood that he is consecrated for ever that he always lives a High Priest according to the Order of Melchisedec who remains a Priest for ever Why then doth Rome give Successors to him in this Office Seventhly Rome holds That the Priests bless and consecrate the body of the Son of God How doth this agree with that which the Scripture layeth down Heb. 7.7 That without all contradiction that which is least is blessed by that which is greater Are then the Priests of the Church of Rome greater than the Lord 2. Vpon the Transubstantiation and the real Presence 1. ROme sayeth that that which the faithful eat in the Eucharist is not bread The Scripture saith that it is bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Every time that you eat this bread and drink this Chalice you shew forth the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat of this bread c. unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man then examine himself and so eat of this bread and drink of this Cup. 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of the Lord 2. Rome saith that that which the Lord made his Disciples drink in the consecrated Chalice was not wine The Scripture saith that it was the fruit of the Vine Mat. 26.27 28 29. Taking the Cup he gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink all of this For this is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins And I say unto you that from this time I will not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day that I shall drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom 3. The Scripture saith that we shall not have the Lord always with us here on the earth Mat. 26.11 John 12.9 Acts 3.21 and that the Heaven must receive him until the time of restitution of all things How so if that which Rome holds is true that his body is yet perpetually kept here below upon their Altars and in their Pixes Fourthly The Scripture saith that the Lord is above sitting at the right hand of God his Father in a Sovereign Glory Rome saith that his holy Body is under the Species of a mean Creature inanimate and insensible that it enters into the Stomachs of mortal men yea sometimes of the most wicked and is subject to many other indignities which we hardly dare think on Is this to be in a state of Glory Fifthly Rome believes that the body of the Lord is entire under every crum of bread and in every drop of the wine of the Eucharist and that his head his feet and all the parts of his body are in one and the same place and that his body is altogether above in Heaven and here below in a thousand and a thousand places of the earth above visible here invisible Is this that which the Scripture saith that except in sin Heb. 2.17 he is like his brethren in all things that is to say to the faithful as every one confesseth is there ever a Believer whose body is capable of such accidents the flesh of the Believers is a true body and hath all the properties of it Now there was never seen a body of this nature which is held in a place much lesser than its proper quantity 3. Vpon the Adoration of the Eucharist THere is no need to add any thing to what I have
been speaking concerning the precedent Article For since the Eucharist is truly bread in substance every one seeth enough how much this Sovereign service which they give it in the Roman Church is contrary to all Scripture which from the beginning to the end forbids us nothing more expresly oftner and under more grievous threatnings than the adoration of any Creature of what nature and dignity soever Exâ—d 20.3 Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt have no other God before me Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve 4. Vpon Purgatory ROme saith that it often happens that those who die in the faith of Jesus Christ are burnt in a fire as hot as that of Hell The Scriptures saith Apoc. 14.13 Rom. 8.1 2 Cor. 5.6 8. That they are happy that they rest from their labours that there is no condemnation for them that their earthly habitaion of this house being dissolved they have a building of God an eternal house not made with hands in the Heavens That so long as they are in this body they are strangers to the Lord and when they are strangers to the body which is when they quit it they shall be with the Lord Luke 23.23 and tells us that the repenting Thief was with the Lord in Paradise the same day he died 2. Rome sayeth that this subterranean fire purgeth us from some of our sins 1 John 1.7 The Scripture saith that the blood of Jesus Christ purgeth us from all sin 5. Vpon Justification ROme teacheth that we are justified partly by faith and partly by good works How agreeth this with that Scripture which saith Gal. 2.16 Tit. 3.5 that man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ and that God hath saved us not for the righteous works which we have done but according to his mercy with that which is asserted in so many places Rom. 11.6 that we are saved and justified by Grace since that if it be by Grace 't is not by works otherwise Grace would be no more Grace Rom. 4.4 and that to him that worketh the hire is not reckoned of Grace but of debt and with that which is said that we have not whereof to glory Eph. 2.9 Rom. 4.2 since that he who is justified by his works hath according to the same whereof to glory 6. Vpon the Merit of Works ROme teacheth that we do by our good works so much merit eternal life that if God should not give it to us he would do unjustly How can this agree with the Language which the Scriptures teacheth us Luke 17.10 when you have done all the things which are commanded you to do say we are unprofitable Servants we have done that which we ought to have done 2. Rome holds that eternal life is to speak properly a reward due to the value of our works Rom. 6.23 2 Tim 1.18 The Scripture saith that it is a gift or a grace of God and a mercy and that although we should have kept his Commandments that which we fail much in yet he useth gratuity and mercy towards us in well-doing Exo. 20.6 3. Rome holds that between the vertue of the faithful and eternal life there is a proportion and the Scripture saith Rom. 8.18 That the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come which shall be revealed in us 4. Rome holds that the Lord oweth him who hath lived well and holily eternal life The Scripture Scripture teacheth us that God oweth no body any thing Who is he that hath given him first and it shall be rendered to him again Rom. 11.35 7. Vpon the Worshipping of Saints 1. The Scripture condems those men who worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which by nature are no Gods Gal. 4.8 Rome worshippeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saints which are no Gods by nature 2. The Scripture saith 1 King 8.39 that God only knows the hearts of all men that the dead know no more any thing that they understand not whether their Sons are noble or ignoble Eccl 9.5 6 Job 14.20 21. 2 Kin. 22.20 that their eyes do not see the evils which God brings upon the places where they have lived Rome teacheth that deceased Saints know all that is done upon the earth and that they know the most secret thoughts of our hearts 8. Vpon the Worshipping of Images Rome fills her Temples and Streets with the Images of God Father Son Holy Ghost and of the most Blessed Virgin and of all the Saints represented as well by flat painting as in all sorts of Sculpture She will have one render to them an adoration and veneration analogical prostrate before them kiss them offer them Bougies or Tapers go a Pilgrimage to the places which are consecrated to them How agreeth this with what the Scripture saith Deut. 4.12 15 16. You saw no similitude in the day that the Lord your God spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest perhaps being deceived you should make you any graven Image in the likenes of male or female Thou shalt make thee no graven Image Exod. 20. nor the likeness of any that is in Heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them The Hebrew saith thou shalt not prostrate before them and serve them Lev. 26.1 You shall make you no Idol nor graven Image nor rear up any Image nor set up any Image of stone in your Land to adore it It is also in the Hebrew to prostrate before it 9. Vpon the Monarchy of the Pope of Rome 1. Rome teacheth that the Pope is the Sovereign Judge of the world a Monarch assisted by the Princes of his Court who governs Kings who makes the greatest of the earth kiss his slippers who wears three Crowns upon his head who can chastise the States of Christianity with pains not only spiritual but temporal How agreeth this pretended Power and the manner with which he hath exercised it many years since before the face of Heaven and earth with that which the Lord commanded his Apostles The Kings of the earth exercise Lordship over them Luke 25.22 and those who use authority over them are called Benefactors But it is not so with you but he that is greatest amongst you let him be the least and he that governs as he that serveth And with that which St. Peter commands 1 Pet. 5.3 Feed the flock of God which is committed to you c. not as having Lordship over the Clergy and people of God but as being examples to the flock by your charity 2. Rome holds that the Pope is above the Church The Scripture sends back him and every Believer having quarrelled with his Brother to the Tribunal of the Church and obligeth him to submit to
her Judgment Mat. 18.15 6 17. If thy brother hath sinned against thee c. tell it to the Church and if he disdain to hear the Church let him be to to thee as a Heathan man and a Publican And elsewhere all it saith 1 Cor. 31.21 22. that all things belong to the Church and namely Paul Apollos and Cephas and in another place speaking of the Apostles in general it calls the Servants of the Church for the love of Jesus 3. Rome esteemeth St. Peter the Master and Sovereign Lord over the other Apostles How comes it then that the Scripture speaking of him doth not name in the first place or rank 2 Cor. 4.5 but in the second only James Cephas and John having known the Grace which was given to me How comes it that the other Apostles sent him to preach in Samaria Gal. 2.9 How comes it that St. Paul preached three years without communicating any thing of his designe to him How comes it that even Paul himself said boldly Acts 8.14 Gal. 1.17 18. that those who were in esteem added nothing to him and recounts very freely that he resisted St. Peter in Antioch to his face Gal. 2.6 Gal. 2.11 because he was to be blamed Are these the terms of a Subject to his Prince And would they suffer now adays that the Bishop of Hostia should treat so with the Pope or from him 10. Vpon the distinction of Meats Rome teacheth that the use of flesh is wicked and unlawful two or three days in a week and during all Lent 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3 4. The Scripture saith that every Creature of God is good that nothing is to be rejected when it is taken with thanksgivin and that God hath created food for the faithful and for those who have known the truth to use it with thanksgiving and calls the Commandment of abstaining from it a Doctrine of Devils and qualifies them who assert it with the terms of teachers of Lyes and deserters of the faith abusing themselves with lying Spirits telling us particularly that such will come in the last days 11. Of the unmarried state of the Ministers of the Religion Rome teacheth that for the Ministers of the Christian Religion to marry is an impure and unlawful thing The Scripture testifieth that some of the Aopstles were married as amongst the rest St. Peter Mat. 8.14 and where it propounds conditions necessary for a Bishop 1 Tim. 3.2 it requireth not that he be not married at all but only that he be the husband of one wife 12. Vpon the retrenching of the Holy Cup. Rome suffers none but him only who hath consecrated the Eucharist to drink of the Cup of the Lord denying the Communion of it to all others The Scripture saith to those who Communicate Mat. 26.27 1 Cor. 11.28 Drink all of it and St. Paul Let a man prove himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this Cup. 13. Vpon the Exemption of the Ministers of Religion The Scripture saith in general Rom. 13.1 Let every man be subject to the Higher Powers c. For the Prince is a Servant of God for thy good but if thou doest evil fear for he weareth not the Sword in vain 1. Pet. 2.13 14. Be subject to every order of man for the love of God be it to the King as Supreme be it to Governours as to them who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for praise to those who do well The Apostle Paul knowing this order submitted himself to it Acts 25.10.11 appearing before the Officers of the Emperorour and appealing to him Rome holds that all her Clerks even the least of them are exempted from this Subjection CHAP. XVI A Refutation of that which the Adversaries pretend to elude the passages of the Scripture contrary to their Beliefs by certain distinctions of their Invention WHosoever will diligently read the Scriptures will finde many other things there incompatible with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome But this little proof is sufficient for our designe I know our Adversaries endeavour to shun these blows and to that purpose use many distictions But for the most part so strange that 't is not possible to comprehend them they wrap up things in inexplicaple contradictions as 't is easie to be seen particularly upon the Subject of Transubstantiaon of the Sacrifice of the Mass of the service to Saints and their Images Secondly All of them presuppose their Opinion and live by the passion wch they have for it For example before ever they had established Transubstantiation the world never heard speak of a body which hath its quantity and not the manner of its quantity which should be in many places at a time which penetrates the dimensions of another body which hath all its parts confounded under one point and not distinctly extended the one out of the place of the other neither of Accidents which subsist without subject a roundness without any thing of a Circle a whiteness without any thing of white neither a changing of Substances where the terms in which they were confined was in its full and entire being fifteen or sixteen years before the change arrived So before they had established the Service and Prayers to the Saints humane-kinde had never heard that the Religious Services of God were distinguished into Latria Doulia and Hyperdoulia from whence it follows that before they imploy these distinctions they are necessarily oblig'd first to ground the Opinion which they have produced and out of which they cannot finde for them neither in Nature nor in Scripture any stay where they may be able to subsist I shew that the Eucharist is not a humane body because it hath not the quantity of it that it is not the body of the Lord because the body of the Lord is in Heaven To that these Gentlemen answer that the Eucharist hath the quantity of a humane body but it hath not the manner of it that is to say it is five or 6 foot long although all its length is not extended more than two fingers that the body of Christ is in Heaven indeed but according to its manner of natural existence and that it is in the same time substantially elsewhere in a certain manner of existence the which though it can hardly be expressed by words is nevertheless possible to God Now what light doth these distinctions carry to the Subjects where they are imployed Do not they confound all our thoughts Do not they redouble the darkness instead of dissipating it And indeed what other things do they except to repeat the same thing that is in Question for when a body hath its quantity and not the manner of it and that he should subsist in one place in one manner and in the same moment should be in an infinite other places in another manner this I say is not grounded but upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation without which never any of them would have thought to affirm things so inconsistent One ought then to begin by the proof of this pretended Doctrine For till they have grounded this well their distinctions are unuseful and our proofs clear and solid Now we have shew'd here above that they cannot prove by the Scriptures any of the places which they use to this end nor infer any thing like it There is then no need to examine their distinctions Since 't is thus 't is an injustice in them to make use of them and it would be lost time to me to stay to consider confute them In a word we have imployed this second means for the abundance of proofs and not by any necessity that obligeth us to it For although the Doctrines of Rome should not oppose as they do visibly so many truths of the Holy Scriptures it should be always enough for us not to receive them since they cannot be proved by Scripture Thus have we sufficiently in my Opinion justified our faith by the Scriptures having shewed that they teach clearly the Articles which we believe and that they assert neither directly nor indirectly but rather shake and destroy those of the Doctrine of Rome which we reject From whence it appears that it is against all reason and truth which some of our adversaries reproach us with that we cannot prove by the Scriptures no not one Article of our controversed faith instead of acknowledging that it is upon them that the blame falls Being evident that of all the Beliefs which they press us to believe with them they have not been able hitherto nor will they ever be able to ground any of them upon the Scriptures Pray God enlighten them and confirm us in the knowledge of his truth and give to both of us the spirit of Peace and Charity to treat our Differences with sweetness convenient to the Profession which we make of being Christians FINIS