understood but of his true body Cajetan ibid. From whence saith Cajetan one cannot evidently conclude that the words mentioned ought to be understood properly since that these relative words which are given for you do not shew us that it is properly the body For the relative which doth not signifie the conjunction of the predicate with the Subject but this relates to the predicate only viz. My Body and with the truth of this relation remains the true proposition mentioned This is my Body taken only in a Metaphorical sense as it appears by the example now the Stone was Christ For if the Apostle had added who hath been crucified who is risen and who is ascended into Heaven in saying now the Stone was Christ which hath been crucified c. nevertheless the underwritten Proposition now the Stone was Christ should be understood Metaphorically and not properly Even so in our dispute are the words of the Lord This is my Body which shall be delivered for you This addition which shall be delivered for you doth not restrain the precedent Proposition to a literal sense for it is nevertheless as true though it were spoken in a Metaphorical sense only Thus far Card. Cajetan So all that one can lawfuily and necessarily conclude from the words of the Lord is that the bread of the Eucharist is the Mystery the Sacrament and the memorial of his body which we believe and confess with all Christians and which the Lord expresly pronounceth himself in the following words in saying Do this in remembrance of me as from the words of St. Paul the Church is the body of Christ one cannot evidently infer any thing Mat. 13.37 38 39. 1 Cor. 10. Apoc. 4.1 20. 17.9 28. Gen. 17.15 40.12 41.27 Exod. 12.11 Judg. 7.14 2 Kin. Heb. 2 Sam. 12.7 Ezt. 37.11 Dan. 2.38 4.19 7.24 except that the Church is the Mystery of the natural body of Christ and as they say ordinarily his Mystical body For it is an ordinary Phrase in the New Testament to say That the signe is the thing which it signifieth and the Image that which it represents drawn from the stile of the Old Testament which gives always to the Signe the name of the thing signified and reciprocally the name of the Signe to the thing signified 2. They alledge in the Second place the words of the Lord in St. Luke This Chalice is the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you saying that because the Cup that is to say the Liquor which is in the Cup is shed for us it is then the blood of Christ and not Wine really and in Substance it being clear that is the blood of the Lord and not Wine which hath been shed for us But we have already shewed above that we ought to apply this word shed to the blood of Christ shed really for us on the Cross and not to the Cup notwithstanding the disagreeing of the Gender which is found between these words in the Original Texts although the Lord said that this which is in the Cup is shed for us it doth not follow nevertheless that it is not Wine in substance since that without putting any Transubstantiation in the water of the Holy Baptism one may as well say that it is shed for those who are baptized with it 3. They use in the third place the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break is the communication of the body of the Lord and the Chalice of Benediction which we bless the communication of his blood For say they How is it that the Bread and the Chalice consecrated should communicate to us the body and blood of Christ if they are not in substance the body and blood of Christ But this Consequence is ridicule For 't is unlikely that it should follow from these words that the bread consecrated is no more bread but quite contrary the words evidently express that it is bread the Apostle saying expresly that it is bread broken for us which is the communication of the body of the Lord in the same manner as he adds in the following Verse Ibid. ver 18. That those of Israel which eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar it evidently follows not that the Sacrifices by the eating whereof they participated of the Altar were changed into the Substance of the Altar which would be absurd and prodigious but that they were Sacrifices having a Substance different from that of the Altar and what an extragavant speech would it be to say that those who eat the Sacrifices participate of the Altar as if the Sacrifice the Altar were one the same thing in substance for this would be to say that those who eat of the Altar are partakers of the Altar so would it also be a cold and impertinent Proposition to say that the bread which we break is the communication of the body of Christ as if this bread is in Substance one and the same thing with the Body of Christ For upon this account it should be said that the body of Christ is the communication of the Body of Christ As then the Sacrifices of the Hebrews communicated the Altar upon which they had sacrificed to those who eat them for those who eat were said the Apostle partakers of the Altar without losing their substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or being changed into that of the Altar even so the Bread and the Chalice of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicates to us the Body and blood of the Lord of which they are the Sacraments without losing their first Substance or being changed into that of the body and blood of the Lord. And as those who eat the Sacrifices of the Hebrews communicated to the Altar in as much as they had part in the vertue and sanctification of the Altar without necessity of touching corporally the substance of the Altar it self So those who eat the bread and drink the Chalice of the Lord communicate of his body and of his blood in as much as they have part in the vertue and efficacie of his body and of his blood broken and shed for the remission of our sins without necessity of touching corporally their substance 4. But they lay great force upon that which the same Apostle saith in the following Chapter where speaking of the Eucharist 1 Cor. 11.27 29. Whosoever saith he shall eat of the bread or drink of the Chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And in the Verse beneath he adds that they discern not the body of the Lord. How can that be say they if the body and blood of the Lord be not really present in the Eucharist But first they conclude not that which is in Question The Question is whether the bread and wine change Substance and they conclude that the body and blood of the Lord are
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
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
say then to this procedure of the Heretiques do they grant them that one ought to hold nothing but that for a doctrin of Scripture which we read there in so many words and not reading exactly there the words of which the question is have they recourse to the Church to defend by its authority that which they think cannot be proved by the formal words of the Scripture which is the point at which all the cheating blowes of our methodists aim They do nothing of all this They doe not put the infalibilitie of the Church in play They hold themselves to the Scriptures and use its authority but for the defence of their cause and confessing that the terms of their questions are not read there exactly they protest that t is enough that the thing it selfe is found there and that t is gathered and deduced lawfully from thence and prove upon discourse found upon diverse passages and after having so proved it conclude that they have demonstrated it by the Scripture T is no matter saith S. Athan. Ep. de Synod Arim. Seleuc. T. p. 913. D. Athanasius in one of his bookes above named whither the words which one makes use of be in the Scripture or not provided that the sense of them be Orthodox and in the treatise of the decrees of the Council of Nice c idem l. de decret Synod Nic. p. 270. B. although that the words saith he be not so laid down in Scripture t is no matter so long as they have a sence truly drawn from the Scripture as it hath been said before what can one call more contentious saith S. Austin answering to Pascentius then to dispute of the name when the thing is manifest a Aug. Ep. 17 T. 2. p. 150. F and a little after you see saith he to him that from those words which are not in the Scripture one may give such reason by which it may appear that they are truths b Ibid. O. Maximinus who pressed him to prove by express terms of the Scripture that one ought to adore the holy Ghost t is well said answered he as if from the things which we read there we could not learn certain other things which we do not read there c Id l. 3. contr Max. c. 3. and following this distinction he professeth elswhere to have said what he read in or understood by the Scriptures conforming himself to their authority and St. Chrysostome d Id. l. 15 de civit D. cap. 1. gives us this rule that we ought to hold those things for holy writ whose sence is found in the Scriptures although they are not found there in the same words e Chrysost Hom. 7. in 1 Cor. p. 380. S. Gregory of Nazianzen in his thirty seventh speech disputes against the Hereticks who denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost urged him with the same wrangling to produce them a passage of Scripture which testifieth it expresly a Greg Nazian c. col 37.599.605 edit paris an 1609. Our methodists would have yielded to this assault and would have granted them that there being no formal passage to shew this truth it could not be proved by the Scriptures But S. Gregory on the contrary makes to them this wise and judicious remarke with the Style and manner of the teaching of the holy Scriptures b p. 605. that there are things which are said there which notwithstanding are not there and there are other things which are not said there which nevertheless are not wanting there some others are not said there nor are they there in effect and in fine some others are there and are spoke there He puts in the first ranck sleeping wakeing and the motions of God in the second his impassibility and that he is without beginning for though the Scriptures say often that God sleepeth or that he awaketh or that he moves locally yet notwithstanding it doth not signifie so And though that be in these words 't is not in that sence And though it never sayes expresly that he is impassible or without beginning c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies it notwithstanding in divers places in other words Which the Divine made his adversaries confess who held that God was not begotten and without beginning and yet they could not produce any one passage which said it formally from whence he concludes that since by their own confession own may very well prove by the Scriptures that God is without beginning although it saith no where so expresly their procedure is altogether ridiculous for concluding that the divinity of the Holy Spirit cannot be proved by Scripture under pretext that t is not expressed there Shew me these things saith he that God is not begotten and without begining written in so many words or else we will reject them because they are not written a p. 606. And a little after how saith he dost thou keep thy self so closely to the letter and how dost thou side with the Judaical wisdome tying thy self to syllables and leaving the things if thou shouldst name twice five or twice seven and I should come and conclude from thence ten or fourteen or conclude that this thing which you call a mortal and rational animal is a man should I talk idly in thy opinion in discoursing after this manner but how canst thou think so fince I say but the very same things which thou saidst before For the determination is not more from who saith it then from him who doth oblidge necessarily to speak it b p. 606. D. viz. in saying things from whence it necessarily and inevitably follows See how this great man clearly establisheth the consequences which are drawn from Scripture Theodoret in a Dialogue printed with the works of S. Athanasius brings in one of these Hereticks which they call Macedonians from Macedonius their Author who alledged likewise that t is no where writ that the holy Ghost is God a Dialog contr Macedon tom 2. operum Athan p. 276 B. edit Paris An. 1627. To which the Orthodox Divine answered let us suppose that the name of God is not attributed to him in the Scriptures do but acknowledge that he hath the nature and operations of God and that satisfies me for the confession of his divinity But saith the other why do you say that which is not written 't is sufficient answers the Orthodox if you but only acknowledge his nature for though it were not written his nature of it selfe would consequenly draw this name from it For if once one confesseth that the holy Ghost is a person subsisting sanctifying and uncreated he of necessity is God though thou will not confess it Where is it that t is written saith the Macedonian that the Spirit is God even there answers the Orthodox where it is written that he is of the same essence And upon this Groand the Heretick having replyed that the Fathers had called the Son consubstantial
is that saith the Orthodox the sense and intention of the Scripture which hath moved them to use that word which is not writ or have they said it of their own Authority it is saith the Macedonian the sence of the Scripture which hath moved them to it Now answered the Orhodox this is also the sence and intention of the Scripture which teacheth that the Spirit being uncreated and subsistant of God inlivening and sanctifying is a divine Spirit Thus far Theodoret who knew not how to maintain more clearly that one could ground the articles of our Faith upon the consequences of Scripture and not upon words onely But this same Authour in two pieces which Photius warants us to be his although by some error they have printed them also amongst the works of St. Athanasius shews us that the Spirit of our Methodists reigned at his time in certain Hereticks whom he names not Pho. biblioth cod 46. P. 31 but who in my judgment were the Eutichians He saith that they would have every one receive the words of the Scripture simply without considering the things which they signifie under pretence that they surpass the understanding of all men b Theod. tract 16. secund Phot. T. 2. Op. Athan p. 308. that they be constrained to hear some words of the Gospel those which they think favourable to them but they will not suffer them to understand and interpret them religiously that one hear the words but not search the truth and convenient sence of them that they call Faith and inconsiderate not belief which without any examen imbraceth to its own ruin things not established by any demonstration e Id. tract 23. p. 325. d. that they command to believe without reason a Ibid. to believe simply that which is said without considering what is convenient and what is not so b Ibid Tit. tract 23. without examining whither the thing be possible useful seemly agreeable to God or convenient to nature whither it agreeth with the truth whether it hath any connexion with the design of the Author whether it doth not contradict the mystery whether it be not agreeable to Godliness c Ibid. D. that they would have c Ibid. their words believed without permiting any one to examine their Doctrine for fear they should be convinced d p 326. A. Are not these the same fancies with our Methodists who receive nothing but formal words who reject all expositions evidences and reasonings but now Theodoreâ— Dispates sharply against these men accusing them of overthrowing by this means all humane affairs and of making men irrationale e p. 903. of changing them into bruit beasts making them take their nature and habitudes of making all the intentions of the Prophets and Apostles unuseful who according to this reckoning of theirs beat our ears in vain with the sound of their words the hearers not carrying away any fruit from them nor profit in the Treasury of their hearts f Ibid. D. that their procedure confounds every thing and that he who follows this Method knows not how to make those things agree which seem to clash nor answer those who desire to ask him as we are all obliged to do to them a Ibid. 3. which he verifieth at large by the induction of divers passages of eternity and of the temporal birth of Christ which seems contrary b p. 310. D. so they expose the Scriptures to the mockery of the Infidels c p. 326.327.328 and for these and such like reasons he declares at the beginning of one of these Treatises that this invention is the worst of all the Doctrines which the Devils have introduced among men d 327. D. and give us a rule quite contrary wishing that in the interpretation of the Scriptures in stead of being tied to the words made naked by their sense they should seriously consider what belongs to God what is convenient for our purpose that which the truth carries that which agreeth with the Law that which hath a just correspondence with nature the Purity and the Liveliness of Faith the firmness of Hope the sincerity of Charity that which doth no wrong to Esteem that which is above Envy that which is worthy of Grace e Ibid. p. 325. A. and that he ought not to believe without reason nor speak without Faith Let them take the pains to read these two Treatises through for they are very short and most excellent Athanasius whom the Author of the Dialogue published under the Name of S. Vigil made to Dispute against the Arians follow exactly the precedure of Gregory and Theodoret against the Macedonians For he constrained the Arians to confess that one may prove by the Scriptures many things which are not expressed there alledging to him the words which the Arians held although they were not expressed in the Scripture as when they said against the Sabellians that the Father is impassible and against the Ennomians that the Son is like the Father and against Fotinus that the Son is the Light of the Light shew me said he to him where it is written Purely Nakedly Properly and in so many words that the Father is impassible or not begotten that the Son is God of God Light of Light or like the Father It is not enough that you say that the reason of Faith requireth it piety teacheth it the inference or consequence from the Scriptures obligeth me to the profession of this Name I desire that you would not alledge these things to me since you will not suffer me to alledge them for the proof of the word consubstantial Behold at this juncture of time the volume of Divine Books in my Hand read there the Names of the Words above said in so many syllables and in the same sences either shew us where it is written that the Son is like the Father or confess that he is unlike him there is no way for you to draw your selves out of this evil path being wraped up in your own objections 't is not in your power to unty the knots of this Proposition Give me leave then to prove the consubstantiality that is to say the belief of the one Substance of God by consequences where if you will not agree with me you must also renounce those things which you confess your self since you find them no where directly set down in any place in the Scriptures a Dialog in t Sabel Photar Athan. liter opera Cassandri p. 475. med then beating him with his own weapons he pressed him to bring him some passage which speaks formally the belief of the Arians viz. that there is three Substances in the Trinity Here saith he the arguments serve for nothing where one concludes the truth by the consequence of reason they demand proper and express passages read to us three Substances expresly so laid down in the Scripture do not come hither to argue that if the Father
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
in the earth and so you think to oblige them by that to hold this conclusion that the Body of Christ is not on the earth for a thing certainly and Divinety revealed they will tell you that it cannot pass for any more then for a humane doctrine since from two propositions from which one is drawn viz. The first is drawn from maxims of reason only and not from Scripture as the second is They triumph in this observation and put it upon all occasions amongst their gravest and most serious conference but I say first that if our particular interest were only concerned in it there were no need to consider it since that which is granted is sufficient for this dispute For it grants us that the propositions which are lawfully drawn from two truths one of which revelation teacheth and sense or reason the other are true at least to the same degree as the truths which we learn by reason and sense and that we may give at least the same kind of Faith to believe them in the same manner as we believe for example that Snow is white the Heavens round or that the whole is bigger then its part Now we demand no more for our designe for we imploy the most part of these discourses mixed with propositions of a different nature only to overthrow their belief and not to establish ours now to destroy a doctrine and render it unworthy of belief 't is enough to shew that t is contrary to some truth and then one ought to hold it for false of what condition or origine soever that truth be which it opposeth whither it be revealed or natural For truth is a simple thing and uniforme alwaies like to it self lies often wound themselves one falsity destroying another but all truth agree perfectly conspire together and t is impossible they should oppose or overthrow one another If it be found then that the Doctrines of our adversary are contrary to some truth be it to that which sense teacheth us to that which we learn in thescholof reason or to that which divine revelation tells us t is enough to justifie that they are by no means veritable far from being as they pretend the articles of the Christian Faith For the Author of Nature Grace Sense Reason and Faith is one and the same God who hath not destroyed in the school of grace what he hath taught in that of nature God forbid but hath polished and perfected in one what he had begun the rough drawn in the other So t is manifest that far from being obliged in this kind of discourse to imploy propositions contained in Scripture only I can use arguments drawn intirely from sense and reason without taking the propositions of which they consist from revelation As for example if I should conclude that the Eucharist is not a humane body because a humane body cannot be held intire in a mans mouth whereas the Eucharist may be held in an infants he would answer impertinently that should alledge that t is not Scripture but sense and reason which learns us these two propositions and therefore the conclusion is not a truth revealed For at this time we have concern about that the question is not about the Master who hath taught these propositions whither it be sense or Faith but about their quality whither they be true or not for if they are both true their conclusion is so of necessity and by consequence your opinion which opposeth its inevitable false it being absolutely impossible that two contradictory propositions should be both true as this the Eucharist is a humane body which is your opinion and this other the Eucharist is not a humane body which is the conclusion of my discourse But I say in the second place that their maxim is false that to infer a conclusion from authority and divine Faith it behoveth that the two propositions be drawn from the revelation of God it is enough that one be revealed and the other evident by the light of nature The Church discourseth thus against the fond imaginations of Apollinaris every man hath a foul indued with understanding Jesus Christ our Lord is a man therefore he hath Soul indued with understanding of the two propositions from whence this conclusion is drawn the second is in the Scriptures the first is not there but we have learned it in the school of reason would you say under this pretext that the conclusion viz. that Jesus Christ hath a soul endued with understanding is not a divine truth but a humane learned from earth and not from heaven but where is the infant that does not see that God revealing to us that his Son is a man doth not reveal by the same means that he hath a body a Soul understanding and in short all the essential parts of the nature signified by this word man Otherwise one must say that in teaching us that Jesus Christ is man it teacheth us nothing but simply strikes the ear with the vain and unprofitable sound of the word for what is it to say that Jesus Christ is man unless he hath a body Soul understanding and the other things of which the nature of the subject consist signified by this word man In the same manner when the Scripture teacheth us that God hath created the earth it teacheth us by the same means that he hath created America and the Austral Countries China and the Isles of the Sound although it be sense and reason and not Scripture which teacheth us that these Countries are part of the Globe of the earth and he would be impertinent to the hight who should say that the Scripture hath not revealed to us that God hath created China or Taproban because it simply tells us that God hath created the earth without telling that these Countries are part of it And so of the rest for God in his Scripture presupposeth every where that those to whom he speaks are men and not beasts that they know if not subtily and Phylosophically that which is not necessary for his design at least grosly and in some measure the nature of those things of which he speaks to them and by consequence that they are capable of applying to every part of a subject what he hath told them in gross so that when he learns us some thing of a whole it is clear that t is as much as if he revealed all and every one of its parts to us perticularly as when he tells us that Jesus Christ is a man t is as much as if he should say he hath a Body formed like ours consisting of quantity occupying a space which is fit to it moving it selfe in time from one place to another in such manner that its parts are not altogether in the same place that he hath a Soul which reasoneth wills loves and in short indued with all the essential faculties of man This is so clear that no Body ever can put it in doubt
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