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 [Page 2]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, 'tis 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 [Page 4]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 [Page 5]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 [Page 6]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 'tis this exactly which the Disputers of this [Page 7]age hold. They pretend that 'tis 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 [Page 9]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, 'tis onely necessary not to be­lieve them; for we are so far from thinking it necessary for us to have the knowledge of them, that we (as well as our Doctors) reject them formally and precisely, and wish that they had never been spoken off, and that they may be Aeternally buried in the cave of errors from whence they came. For as Eating good meat is sufficient to preserve the life of man; nor is it necessary for him to know Hemlock, Aconite, or Antimony, or to know poysons, 'tis enough that he is not so unhappy as to eat of them; even so 'tis in Religion; for to obtain salvation, 'tis sufficient for a man that he believe the holy and wholsome truths communicated to us by the Lord Jesus: there is no need that he should know particularly the innume­rable [Page 10]poysons which the enemy hath scattered in the World, nor that he should know exactly to what degree e­very one of these false doctrines are poy­sonous; 'tis enough for him that he is so happy as to believe none of them. To speak properly the express and for­mal rejection of an errour makes no part of Faith, for then Faith would have been imperfect before the birth of the error. Before Mahomet came into the World the Faith of Christians was in­tire and sufficient, although it was igno­rant of the seducements of that Im­postor, and though it knows nothing of Marcion, of Manicheus, of Arrius, nor of Pelagius, yet it is sufficient to salvation, provided that it believes firm­ly, that which Jesus Christ hath revealed.

There is then a great difference between those propositions which sup­poseth and affirmeth the truth, and those which reject the error; The rea­son why our Fathers have ranked them in the body of the same declaration was not because they were ignorant of this difference, but another occasion obliged them to do it; for being sepa­rated from the Church, of Rome, and af­terwards [Page 11]having been calumniated of holding diverse very strange opinions, vide Epist. 10. the K. which is in the begin­ning of our Confession of the year 1559. in fine to make the King their master & his subjects, their fellow Citizens, see clearly what their thoughts were about Religion, they not onely declared the belief they had of Christianity, and of every one of the articles of which it con­sisted; but also what they thought of the doctrine and communion of the Pope, from which they had withdrawn themselves.

We ought then to distinguish care­fully these two sorts of articles which this reason joyns and mixeth together, some affirmative and positive, declaring that which we believe; others negative and exclusive declaring that which we do not believe: the first lays down that which is our Faith: the second rejects that which is not so: For example, these are of the first sort, that there is a God. that he ought to be worshipped with all our affections; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and God Eternal, that he was made man, that he hath taken our nature in the womb of the holy Virgin, that he dyed to expiate our crimes, that his blood hath washed and purged our souls from [Page 12]all sin that he is risen and ascended into heaven, and there reigns at the right hand of the Father: that sins are pardoned to men, by the grace of God, when they believe in the Gospel, that believers are obliged to live holily; that Charity is necessary for salvation; that the Lord hath ordain­ed that we should be baptised in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost, for the remission of our sins; and that he hath likewise commanded us to celebrate the memory of his death in taking, eating, and drinking the Sanctified bread and wine, that this bread and this wine are the com­munication of his flesh and of his blood; that those who believe and live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall have Ae­ternal salvation, and that those who be­lieve not in him shall perish: But these following are of the second sort, That we ought not to adore the Host of the Church of Rome, nor invoke their dead Saints, that the mass is not an ex­piatory sacrifice for the sins of men, that the Pope is not the head and spouse of the universal Church, that he hath no power neither directly or indi­rectly over the temporals of Kings and States of the world; that neither he nor [Page 13]the Church which adheres to him, have the right of never erring in the Faith, nor are they the reason and grounds of our Faith, that it is not for the me­rits of our works that our sins are for­given us, or that grace or life is given to us, that the bread which we break, and the cup which we bless in the Church loseth not their substance, that none of those who communicate at his table ought to be hindred from drinking of the Cup of the Lord: that neither the chrism, nor the penitence, nor the ordainor, the mar­riages, nor the extream unction are Sacra­ments; that believing souls departed this life are not burned in the fire of Purgatory.

Since we believe the first Articles and that we preach and recommend them to men we are obliged to shew the truth of them, and since the most part of them are so obscure that we have not na­tural light enough to discover and per­ceive them, it remains that we prove that God hath revealed them to humane kind. For these are the three sources of all our knowledge, sence, reason, and the revelation of God, now 'tis neither the sins nor reason of man, that demon­strates to us that Jesus Christ is the son [Page 15]of God, or that those who believe his Gospel shall have the happy Aeternity; We cannot prove the truth of it then but onely by the means of revelation. Now all Christians and namely those of the Church of Rome (with whom we dispute in this Treatise) confess that the writers of the Old and new Testaments were inspired by God, and did write by the revelations of the Spirit, now we cannot more clearly ground the Truth of the Articles upon which our Faith consists then by shew­ing that they are taught in these divine writings; Tis for this we acknowledg our selves obliged, and of which 'tis most easie to acquit our selves, as we hope, to make appear in this book. And as for the other Articles which are of the second sort, it belongs to us to justifie and make appear that the holy Scripture teacheth no where to believe what it self rejects, as it teacheth no where that there is a Purgatory, or that the Pope is the Monarch of the Church, or that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. For having once shewed that we shall have clearly justified that we have been oblig­ed to exclude such opinions of our [Page 14]Faith, since we hold, that all the things which we ought to believe, as necessary to our salvation, are taught in the Scri­ptures; for that if these be not found there, Rome is in the wrong to believe and preach it as necessary, and have reason not to receive it in our belief. Tis an unjust cavilling to demand this of us further, that we should furnish them with texts, in which the second sort of Articles are contained, where, for ex­ample, it is said expresly that there is no fire of Purgatory, and that the Pope of Rome is not the head, nor spouse of the universal Church, and to say for want of this the holy Scriptures, as we have it, is not perfect, is an impertinence fit onely to dazle the eyes of children; for the Perfection of the Scriptures (ac­cording to our supposition) consists in that it teacheth all things that ought to be done and believed, for salvation: as the perfection of a book consists in containing all the Truths necessary to the science of which it treats. Will you say that the bookes which Aristotle hath left us of Philosophy are imperfect, because they do not expresly reject that which the Masters of the sciences have [Page 16]since his time opened? or that the trea­tises of the antient writers upon elo­quence are imperfect, because they did not expresly contradict these new lights which the phantasie of our mo­derns boast of having discovered? Er­ror is an infinite thing for which the sciences cannot, nor ought not to have a good esteem. Tis enough for their per­fection to have shewed all the truth of the things of which they treat: other­wise there would never be any thing perfect in this matter. For upon this account the Mussilman will reproach our Scripiure because it hath not expresly a­nathematized his Mahomet, Mareion and the Manicheans, the David Georgists and all the other impostors will impute to it as an imperfection, not to have made an inventory of all their follies. What need was there that it should black its paper with their names and dotages so many ages before their birth? 'Tis suffi­cient to keep me from it that she hath said nothing of them. The surest and shortest means to keep the right way amongst so many confuted ones, is to dispise all that which the Scripture does not recommend, and not to disdain to [Page 17]examine what she doth not disdain to teach us. It speaks to me of God and of his Christ, what he hath done for me and what he requireth of me. It instructs and fills my soul with that wisdome which is necessa­ry to Salvation. It is enough for me to be saved, I am contented with knowing so much. As for what the Pope dogmatizes besides this, let him shew it me in the Scri­pture and I will believe it as I do the rest; but if it be not to be found there, who can imagine but I must be ignorant of it. and cannot believe it without danger, faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God, Rom. 10.17. of which the Scripture is the first, the most clear, most certain, and (in my judgment) the only in­fallible Doctrine?

CHAP. IV, An answer to what our adversaries alledge that they are in possession of them.

BUt these new disputants make a­nother stop here to oblige us to their pretended method, saying that they have had them in possessi­on many ages since; thinking that sufficient for them without being obliged to produce any other ti­tles or Doctrins of their Religion; that it belongs to us, who contest with them, to make their wrongs appear, by clear, and inviolable proofs. It is a word which they al­waies have in their mouths and which they believe cannot be answered. But in truth we can say nothing more vain nor less pertinent, for if this possession (as they call it) might be alledged in the case, the Apostles of Christ would have wronged the Heathens about their Religion seeing they possessed it far [Page 19]long before; the Jesuits would do wrong to the Chineses, if they should endeavour to drive from their hearts the idolatry and worshiping of Pagods which they have possessed time out of minde, truth and ver­tue should leave in mankind the error and vice which they found established there, for fear of violat­ing unjustly the right of their long possession. The old man will have little to maintain himself against the new, and philosophy ought not to yield to the Gospel; upon this account we also ought to return un­der their yoak as that of our first and most ancient Masters. But God forbid that a little word ill un­derstood should ever make so en­ormous a prejudice to the right of God of his Christ and of his truth: we confess clearly that where there is a question made about lands or houses or any one thing which is, and which is seen in nature, the possession may be alledged, and that it belongs to him who turns out the possessor to shew that he held it unjustly, and to make it appear [Page 20]by good titles that the things belongs to him, in our contest with the Doctors of Rome there is nothing like this, they press us to believe with them the Purgatory the Mass and other articles. We desire them to shew us the truth of them of which we can yet see but little. Instead of satisfying so just a request they alledge that they have them in possession and so consequently are not obliged to prove any of them; certainly if they think to make the world believe things mearly upon their saying them, without demon­strating the truth of them, they pro­pound to us a position evidently unjust and tyrannical, For a man cannot be­lieve before he knowes the thing to be veritable, and he cannot without denying his nature yield an in­tire faith to that which is to him either sall or doubtful. Those who will perswade him to any thing are necessarily obliged, by the right of nature, to demonstrate to him that it is true either by sense or rea­son, and if the thing be above sense and reason, let it be done by divine [Page 21]revelations, it remains then that these gentlemen renounce this posses­sion which they alledge to us, since tis so contrary to the rights of our nature, and that they make it their endeavour to demonstrate to us that which they desire to perswade us to. They are in possession to demand belief of things doubtful and incer­tain: and as for me I am in possession to believe nothing but those things the truth is of which they make ap­pear to me. My possession is evi­dently more antlent then theirs; 'Tis but reason then that they yield to my right, and not that I submit to their usurpation. Moreover in civil causes where this maxim hath place the possessor is sued and pressed to forsake that which he holds: Here quite contrary, there are pretended possessors which contend with us and press us to enter into possessi­on with them, for they would havee us believe what they believe, and 'tis this belief which they call their possession; who sees not not then that Fundamentally 'tis they pro­perly who have begun this action [Page 22]with us, and who ought, by onse­quence, to shew us by good and lawful Doctrin that we have right to enter into this possession to which they call us; we are ready to yield to them if they can make us see that that which they would have us possess is real. For to believe a thing which is not, a possession, but a dream and an error, 'tis 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, 'tis 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 [Page 23]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, 'tis to pay it with illusions and chimaeras. So 'tis 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, tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 25]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, [Page 26]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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]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 twas imputed to him for righteousness.

Thus he proves in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Gala. 4.28. that 'tis 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 [Page 31]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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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 [Page 34]one were so desperate as to ac­cuse the Soveraign Wisdome and his most faithful and intimate Ministers of having imployed vain and frivi­lous Sophisms instead of good and sol­lid deemonstrations. But besides their examples, they have authorized this way of proof by their command. For our Lord according to the ex­position of the most parts of the an­tient and modern Interpreters com­manded the Jews in the fifth of St. Joh. 5.39. John to search the Scriptures. Why should he command that we should search for other things then those which are directly expressed there? all the circumstances of the passage shew that he wisheth them to learn who is truly the Christ. But this cannot be drawn from antient Scriptures but only by consequences. It follows then that the Lord expects that we should learn not only that which it tells us directly, but al­so that which may be concluded from it by good and valid consequen­ces. Mat. 22.29, 31, 32. And in Matt. 22. disputing a­gainst the Pharises who denyed the resurrection from the dead, you err [Page 35](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 tis 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 [Page 37]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 tis 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 [Page 38]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 [Page 39]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 B [...]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 [Page 41]their conclusions is worthy of an as­sured beleif. Briefly there was ne­ver any method so perplexing and troublesome as this, which renders all the differences of philosophy and Religion Aeternal, without leaving us any means to determine them. For since, that to make them agree it will not suffer us to imploy any other that an express and formaldeci­sion, by the Authority of which these two parties should be agreed, it is clear that their debates will never be de­cided, since it hath its birth from that same thing which this method wants to determine it. For if in their com­mon principle there should be found any such decision of their controver­sies, they would not enter into con­test about it; for example, the Me­thodists will not let any one make use of any one thing in Scripture to prove that the Pope is not the head of Church, if there be not some passage which saith expresly that the Pope is not the head of the Church. Who sees not that tis to flie the decision of the controversie, and desire the continuation of it for ever? for to [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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 [Page 44]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, tis not much honour to be thought to be esteemed the father of an invention, [Page 45]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 tis 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 tis none of his) leave these [Page 46]Sylogisms (say they) and give us a Demonstration by writing that the Son is the true God 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. 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, Id con. Mixim, l. 1 6 fol. 444. G. and in a dialogue published under the name of S. Vigil (but in my judg­ment tis 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, [Page 47]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. 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 tis set down that Jesus Christ hath two Natures? 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 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 [Page 48]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 tis enough that the thing it selfe is found there, and that tis 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. Tis 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, [Page 49]provided that the sense of them be Orthodox; and in the treatise of the decrees of the Council of Nice, idem l. de decret. Synod. Nic. p. 270. B. although that the words (saith he) be not so laid down in Scripture, tis 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? 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; Ibid. O. Ma­ximinus who pressed him to prove by express terms of the Scripture that one ought to adore the holy Ghost, tis 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? 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. [Page 50] Chrysostome 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. 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; 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 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 [Page 51]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 'tis not in that sence. And though it never sayes expresly that he is impassible or with­out beginning, [...] 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 tis not expressed there. Shew me these things (saith) he that God [Page 52]is not begotten and without begin­ing) written in so many words, or else we will reject them because they are not written. 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 [Page 53](which they call Macedonians from Macedonius their Author) who alledged likewise, that tis no where writ that the holy Ghost is God. 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? 'tis 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 tis 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, [Page 54]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 [Page 55]words of the Scripture simply with­out considering the things which they signifie, under pretence that they sur­pass the understanding of all men 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, Id. tract. 23. p. 325. d. that they command to believe without reason Ibid. to believe simply that which is said without considering what is convenient and what is not so, 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, Ibid. D. that they would have Ibid. [Page 56]their words believed without per­miting any one to examine their Doctrine for fear they should be convinced. 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 Theodore [...] Dis­pates sharply against these men, accu­sing them of overthrowing by this means all humane affairs and of mak­ing men irrationale, 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, 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, Ibid. 3. (which he verifieth at large by the induction of divers passages of [Page 57]eternity, and of the temporal birth of Christ which seems contrary, p. 310. D. so they expose the Scriptures to the mockery of the Infidels; 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, 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 [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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, 'tis 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 Dialog. int. Sabel Photar. & Athan. li­ter. opera Cassandri. p. 475. med. then beating him with his own weapons, he pressed him to bring him some passage, [Page 60]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, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three, it must of neces­sity be that they have in them three Substances. For upon this account I can also reason more truely if the Father and the Son are one accor­ding to that which he saith him­self, I and the Father are one, how is there more then one Sub­stance? but you have not been willing at all to enter into this way of Dispute, in demanding of me a passage where the word Consub­stantial was exactly, and properly laid down. 'Tis then for you, also by the same reason to read to us the three Substances properly and ex­presly set down in the Scriptures. Ibid. p. 476. infr­med. And upon this debate of the [Page 61]manner of the proofs, which should be used, by both parties, the Author of this Dialogue, caused a good man (whom they made ar­bitrator of their Disputes) to pronounce this judgement. In as much as it appears, by your Dis­pute, that you cannot shew formally and expresly in the Scriptures, neither you the word Consubstan­tial, nor you that of three Sub­stances; to the end then that we may not lose more time, in a childish debate of superfluous things, leave of demanding of one another a formal passage, and gather from the authority of the Scriptures, by the reason of consequences, that there is either one or three Sub­stances in the Trinity, Ibid. p. 477. ante med. and at the beginning of the following Sessions, repeating the result of the foregoing dispute, he saith that they did agree to prove the confession of one, or of three Substances by the conse­quence of Holy Letters, passing by the demand of a passage where the word is found Properly and Nakedly laid down. Ibid. med. Judge if this be not [Page 62]the very Image of the Disputes, of our Methodists? do not they demand of us as the Arians do of the Catholicks formal passages upon every point of our differences? Do not they reject with the same importunity the consequence, and conclusions drawn from the Scrip­tures; Do not they reproach us with the same injustice that these are tricks in logick with which we endeavour to save our seves? Ibid. p. 475. fin. A­rius. de A­than. Do not they press us with the same opiniatrety, either to read exactly what we believe, or to quit the belief of it? blessed be God that our cause is found to be like that of the ancient believers: And the procedure of our adversaries like that of the old Hereticks. Since they choose the method of the Arians, let us keep our selves to the desence of the Holy Fathers, and by their example let us put our Methodists upon their own rack. You demand of us Gentlemen formal passages; Let us then have the same liberty. Shew us exactly and expresly in the Scriptures, that [Page 63]the Pope of Rome is the spouse of the Church, and the Monarch of the World; that out of his com­munion there is neither Grace nor Salvation; that his judgements are infallible oracles, and that in mat­ters of Faith 'tis impossible he should err; That 'tis from his hand only, that we ought to re­ceive the Scriptures, and that with­out the Testimony which he gives them, they should have no more weight with us, then Aesops sables or the Alcoran of Mahomet. Shew us written in any one of the books of the Old and New Testament, that there is a place bordering up­on Hell where some souls sanctified by the blood of the Son of God are burned, that there are Altars upon the earth, where Jesus Christ is realy sacrificed by a mortal man for the remission of our sins. Let us see a passage, which saith expresly that we ought to render adoration to your Host, which you Name Letrcia, or that we ought to wor­ship the Images of Saints departed, and kneel down before them, in­voke [Page 64]their Spirits, and acknowledge them for our Mediators. I would not have you say that all this can be concluded from Scripture. I de­mand according to your example precise and formal passages; either permit me to prove my Faith by consequences, or renounce yours, full of so many things of which you cannot read one word in the Scriptures. Here you have much more interest then I. For my Faith consisteth of less Articles then yours; and the Articles which I believe, are for the most part so clearly and expresly laid down in the Scriptures that I need no logick to draw them from it. 'Tis enough for our eyes to read them there; In stead of which, the beliefes which you and I contest about are so far from the words and sense of the Scrip­tures, that the greatest logick in the world is not sufficient to draw them from it. Here to unravel your selves from these straits, you will not fail to alledge the authority of your Church. But besides telling me of that, you go about to per­swade [Page 65]me doubtful things, by that which is as much, or rather more doubtful, and by this you evidently renounce the procedure of them whom you call your Fathers, for if the authority of the Church, ought to decide matters here, why did not they interpose it in their Disputes▪ And if it be an ill proceeding to say either prove your Faith by ex­press and formal passages of Scrip­ture, or suffer me to prove mine by consequences; why did they use it against the Arians? say what you please, you cannot turn it so but it will manifestly appear to be a great precedent for me against you to prove that you Dispute like the Arians, and I like the Ho­ly Fathers:

CHAP. IX. That that which is concluded evidently and necessarily from the Scrip­tures is veritable and Divine, and is part of the Scripture.

NOw to come to the bottom, what can one Imagine more [Page 50]unreasonable then this wilfulness of you, the Arians, Macedonians and and Eutichians; not to receive for true and divine, that which is con­cluded from the Scriptures? For since from a truth nothing can be inferred but what is true, confes­sing (as you do) the truth of the Scriptures, is not this an intang­ling of your selves in an evident contradiction, to make a doubt of what is drawn from the Scriptures? is not this an offence, either to the Scriptures in suspecting it to be alse in certain places, or to the truth in accusing it to produce sometimes lyes, and bring forth (in a man­ner) monsters? That which one ga­thers out of the Divine Scriptures, is there, or not there: if it be not there how could it be drawn from it, since 'tis not possible to draw from a subject any other thing but what is there, nothing giving that which it hath not: if it be not there, why did our Lord say speaking of the Scrip­tures of the Old Testament, that they bare witness of him, Joh. 5.3.6. and how could he declare by all the [Page 51]Scriptures biginning with Moses, and so through all the Prophets the things concerning himself: Luke 24.27. and again how could his Apostles protest that he had said nothing but those things, which, as well the Prophets as Moses had foretold that they would come to pass, that it, behooveth that the Christ should suffer, Acts 26.22, 23. and finally, how could he in another place assure the 1 Cor. 15 34. Corinthians that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures, since it is evident that none of these propositions, is literally and expresly so written in any of the Books of the Old Testament, but only are gathered from thence by consequence? Now if that which is drawn from the Scriptures by good consequence, is really in the Scrip­tures, why do you reject it, since you confess with me, that there is nothing in the Scripture but what is Holy; True and Divine? conclusions of Truth are not for­mally [Page 68]in their principles but one cannot deny them to be there in Vertue and Power; so that ad­mitting of a principle, one admits also all things that can be inferred from it, by that very act; as for instance, he who saith that we have four gospels, saith also that we have two and two of them, these num­bers being evidently contained in that which he hath expressed: And the Scripture saying that Jesus Christ is a man, saith also by those very words, that he hath a soul and body, the two parts of the nature of mans 'Tis very true that a man may sometimes lay down things the consequences of which he will not allow of; but this proceeds from the weakness of his understanding, which doth not see all the Lawful consequences which may be drawn from them. God, whose Wisdom is infinite, never affirms any thing, without Knowing all the consequences, which can be drawn from it, so that we need not fear that he will go back from his word, or deny any Doctrine to be his that [Page 69]can reasonably be concluded out of his word Since then that all things that can be lawfully inferred from the Holy Scripture are unavoida­bly true and Divine, it is clear, that one doth sufficiently prove the truth and holiness of a Creed, when he shews that it follows from the po­sitions expressed in the Holy Scripture, without any need (as formerly the Arians and now the new Methodists pretend) to shew it in so many words. This is the first principle which Scholarius a Greek indeed, but of the side of the Latins laid down at the beginning of his Dis­pute, against those of his own nation, concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost; first Scholar. orat. Henet. 3. part. Act. Conc. Flor. p. 580. then, we must not ex­spect (saith he) to find all the proofs expresly and in so many words in the Scripture, for this is an excuse which many Hereticks used to save themselves, but if there be any thing that may be deduced from what is said in the Scriptures, we must Also receive it with the same honour as the Scriptures it self. Cardinal Bel­larmin who alone hath more desert [Page 54]and reputation, in the Roman party, then all the Authors and defen­ders of this new Method have, put them all together, acknowledg­eth this same truth. That which one inferreth evidently from the Scrip­tures (saith he) is evidently true, the Scriptures presupposing it Bellar. l. 4. de Ec. c. 3.. Melchior Canus Can. loc. Theol. l. b. c. 8., Bishop of the Ca­naries, Vega Veg. l. 9. dê justifi­cat. c. 39. , Gabril Vasques Vasques Tom. 1 in Thom. dis­pute 5.6, 3. and disput. 12. art. 8.6. [...]. Alfons Salmeron Salmer T. 1 prolegum. de Canc. 91., all very famous amongst our adversaries, make the same judgment of it; and the last especially speaks thus of it. We ought to hold for Doctrins of Divine Au­thority, and worthy to be received by Faith, not only the things which are expresly contained in the Scri­ptures: but those also which are inferred from them by an necessary and evident consequence. Certainly 'tis enough for us to prove to our ad­versaries the truth of our beliefs, ei­ther that we read them in the Scrip­ture, or that we infer them from thence, since they agree with us that 'tis a book Divinely inspired.

CHAP. X. That this pretended Method takes away certitude from all humane Knowledge, and plungeth Religion, the Sciences, and all the life of men into a horrible confusi­on.

But these men demand of us here, how we can assure our selves that the consequences which we draw from the Scripture are good and lawful? for (say they) reason is sometimes abused, concluding from a principle that which cannot truely be inferred from it. Arians and Eutichians who demand formal Passages of the Chatholicks did not they pretend to conclude their false and pernicious opinions from divers places of Scripture where notwithstanding they were not? Nestorius, Palagius, and before them all Origen, were deceived in the same manner; and there is not, per­haps, any Heresie which hath not [Page 72]endeavoured to ground it self upon the Scripture by false and abusive discourse. Reason then being faul­ty, how can we be assured of the truth of the things which by its means we have discovered in the Scripture? for since it is often deceiv­ed who can tell us that it is not so now? I do not think it strange that an Atheist should make this objecti­on to us, since his impiety obliges him to confound all knowledge in an infinite and remedisess incerti­tude. But that men who make profession of the Christian Religion, and whose interest tis to preserve Faith, Assurance and Credulity in the world, should propose to us a dis­course which rums all these things from top to bottome, in my opini­on, 'tis either an impudence or an ex­tream passion. For consider (I be­seech you) how far this fine discourse goeth, reason (say they) is faulty therefore we cannot be assured of the conclusion which it draws from the Scripture. But if this conse­quence be good, what assurance can we have? First what will become [Page 73]of this so much bragged of certain­ty of the Catholick Faith which they have alwaies in their mouths? it will be accounted to them no other then a meer in discretion.

For whether they will or no, 'tis our understanding which receives the things of Faith, which considers them, and is lead to believe them by the reasons of truth which it seeth in them. If our understanding by mistakes and abuses sometimes makes its aprehensions and conclusions un­certain, our faith must necessarily be so too. The consent of the people, the ancient and uninterrupted suc­cessions of the Bishop of Rome, the Majesty and brightness of the pow­er, Beauty, Order, and pomp of the ministers, the light of the di­vine protection, and such like con­siderations, may perswade you that Rome is truely the Church of Jesus Christ; but (I say) how can you be sure of it, since this reason to whose report you give credit is false and if it may be faulty in other things why not in this? and if you have from this Principle, upon [Page 58]which depends all the Roman Faith but a doubtful and floting opinion, what assurance can you have for the rest? but besides their Religion this discourse ruins all learning. For if reason by the faults into which it sometimes falls, doth not deserve that one should yield it any certain and assured consent, we ought to doubt, according to their supposition, whi­ther a right line falling perpendi­cularly upon another right line makes two right Angles, and whither a square described by the side sustain­ing the right angle of a triangle is equal to two squares described by the two other sides; whither all Bo­dies are composed of matter and form, whither the liver be the Source of veins, whither Senna purgeth Melancholy, and of all other things in short which are demonstrated in Mathematicks, natural Philosophy, Physick, and other sciences, because this reason which teacheth them is a cheating Mistris. We shall not be able to be assured whither the whole be bigger then its part, nor whi­ther if you take away equal things [Page 59]from equal things that which re­mains will be equal. For (these new Scepticks will tell you,) how do you know but this reason which is abused in so many other things is not so here to? but 'tis worse still, for be­sides the knowledge of the under­standing, this discourse takes from us, moreover, all the apprehensions of our senses. If that faculty which sometimes chances to deceive us can assure us of nothing, who a­mongst us can trust any of his senses, since 'tis evident, that sometimes they represent things to us other­wise then they are? the eye makes that Tower which is square seem round, makes the straight oare crook­ed, and robs the Sun, Moon, and other Stars of the greatest part of their grandeur. The tast and the ni­cest touch of our sences are some­times mistaken. So that the Me­thodists will not be assured of any one thing which is conveighed to us by our senses. They will doubt whither snow be white, and believe but by halves that fire is hot and Ice cold, and will not dare to main­tain [Page 76]that Honey is sweet and worm­wood bitter, they will believe that the light of the Sun, the roundness of the heavens, the Motion of the winds, the flux of the Sea, the course of Rivers, and the Visages of men, of their neighbours and do­mesticks, are nothing but cheats and illusions. And if this certain­ty of reason and sense be once taken away, what will become of the acti­ons of piety and virtue, all which proceed from an assured knowledge and firm resolve, without which they do not so much as deserve the Name of vertue and Wisdom? what will become of the mysteries of peace and war? and all the functions in which the society of men are con­cerned, and consequently families, Towns, and States? and in short what will become of all humane life? for as natural bodies cannot move but upon some thing fixed and im­movable, so our minds cannot act but upon some fixedness and cer­tainty. Belief and perswasion are as the hing upon which they turn themselves; without this they can­not [Page 77]move, but besides the wrong which this pernicious imagination doth to men, it is infinitely abusive to the providence of God, who (if we reckon after this manner) would have given the superintendence of all his works, and the keeping of his truth to a thing blind and deceitful, and incapable of bringing him any glory. And tis clear that this error had never been advanced neither in the schools of Christanity, nor any other Religion, if they had but ne­ver so little heart for the honour of God and the salvation of men. The new Academy alone had for­merly produced it, judge then in what despair these Methodists were, who for the defence of their cause were constrained to raise up this Pagan Idol which hath been dead and buried so long since. To take from me the liberty of justifying my Faith by the Scriptures they ruin their own, they put out the light of Siences, they bring to nought sence, they offend the Lord and wrap up humame kind in e­ternal darkness. What blind pas­sion [Page 62]is this, to purchase the loss of those we hate by our own ruin, and (as Gobrias heretofore) had ra­ther perish with his enemy then save himself by letting him live? but they may consider of this, if they think fit.

CHAP. XI. That the faults which reason sometimes commits doth not argue that all her reasonings are doubtful and uncer­tain.

TIs not very difficult for us to de­fend our selves from this blow which they throw at us with so much violence, for what can there be more vain then their objections? reason is sometimes deceived. Be it so, we cannot then assure our selves of any one thing which it concludes from the Scriptures: Why not? what necessity is there of this con­sequence? must that which once errs, err alwaies? or is there no way to know the truth whether it errs or [Page 63]not? the eye sometimes is mistaken, as we said before, giving to its ob­jects a greater or an other figure then that which they truly have Is this to say that the sense of sight is ab­solutely uncertain, and that it is weakness and sottishness to believe assuredly upon its credit that snow is white or that the Sun shines at midday, or that the emrauld is green or Ink black? the touch also some­times equivocates, and feels but two cards when there is but one. Is this to say that its perception ought to be counted for nothing and that we cannot assure our selves of any one thing which it represents to us, no, even that fire is hot, Snow cold, water humid, and earth dry? to a man in a feaver all meats seeme bitter and unpleasant; and because of this shall we suspect all the sense of tasting? shall we not dare to be­lieve that Honey is sweet and worm­wood bitter? but no body can be ignorant, that so great and fond an imagination as this falls only into a foolish soul; and that all humane kind would condemn him as extra­vagant [Page 80]who should have the least doubt of any one of these truths, and send him rather to a Physitian to purge his brains with a good dose of Hele­bore, then to a Philosopher, to confound his errors by an exquisite dispute? for if the faults which the senses commit at times, doth not hinder us of being as­sured, for the most part, of those things which we know by their means, by what right will you conclude, that those of reason, ought to take from it, all the Faith in that thing which she inferreth from Scripture? Ori­gen, Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, and many others have thought to find in the Scripture that which is not there. Be it so (although it is clear enough that they have erred, not so much for having ill disputed upon the Scrip­tures, as for having forsaken them and taken principles of their false discourse in humane Philosophy Look to the perti­culars of Origen. Theophil. Alex. or at. P [...]asch. 2. p. 96 A.B: and 98. B. and 102. D. and Paschal 3 p. 109 c. 110 B. Bibl. PP. T. 3. and for the Hereticks in General Chrysost. Hom. 87. in Mat. 7:9. D. and Hom. 59. ( lat. 58.) in John p. 298. A. Hierom. com. 2. in Mich. p. 378. F. and comm. in Agg. p. 506. F. Gregro. Mvg. Moral: in Job. l. 18, c. 14.) [Page 81]but nevertheless, so let it be since they will have it so. Shall their fond imagination wrong truth, and that under the pretence of thinking to see that in the Scripture which is not there, I cannot assure my self of having found there all that which is there? divers men have all reasoned in Mathematicks and drawn from the principles of that Sience some conclusions which are not really there. But shall it be denied me, under the pretence of this, to hold this consequence for good and assuredly veritable, that the whole is greater then the part, that a triangle is bigger then the basis, and the Body of a man bigger then his finger? but where is the man, how stupid soever he be, who notwithstand­ing the paralogisms of Brison and all the other, doth not presently, see that this arguing is most true and necessa­ry? so there are Authors found in na­tural Philosophy Astrology and Phi­sick, who have discoursed ill, phan­cying to find something in the prin­ciples of these Siences, which is not there. Would not this be not ony [Page 82]injustice, but Sottishness or madness, to endeavour to peswade us, under this pretence that we cannot receive any of the consequences drawn from these principles, as certain and ne­cessary? nor assure our selves that if a horse, sees, hears, and runs, he is then an animal, or if a stone hath no­thing of sence, then it is no animal? now we are exactly upon these terms in respect to the Scripture. Many have a mind to draw from it, by discourse, things which it speaks no­thing of, Gen. 1.16. and the Roman doctors more then all the others, who in the two Luminaries, which it placeth in the heavens, have pretended to find out the power of their Pope to be a­bove the Emperour, and his spiri­tual monarchies in the Faith and qua­lifications, which it attributes to S. Peter. and his power to interdict States, to depose Princes among ani­mals, Act. 10.13. which it represents to us to have been signified to the Apostle in a vision. 'Tis by the same Logick that they conclude their purgatory from the parable, which saith, thou shalt not go out till thou hast Mat. 5.2. [Page 83]paid the last farthing, and their Sa­crifice from the words of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.24. Matt. 26.26. do this; and their transubstantiation from the other, this is my Body. But if their consequences are false and even absurd, doth it follow that I cannot assure my self that the Scripture teacheth us, that Je­sus Christ hath a Body and a soul, since it saith that he is a man? that it teacheth, that he is the God of Israel, since it saith he found­ed the earth in the beginning, and that the heavens are the works of his hands, and that he was tempted by Israel in the wilderness? certain­ly neither sense nor reason ever of­fended without some reasons. These are saculties naturally right and e­very one capable of their functions, but sometimes they meet with per­ticular causes which hinders them from acting so. For as to sense, who knows not that its errors comes either from the indisposition of the Organs, from the Scituation of the object, or from the quality of the medium which is between them? as for example, 'tis the bi­lis [Page 84]with which the tongue of a sick man is moistned which makes it taste all meats bitter, and to those who have Jaundies, 'tis also the spreading of that humour which dieth all objects yellow, but tis the too great distance from the sun, which makes it ap­pear to us much less then it is, and which blunts the Angles of a Tower, which we see a far off, figuring it to us round when it is really square, and which makes the two sides of the end of a long Gallery seem to be very neer each other, in fine 'tis the diversity of the medium through which we see, which makes an oare appear to us in the water as if it were bent and crooked when it is really streight, except in these and the like cases the eye alwaies to doth its duty faithfully, and the other senses likewise do theirs; so that it being most easie to know for a truth whether the functions of our senses are so well disposed or not, 'tis an insupportable error to conclude that we are not able to assure our selves of any one of their reports, under pretence that it happens to deceive [Page 85]them, when they fail of any one of the conditions necessary to perform their function well. Now 'tis the same in reason. If she concludes wrong, 'tis certainly because she takes that for a true thing which is not so, or that for clear and certain which is obscure and doubtful. As when our adversaries conclude from that which the Lord said to St. Peter, thou art Peter, that their Pope is by right the Monarch of the Christian Church, they conclude falsly, because they take that for an evident truth in Scripture which doth not so much as appear there; viz, first that our Lord in these words, promiseth the Monarchy of his Church to St. Peter; and Se­condly, that their Pope is the suc­cessor of St. Peter in this quality. But if these two things which they take for truth were truth, then that which they conclude from them must necessarily be so too, and he to must be out of his senses who denies the consequences of them: And this necessary connexion of propositions with their conclusions is a work, [Page 86]not of the mind and reasoning of man, but of the will of God, as S. Austin expresly remarkes. The truth of consequences (says he) and conne­xions which propositions have one with another, hath not been institu­ted, but considered and remarked by men, to be able either to learn or teach it; for it is perpetual and di­vinely established in the reason of the things themselves, for as he, who counts the degrees of time, doth not make them himself; and he, who shewes the scituation of places, the nature of animals, of plants, or of Stones, doth not shew the things in­stituted by men; and he, who shews us the stars and their motions, shews us nothing made and established by any man; in like manner he, who saith, when the consequence is false, 'tis not possible but the thing from whence it follows should be false also, speaks most truly, and doth not make the thing to be so, but only demonstrates that it is so Aug. T. 3. l. 2. de. doctr. clic. c. 32.. From whence it comes that he observes elsewhere, that no man in disputeing is reduced to a false conclusion, un­less [Page 87]he has first granted something false from whence this conclusion 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, tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 88]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, tis 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, tis 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 [Page 89]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 [Page 90]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, tis 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 [Page 91]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 [Page 92]the law, since 'tis written thou shalt not commit adultery. Our adversaries will pardon us if we say, that to deprive us of the judgment of such consequences, tis 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 tis 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 [Page 93]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 [Page 94]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, [Page 95]only to overthrow their belief, and not to establish ours; now to destroy a doctrine and render it unworthy of belief, 'tis enough to shew that tis 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 tis 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, tis 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 [Page 96]the rough drawn in the other. So tis 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 tis 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 [Page 97]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, [Page 98]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 [Page 99]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 tis 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, tis 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 [Page 100]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, even none of these new disputants; the best Authors of their own party grant this. It is (saith the Bishop of Canaries) a thing worthy of great and diligent consi­deration, that we ought to hold for a part of the Catholick doctrine, not only that which hath been expresly revealed to the Apostles, but also that which is concluded by arguments and by evident consequences from two propositions, one of which i [...] revealed, the other certain by the light of na­ture Melch Canus lo [...]. theolog. l. 6 c. 8..

Vega saith likewise that nothing hinders these propositions from being ranked amongst those of Faith Vega 9 de justifie. c 39.. And Vasques makes the same judge­ment of it. Vasques. in. 1 Th [...]m. q. 1. disput 12. art. 8. c. 2. F. Ambrose Catharin at that time Bishop of Minory, and since Arch-Bishop of Conza, a most learned and a most celebrated person, and one of those who appeared most at the the Council of Trent, held this very opinion against Soto in a little book which he hath writ against him, to [Page 101]prove that the faithful may be assured of being in the grace of God, and produced Scotus for his Author; I think also (saith he speaking to Soto) that what you say is false, viz. that when one of the propositions is from Faith, and the other from science or experience, the conclusion which is drawn from thence is from science and experience and not from Faith, according to that rule, that the conclusion follows the weakest part. Against this strange proposition; which one may call tru­ly inopiniable, Scotus teacheth (as you who are versed in the Scholastiques may have seen) that when one takes two propositions, one naturally evi­dent and the other from faith, the the conclusion which follows from it is of Faith, see here the example which he brings, as (says he) if one should say, whosoever begets is really different from him whom he hath begotten (which is as he holds a natural maxime) and if one should add afterwards, now the father hath begotten in divinity (which is a proposition of faith) the conclusi­on [Page 102]which follows from it, viz. there­fore the Father begetting in divini­ty is really distinguished from the Son begotten, this conclusion (say I) is not natural but of Faith, whereas if your hypothesis were true it ought to be natural, since that according to you the natural propositions is the weakest, now the reason of that is, that in our judgment, the proposition which is of Faith, is the most uncer­tain of them; and tis in this that you abuse your selves and abuse o­thers Ambros. bath polit. in expurgat. ad Soto. p. 250 257. 258 edit. Lugd. An. 1551. See how Catharin turneth against Soto and the methodists, this very maxim of logick, which they produce to ground their error upon, for the proposition of Faith being in our opinion there the least certain; and by consequences the most weak, since the conclusion follows the weak­est part, its evident, that according to this rule it ought to be from Faith, if any of the propositions from which one hath drawn it be of Faith. But besides this subtil and ingenious consi­deration of Catharin, I think for mine own part, that this rule of logick that [Page 103]the conclusion follows the weakest part is ill alledged to the purpose, by the methodists, in this dispute; for the Masters of Logick mean only by that, that if one of the propositions be particular and the other universal, or if one be negative and the other affirmative, or if one be of a truth on­ly probable and the other of a neces­sary; the conclusion will not be uni­versal but particular, nor affirmitive but negative, not necessary but pro­bable, we grant it very willingly in this sence, and if it ever happens to us, in disputing against our ad­versaries, to conclude a proposition universal or affirmative from a par­ticular, or from a negative, or pre­tend that from a truth only proba­ble the conclusion should be neces­sary, then we will submit our selves to the lash of their Logick. But to stretch this maxim further, and let it signifie, that if of the two pro­positions which we use, the one hath been revealed from God and the other taught by nature, the conclusion ought to be put amongst humane [Page 104]maximes and not amongst the Di­vine Doctrines, 'tis a phancy so far from reason that I am assured that none of the Logicians have ever dreamed of it.

CHAP. I. An exposition of the principal and most necessary Articles of our Faith.

THese thing are sufficient, in my judgement, to keep our sense and reason from the troublesome and unjust chains with which the new Methodists pre­tend [Page 106]tyrannically to bind them: Let us come now to our design, and briefly shew our Faith, that we may prove every one of the Articles of which it consists, by Scripture, whe­ther they be read there, or evident­ly inferred from thence.

First then, We believe that which heaven and earth teacheth us, that there is one God, eternal, infinite, in­comprehensible, soveraignly good, wise, powerful, and just: Who hath created the Universe, and governs it by his Providence, nothing happen­ing in Nature or amongst Men with­out his Order or Permission. We believe that this great God made Man, in the beginning of the World, according to his own image and likeness, and put him into the Gar­den of Eden, there to lead an immor­tal life, and that Man fell from this happy condition by his own fault, having disobeyed his Lord, and that by this crime, he and all his Off­spring remains out of the grace of God, Slaves of Sin and Death. We believe that God, moved by compas­sion, towards his own work, hath [Page 107]sent his Son Jesus Christ into the World, in the fulness of time, who hath done and suffered all things necessary to draw men from perdition, and to give them eternal Life; that this Son is the same God, with the Father, of the same power and essence, and subsisted from all eternity with him, that he made himself man in time, and took to himself our nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary, uni­ting it personally with his Divinity, and after having preached his Grace to the people of the Jews, he was, at their accusation, crucified by Pontius Pilate, and being dead upon the Cross, and then buried, he rose the third day from the dead, and after having conversed forty dayes with his Disciples, he ascended into Hea­ven, where the Father hath given him all authority and power. We believe that he reigns there now in a Soveraign glory, governing all the World according to his good plea­sure, and that one day he shall come to Judge it for the last time. We believe that by his death he hath satisfied the justice of the Father, in [Page 108]as much as he hath suffered the pains for the Sins of humane kind, and that he hath acquired an eternal Salvation, and that the 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 [Page 109]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 [Page 110]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 [Page 111]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 tis 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, [Page 112]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 [Page 113]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. [...]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.

CHAP. III. Of the Creation, nature, and corruption of man.

CHAP. IV. Of the Mediator of his person and natures.

CHAP. V. Of the Sufferings, Actions, Glories, Merits, and Doctrine of Christ the Mediator.

CHAP. VI. Of the Justification of man by the Grace of God: and of the Nature of Faith.

CHAP. VII. Of the sanctification of the faithful, and of their principle parts, Piety, Cha­rity, Submission, Humanity, Chasti­ty, Justice, Truth, and others.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Ʋnion of the Faithful: Of the means necessary to preserve it; as of the order of the Ministry of the Gos­pel, and the Discipline.

CHAP. IX. Of the holy Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist.

CHAP. X. Of the Holy Ghost: Of the necessity of his light to have Faith: Of his Nature and Person.

CHAP. XI. Of the Liberty, Efficacy, Effect, and Constancy of the Grace of the Lord.

CHAP. XII. Of the last end of Men, as well Faithful as Reprobate.

CHAP. I. The Antiquity, Ʋniversality, 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 [Page 2]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 [Page 3]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 [Page 4]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, 'tis 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, [Page 5]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. 'Tis 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, [Page 7]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 [Page 8]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 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 [Page 9]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 [Page 10]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 'tis 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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15]true bread of life, descended from Hea­ven, hath been offered to the Father, for the expiation of the sins of humane­kinde?

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 could they con­clude from thence that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice truly and properly expia­tory? The thanks which accompa­nies this action, and gives it the name of Eucharist, that is to say, of an A­ction of Thanksgiving, may be called a pure Oblation, which one presents to the Lord for his goodness to us, without being a propitiatory Sacri­fice, any more, than Alms, Prayers, and the Preaching of the Gospel, which are named also Sacrifices. Se­condly, What necessity is there to assert that this pure Oblation predict­ed by Malachy should precisely be the Eucharist? Heb. 13.15, 16. Rom. 15.16. it's aim evidently e­nough is to fignifie, that the Service of God should be no more as former­ly [Page 16] tied to the Mountain of Zion, but should be done in all places, from the ri­sing to the going down of the Sun, not to the people of Israel only, but com­municated to all Nations. For these Divine Authors very often employ the terms and things of the Church of their times, to signifie the state and things of the Church to come; as when Esaiah saith, Esa. 2.3. that the nations shall go up to the Mountain and Temple of the Lord, to signifie that they shall make profession of his knowledge, and shall serve him: And when the Lord himself represents the estate of the Church to the Age to come, in saying, Mat. 8.11. that we shall be set at the Table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, terms which agree properly to the present Church. Malachy in the same man­ner used the word Oblation, which is properly a part of the Service which had place in the Church of his time, to denote the Evangelical Service which succeeded him under the New Testament; and to signifie it more particularly, he called it, a pure Ob­lation; no more carnal and gross, consisting of Fat and Oyl, in Flower, [Page 17]and in the blood of Beasts, as hereto­fore, but wholly spiritual and true; this is the service St. Paul understands where making opposition of the Christians with the Jews, he sayeth, Phil. 3.3. Rom. 1.9. that we should serve God in spirit; and speaking of himself, he saith, that he served God in his Spirit; and sheweth elsewhere, that his preaching was part of it, where he saith, Rom. 15.16. he applied himself to the Sacrifice of the Gospel of God, to the end that the oblation of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being san­ctified by the Holy Ghost. He describes it so in general in the 12th of the Ro­mans, That our service (which he calls reasonable, for the same Reasons for which Malachy names it pure) is that we should present our bodies as a living Sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. Rom. 12.1 Je­sus Christ a long time since Malachy, foretold exactly the same thing, at the time of his complement. John 4.20, 23. The hour cometh (saith he) that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth; no more in the mountain of Gerezim as the Patri­archs did, nor in Jerusalem as the Jews, but in every place, as the Pro­phet [Page 18]said. By comparing of these passages 'tis easie to finde out that the pure oblation of Malachy is no­thing else but the worshipping in Spi­rit and truth, which our Lord saith, and the oblation of our bodies as a living Sacrifice, as St. Paul speaks and our service in Spirit, as he saith, and so consequently not the Mass.

Thirdly, But they alledge from the New Testament that Jesus Christ in celebrating the Eucharist, said to his Disciples, Do this; now to do, signi­fieth sometimes to sacrifice: but what necessity is there to take it so in this place? Who seeth not that, do this, signifieth an action of which the Lord had spoken. Now he had said nothing of sacrificing (he spake not one word of that) but of eating and drinking. For after having given them the sanctified bread to eat, & the sanctified Cup to drink, he adds, do this in remembrance of me. Where­fore then shall not we take these words, do this, to signifie, to eat this Bread, and drink of this Chalice? St. Paul explains it clearly so, when after having rehearsed these words [Page 19]of the Lord, Do this every time, and as oft as you drink of it in remem­brance of me, he adds, for every time and as oft as you eat of this bread and drink of this Cup, you signifie the Lords death till he come. 2 Cor. 12.25, 26. The connection of this Verse with the precedent evident­ly sheweth, that to do this, fignifieth eating of this bread, and drinking of this Cup.

Fourthly, They produced also, that our Lord in the 22 of St. Luke speak­ing of the Cup of the Eucharist, saith, Luke 22.20. that it is shed for us; from whence they conclude, that it is then an ex­piatory Sacrifice for our sins. But I say, first, that although the words of the Lord in Saint Luke cannot be taken otherwise than in saying that the Holy Cup is shed for us; nevertheless it doth not follow that the Eucharist is, to speak properly, a propitiatory Sacrifice. What? is not the Water of the Ho­ly Baptism spilled for those who re­ceive it? Do you conclude from hence that Baptism is a propitiatory Sacrifice? Many things make for us which nevertheless are not Sacrifices. [Page 20]The Chalice of the Eucharist is it not useful and wholsome for us? Is it not given us to communicate to us the blood of the Lord, Grace, and the re­mission of our fins? It is enough to say truly that it is shed for us, there being no need to change it into Sacri­fice to explain this manner of speak­ing. But without coming to this one may justifie this otherwise. For since the Cup is the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, which hath been tru­ly shed as a Sacrifice on the Cross, to merit the remission of our sins; and since it is the custom to give to the Sacraments the qualities and attribu­tions of the things of which they are Sacraments, none ought to think it more strange that the Cup should be said to be shed for us, than that which St. 1 Cor. [...]0.4 Paul saith, that the Rock in the Desart was Christ. Secondly, I say, that it is not necessary to take the words of St. Luke in that sense which they produce them. On the contrary it seemeth that their Belief, and their Latin Interpretation licensed by the Council of Trent, Council of Trent, Sess. 4. doth not permit them to take them so. Their Belief. [Page 21]For if the Cup of the Eucharist is shed for us, since by the Cup they un­derstand the blood of Jesus Christ contained in the Cup they must say that the blood of Christ is shed for us in the Eucharist, which is directly con­trary both to what they confess of the glorious and impassible state of the body of the Lord, and to that which they expresly assert, that the Eucha­rist is a Sacrifice not bloody, and that Christ is offered there without the effusion of blood. Their Interpreter. For thus he translates these words: This Chalice is the 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 [Page 22]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 'tis 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 [Page 23]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 'tis 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 [Page 24]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 'tis 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 [Page 25]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 [Page 27]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 understood but of his true body. Cajetan ibid. From whence (saith Cajetan) one can­not evidently conclude that the words mentioned ought to be understood [Page 28]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 [Page 30]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 w ^ch 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) [Page 31]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 'tis 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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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 pre­sent in the Eucharist; now they may be present there, and yet the bread [Page 34]and wine not lose their Substance. And 'tis very unlikely, that these Proposi­tions of the Apostles infer, that that which he calls bread and Chalice, should be in Substance one and the same thing with the body and blood of the Lord, that contrarily they evi­dently presuppose that they are diffe­rent Subjects. For if the bread which one eats unworthily were the very bo­dy of Christ, this language would be cold and impertinent; he who eats of this bread unworthily, is guilty of the body of Christ, and doth not discern the body of Christ, since upon this ac­count it would be to say, that he who eats the body of Christ unworthily, is guilty of the body of Christ and doth not discern the body of Christ.

Secondly, I say that that which they draw from this Text (besides its not being the Question) cannot be concluded from thence. For he who receives the Baptism unworthily (as Simon the Magitian did) doth wrong to Christ and is guilty of it; and ne­vertheless no body can conclude from thence that the Substance of Jesus Christ is really present in the Baptism. [Page 35]They who sin voluntarily after they have received the knowledge of the Truth, Heb. 10.26. put the Son of God under their feet, and hold the blood of the Testament for a prophane thing. And no body can conclude from hence that the Son of God or his blood is really present under the feet of these wicked wretch­es. Luke 10.12. John 13.20. He who despiseth the Apostles despi­seth him that sent them, and who recei­veth him that he hath sent, receiveth the same that sent him; and nevertheless every one confesseth that the Substance of Jesus Christ was not really, be­cause of this, present in the Apostles nor in those whom he sent. They who sin against their Brethren, Mat. 18.5. and wound their weak Consciences, sin against Christ. 1 Cor. 8.12. And nevertheless every one avoweth that the Substance of Christ is not for all this really present in their Consciences or in their persons. And then why should one any more infer that the body and the blood of the Lord are really present in the Eu­charist, because they who take it un­worthily are guilty of his body, and do not discern it? who seeth not that this is an abusing of the Lord, to re­ject [Page 36]those who appertain to him, or to despise that which he hath instituted, and that which hath relation to him­self: As 'tis an abuse to a Prince to despise his Embassadors, his Seal, his Arms, or his Essigies? And it is not sufficient that the Eucharist be the Sa­crament of Christ the communicati­on of his body, and of his blood, & the memorial of his death (that which all confess) to render this Proposition true; whosoever receives it unwor­thily is guilty of the body of the Lord, and doth not discern it, without af­firming (as our Adversaries do) that this body and this blood are really present there.

5. Finally, They produce the mea­ning of the Lord, in the 6th of St. John, John 6.51 and so on. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, if any one eats of this bread, he shall live eternally; and the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world: and that which fol­loweth to the 59 Verse, presupposing that the Lord spake of the Eucharist; they conclude from thence that the Eucharist is not then bread and wine in Substance, but the body and blood [Page 37]of the Lord. But this Argument is so weak, that it hardly deserves to be considered. For it supposeth a dubi­ous thing, and concludes wrong, which are the most irregular faults, that can be in reasoning. First then, he suppo­seth that the Lord speaks of the Eu­charist in the 6th of St. John, which appears in no place in that Text, where the Evangelist makes no mention any where of the Holy Sacrament; it seemeth rather that one might induce the contrary from it. For the eating, upon which the Question is, is neces­sarily efficacious to Salvation; if any one eats of this bread he shall live e­ternally. Joh. 6.50. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day: He dwells in me, and I in him: Vers. 54. Vers. 56. As the living Father hath sent me, so I live be­cause of my Father, and he whr shall eat me, shall live also because of me. Now the eating of the Eucharist is not ne­cessarily efficacious to Salvation, ma­ny eating it to their judgment and condemnation. Vers. 57. 1 Cor. 11.29. This is not that then about which the Question is in the 6th of St. John. Moreover the eating [Page 38]which the Lord means, was necessary to those to whom he spoke, for the ob­taining Salvation; Joh. 6.53. if you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, you have no life in you; now the eating of the Eucharist was not neces­sary to those to whom he spoke for the obtaining Salvation, it being clear, that according to the Doctrine, even of our Adversaries, Baptism, Faith, and good Works are sufficient for them for the obtaining Salvation. It is not then the eating of the Sacrament, which our Lord spoke of in the 6 of St. John, as many very famous Interpreters have considered both Antient and Modern, and even amongst our Aen. Syl. since Pius II. Epist. 130. Cusan. ep. 7. ad Boh. John de Ragus. Orat. cor. Concil. Bazil. Cajet. in Joh. part. 3. q. 80. art. 8. Gabriel. in Can. John Hes­seltus l. de commun. sub una specie Jansen. concord. E­vang. c. 59. Ruard. Tapper. Art. 15. Vald. T. 2. de Sa­cram. c. 91. Armac. l. 9. c. 8. Adversaries, and un­derstand it a spiritual eating of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, which is done by Faith. And indeed the Lord shewed evi­dently that by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he signi­fied coming to him, believing in him, and meditating on him, since in [Page 39]his own discourse he ascribes the same effects to these actions, as to those of eating his flesh & drinking his blood. Who comes to me (saith he) shall not hun­ger, John 7.35.41, 47. and who believes in me shall never thirst. Whosoever seeth the Son and be­lieveth in him hath eternal life, and therefore I will raise him up at the last day. But although that which they presuppose, viz. that the Lord in the 6 of St. John spake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, were as clear and true, as it is obscure and doubtful, I always say, that they do not argue pertinently. First, they do not con­clude that which is in Question. For the Question is not, whether the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist (which is that which they conclude) but, whether the bread and the wine lose their nature there, and are there changed into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord, 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 [Page 40]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 [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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. 'Tis 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 [Page 44]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 Adverse­party, 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, [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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, 'tis 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 receive us into e­ternal habitations; where the Scrip­ture saith, that he doth a thing, which is the reason for which he doth it, al­though to speak properly and exact­ly he doth not do it.

Secondly, They abuse also the words of the Lord, where he saith, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, Matt. 12.32. neither in this age, nor in the other; that is to say (add they) neither in this life, nor in Purgatory. But why should not we rather say, that by the age to come, the Lord according to the Style of the Scriptures, understands the Age which shall follow after the Resurre­ction from the dead? and that it sig­nifieth, that God will never pardon [Page 47]this crime to the men who are guilty of it, neither now, nor at the last Judgment? that he will never give them absolution for it, neither in this life by the voice of his Spirit in their hearts, nor in the other by the mouth of his Son? Or why do not we say, that he means that this sin shall be grievously and irresistably punished, as well in this Age with temporal pains, as in the other with eternal? For as remitting or pardoning a sin signifieth not to punish, so the not pardoning it signifieth to punish it; yea, to punish it grievously and cer­tainly. In that great day the Lord will also remit the sins to the faithful, but not to impenitent sinners; and besides what the thing saith of its self, St. Paul testifieth it expresly, where he prays God to have mercy on the house of Onesiphorus in that day; 2 Tim. 1.18. Acts 1.19, 20. and St. Peter, where he exhorts the Jews to believe to the end, that their sins might be blotted out in the time of the refresh­ment of the Lord.

Thirdly, 1 Cor 3.15. The most part of the Ad­versaries turn to the Service of their Purgatory, that which St. Paul writes [Page 48]in the first to the Corinthians, If the work of any one be burnt, he shall suffer loss: but he shall be saved, yet as a­midst the fire, or rather by the fire, pretending that this fire is that of Purgatory. But first, this pas­sage by the common consent of Ancients and Moderns, is reckoned a­mongst the obscure and Allegorical, and by Consequence not proper to ground an Article of Faith upon. Se­condly, I say, that nothing can force us to take it for Purgatory. For to leave the Expositions of Chrysostom, of St. Augustin, and of many o­thers which take it otherwise, why shall we not rather understand it of the Judgment, which God shall make at the last day, of the Doctrine of those Preachers, who having retained the foundation of the Gospel, have built upon it vain Beliefs, which shall be reprehended by the light of the Advent of Jesus Christ, but in such manner, Amos 4.11. that losing the liking and praise of their own works, they themselves shall not perish? their works shall perish and not their per­sons, which shall be saved; but ne­vertheless [Page 49]as plucked out of the fire, that is to say, very hardly, Para­phrase up­on the E­pistles of St. Paul to the Co­rinth. Gal. & Eph. Printed by Touss du Bray. An. 1632. with Pri­viledge and Ap­probation. as if they escaped from a fire; as a fire-brand rescued from the burning, as Amos saith; and in such manner that they shall hold their Souls for a prey, be­ing obliged only to the bounty and Divine mercy for not having been devoured together with their works by the heat of that consuming fire which shall trie all men, as many Learned men expound it, and even the Author of the French Paraphrase upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, Published lately at Paris, and appro­ved by three Doctors of Sorbonne.

Fourthly, They have also-recourse to the Old Testament, and alledge, that the Lord in Zechary promised, Zech. 9.11. That he would draw his prisoners out of the lake in which there is no water. These are (say they) the Spirits which suffer in Purgatory. But this is to play and not to reason. For what is there in the Text of the Pro­phet which obligeth us to take this Lake for Purgatory? I leave the li­teral Interpretation, which under­stands it to be the Captivity and ca­lamity [Page 50]of the Jews deprived of the refreshments of the Divine word, and of the exercises of their Religion: If we must Allegorize, why should not we rather bring this passage to the eternal redemption which the Lord Jesus hath acquired to us by his blood, drawing his mystical Is­rael (that is to say) his Church from the sad and pitiful condition, where it was naturally, being a prisoner of the Devil, a slave of sin, and guilty of the wrath of God, the true Lake where there is no water, since in that state there is no confolation; where­as the Souls which they shut up in their Purgatory, notwithstanding their griefs, have according to what they say, Bellar. of Purgl. 2. c. 4. an incredible consolation, because of the certain hope of their Salvation.

CHAP. VII. That Justification by Works is not taught in the Scriptures.

FIrst, To the validity of the good works, which the regenerate do such (as they pretend) as merit the remission of sins and life eternal, it can no more be proved by the Scrip­tures than the precedent Doctrines. It is true, that the Lord said of the penitent sinner, Luke 7.47. Many sins are forgi­ven her, for she hath loved much. But it is also clear, both by the precedent similitude, and by the opposition which the Lord adds in saying, Ver. 41, 42. that to him to whom less is forgiven, loves less, that he sheweth her love which she bare to him, not as the meritori­ous cause, but as the signe and argu­ment of the Grace which he had done her. So we say very often, Ver. 47. the Sun is risen, for it is high day, to sig­nifie that the clearness of the day is not the cause but the effect and signe [Page 52]of the rising of the Sun. And so it is that the Jesuit Villalpandus under­stands this passage in his Commenta­ries upon Ezech. Villalp. in Ezech. 19.10. where having re­marked that quoniam, because, is ta­ken very often in the Scripture to sig­nifie therefore, and he alledgeth this passage for an example of it; Ma­ny sins are forgiven her, for she hath loved much, that is to say, Behold, why she hath loved much (saith he) for the Argument of the Lord drawn from the Parable of the Creditor, re­quired such an epiphonema, as is evi­dent to the Reader. As to the rest, that faith was the cause of the remis­sion of the sins of this woman, the Lord shews it clear enough, saying to her in the two Verses following, Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace; and that love to God, Charity to our Neighbours, and good works are the effects of the Grace which God doth us in pardoning us, all the Scriptures teacheth clearly, and namely Saint Paul, Eph. 2.10. where he saith, That we are the work of God created in Jesus Christ to good works which God hath prepared, to the end we might walk in them.

Secondly, I confess that St. James writes, James 2 21. that Abraham was justified by his works, when he offered up his Son Isaac upon the Altar. But 'tis clear that he understands not by this word, that Abraham did receive from God the pardon of his sins by the merit of this his work, since the Scripture saith (as St. Paul reports it) that before the birth of Isaac, Gen. 15.6. Rom. [...].23. the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righ­teousness. St. James disputes in this place not of the manner or condition by which man is absolved from his sin before God, but of the quality of the faith by which he is received into Grace, viz. that it is efficacious in good works, and not barren and un­fruitful, as that of which the Hypo­crites boast. And to prove it, he al­ledges amongst other reasons the ex­ample of Abraham, who indeed was absolved and received into Grace by faith; but 'twas by a lively faith, and effectual in good works, as he is ju­stified by the admirable obedience which he rendred to God in offering his only Son to him in Sacrifice. Then was clearly accomplished the Scrip­ture [Page 54]which giveth him the praise of having believed in God; it appears then that what is said of him is most true, James 2.22. Abraham believed in God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. His saith was finished or accom­plished, saith the Apostle, that is to say, 2 Cor. 12.9. it shewed its perfection and ac­complishment by works in the same manner as St. Paul saith, That the strength of the Lord is made perfect, or accomplished, in weakness, that is to say, that it sheweth his valour and perfection in our infirmities and af­flictions. 1 Tim. 3.16. This is that then which St. James means, when he saith, that Abra­ham was justified by works, that is to say, he proved and demonstrated by his works that which was real; as when St. Paul saith, That the Lord Je­sus was justified in Spirit, that is, that he proved and demonstrated by his great and admirable works, that he is true God blessed for ever. And it is in the same sense that we ought to understand that which St. James con­cludes, Vers. 24. You see then that a man is ju­stified by works, and not only by faith, that is to say, the man sheweth and [Page 55]proveth what he is, not only in be­lieving, but also in well-doing; if we confess voluntarily that we do de­test from our hearts this phantasm of faith which vaunts of believing without producing any good fruit, and confess that it is unuseful; it is exactly that which Saint James lays down at the beginning, Vers. 4. as the subject of all his designe, What will it profit him, if any one sayeth that he hath faith and hath not works? faith (or rather this faith) can it save him?

CHAP. VIII. That the Holy Scriptures doth not teach us that works merit eter­nal life.

1. THat if the good works of the faithful merit not the re­mission of their sins, much less can they merit eternal life. To prove it is so, they heap up divers places of the Scripture which shew that God will give eternal life to those who have lived holily, as the following, and [Page 56]other-like places, Rom. 1.6, 7.10. God shall render to every one according to his works, viz. to those who with patience and well do­ing seek for glory, honour, and immorta­lity, eternal life: But to those who are given to contentions, and agree not to the truth, but give themselves to iniqui­ty shall be indignation and wrath. Whosoever shall give to drink a Cup of eold water only to one of these little ones in the name of a Disciple, Mat. 10.42. verily I say unto you, that he shall not lose his re­ward. Mat. 25.34. Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, possess the Kingdom which hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was an hungred and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, &c. But neither these passages nor any like to them, As Mat. 5.12. & 16.27. 2 Cor. 5.10. Heb. 6.10. & 10 25. & 1.26. 2 Tim. 4.8. Apoc. 21.7. & 22 12. Prov. 11.10. Esa. 3.10. which are found in many places in the Holy Scriptures can prove that is in Question, viz. that the dignity and the excellencie of the works of the faithful are such as are worth eternal life, and that there is a certain proportion and e­quality between them and the Glory [Page 57]to come, which precisely requireth that it should be given to them for reward, God being there obliged e­ven by the justice of the same thing, and consequently cannot fail of it without violating the Justice which is between him and man. This is that which the merit of works signi­fie, which we denie and our Adversa­ries maintain. Bell. de Justif. l. 5. c. 17 & 18. All that one can law­fully infer from these passages, is, that God hath promised to give eternal life to those who live well and holi­ly; that one day he will accomplish perfectly this his promise; on this condition eternal life is a consequent, an acknowledgment and a reward of holiness and good works, which the faithful who labour and persevere in their vocation may and ought to expect from God. But who doubts of any of these truths? all that we say is, that we must expect this reward only from the Grace of God, who hath promised and will give it, be­cause he is most good, and not for the value and excellencie of our works, which (how good soever they be) are but our duty, with which we [Page 58]acquit our selves to God; incapable by consequence of meriting any thing, it being clear that he who do­eth that which he ought, and to whom he is obliged, acquits him­self only, and doth not merit.

Secondly, They alledge that the Lord speaking of the happy, Luke 20.35. saith, That they who shall be made worthy to obtain that life and the resurrection from the dead; Rev. 3.4. and elsewhere, that the faithful of Sardis should walk with him in white clothing, because they are wor­thy of it; and that St. Paul saith, spea­king of the Thessalonians, that they were afflicted to be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God. 2 Thes. 1.5 But I answer, that this word worthy, signifieth the dis­position and convenience of a thing, and not its merit. As when St. John exhorts the Jews to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, Mat. 3.8. that is to say, convenient for the repentance, which it answereth, and not which it merits (for this would be ridicule) it is then in this scuse that the truly faithful who live holily and persevere con­stantly in piety are worthy of the Kingdom and white Vestments of the [Page 59]Lord, that is to say, they have the qualities and conditions which are convenient for them, since it is to them who are such, 2 Thes. 1.6, 7. that God pro­miseth these things in his Grace.

Thirdly, Moreover they say, that this retribution of God is a work of his Justice; 'tis a just thing before God (saith the Apostle) That he giveth affliction to those who afflict you, Heb. 6.10. and to you who are afflicted deliverance with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with the Angels of his power: and elsewhere, God is not unjust to forget your work and cha­rity which you have shewed towards his Name, in as much as you have mini­stred to the Saints, and do minister: 2 Tim. 4.8. Psal. 112.9. 2 Cor. 9.9. Mat. 6.1. Dan. 4.24. & 9.16. Ezech. 18.19, 21. in the Version of the 70. Deut. 24.3 Eccles. 44.10. and again in another place, The Crown of Justice is kept for me, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but al­so to all those who love his coming. But I say first, that this word Justice ac­cording to the phrase of the He­brew Language signifieth very often benignity and liberality, and just like­wise, benign and gracious, as in the 112 Psalm alledged by St. Paul, He [Page 60]hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor, his righteousness endureth for ever; from whence it comes that Alms which is an act of gratuity and bene­ficence is called Justice in the 6th of St. Matthew. In this sense who seeth not that retribution of life e­ternal to the faithful, is truly an act of the Divine Justice, that is to say, of his Grace and benignity; that 'tis an Alms which he giveth us. Secondly, I say, that it is just that God should give life eternal to those who have believed and obeyed, not that they have merited, but because hehath promlsed it. As 'tis also a ju­stice to keep ones word in accom­plishing that which one hath promi­sed, Nohem 9. although one hath promised it but upon meer gratuity, without being obliged to it by the merits of him to whom one promiseth it. In fine, in comparing the cause and case of the faithful with that of the wicked who afflict them, the one ha­ving manifestly the right on their side, and the other the wrong; it is yet in this respect for the Justice of God to maintain the one and con­demn [Page 61]and punish the other. But this is not to say, that considering throughly the persons and works of the faithful in themselves; and with­out this comparison, there is no­thing in them, which to speak pro­perly merits the Heavenly Glory, with which the Father will one day Crown them gratis, according to the saying of the Apostle, Rom. 6.23. that life eter­nal by Jesus Christ our Lord, is a Grace of God. But there is no need to insist much upon this Article, since that amongst our Adversaries them­selves there are found great and cele­brated Authors, who openly reject this Doctrine, being far from pre­tending that it is in the Scriptures, some disputing that the good works of the faithful are not meritorious, by reason of the works themselves, but only by reason of the Promise and Divine acceptance, as Scotus and Vaga: Others, that supposing the Promise of God, yet they are not such that the hire is due to them by Justice, See Bellar. of Justif. l. 5. c, 16. but only by the liberality of God; as Durandus, so Cardinal Bel­larmin reports it.

CHAP. IX. That praying to Saints departed, is not taught in the Scrip­tures.

1. LEt us now consider of pray­ing to the Saints departed, for which there is found neither Com­mand nor Example in all the Wri­tings of the Old and New Testa­ments; and they alledge for its foun­dation nothing but passages very far fetched; as for example, that wch Ja­cob said being upon his death-bed, Let my name be called upon these Children, Gen. 48.16. that is, upon Ephraim and Manasseh, which is not a Command to invoke him after his death, but a declarati­on by which he adopts them, willing that they might be called by his name as if they had been his proper Chil­dren, as all the Learned party of our Adversaries confess, Nic. d'Lyra, Pintus, Eman. Sa, Pagnin, Arias Montauus, and 'tis the same manner [Page 63]of speaking which is found in Esai. in the fourth Chapter, where he brings in women which say to a man, Isai. 4.1. only let thy name be called upon us.

Secondly, But say they, the faith­ful under the Old Testament, make mention of the Saints departed in the prayers which they put up to God, Have remembrance of Abraham, Exod. 32.13. Isaac, and Israel thy servants, to whom thou hast sworn by thy self, say­ing, I will multiply your seed as the Stars in Heaven. We do not deny that it was permitted them to pro­duce to the Lord the Promises which he made to their Fathers, as it is law­ful for us to put him in minde of that which he hath done for us in Jesus Christ, of which these first were the figures. But the question is, whether we may, and ought to address these prayers to deceased Saints, which cannot be drawn from this allegation by any good reason.

Thirdly, Moreover, Mat. 22.30. they discourse thus: Our Lord teacheth us that the Saints departed are as the Angels of God in Heaven; Gen. 48.15. now Jacob invo­ked an Angel: It is then permitted [Page 64]us to invoke the Saints. A feeble, a pitiful reasoning. For first, the Lord speaks of the state of Saints after the Resurrection; and the Question is of the condition they are in now before the Resurrection. Secondly, The Lord compares them to Angels, not generally and in respect of all the conditions of their beings (for up­on this account they must conclude they will have no bodies after the Resurrection, since the Angels have none) but only in respect of these things, viz that they will not mar­ry, Maldon. upon this passage. as St. Jerom, and after him the Jesuit Maldonat remarks; in the Re­surrection (saith the Lord) they shall neither marry, nor be given in marri­age, but shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven. And as to the Angel which Jacob invoked, who knows not that 'tis the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3.1. Gen. 48. 15, 16. the eternal Son of God. The God (saith he) before whom my fathers A­braham and Isaac have walked, the God who fed me from my youth to this day, Cyril. A­lex. The­saur. l. 3. the Angel who hath defended me from evil bless these Children: St. Cy­ril of Alexandria hath so amply de­fended [Page 65]this truth against the Arians, who would (as our Adversaries at this time) bend these words to a cre­ated Angel, which we have no need to insist upon any longer to clear.

Fourthly, They argue again thus; We pray the faithful living here be­low with us to pray to God for us, as St. Paul commanded the Romans, Rom. 15.30. Coll. 4.3.1. Eph. 6.9. 1 Thes. 5.25. 2 Thes. 3.1 1. 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 [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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 'tis 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 [Page 68]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, 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 69]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 'tis 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 Palm­trees, 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 [Page 71]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 [Page 72]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 D [...]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 having caused the shadow to vanish by the true body which he hath publikely shew­ed. Secondly, because God expresly commanded Moses that he should do them; whereas he never ordained such-like Images in the Roman Church. All that one can conclude from it, is, that since the Serpent made by the Command of God, was nevertheless broken by Hezekiah, when the people rendred to it a re­ligious honour; it would be very convenient also that Christian Prin­ces [Page 73]and Bishops should take from Churches and publike places the I­mages of he and she Saints, when men begin to worship them, though they were neasted there, not only (as every one knows) by humane Autho­rity, but Divine Institution. But this Consequence doth not favour their Veneration.

CHAP. XI. That the Scripture teacheth not that the Bishop of Rome is the Pontifical Spouse, and Mo­narch of the Ʋniversal Church, nor Authorizes any thing which is founded only upon the Authorities of the Pope.

1. THe great and principal Arti­cle follows, which they e­steem alone capable and needful to maintain all the rest, viz. the Monar­chy and infallibility of the Pope of Rome. They endeavour to prove by Scripture, that he is the Head, Spouse, and Monarch of the Universal Church, but by reasons so strange and far from all appearance, that 'tis very easie to finde that 'tis their Passion and not their Judgment which hath con­ceived them.

For first, they assert the Sovereign Pontifex which precided over all the [Page 75]Church of Israel, during the time of the Old Testament; and that this Type may have its accomplishment under the new Covenant, they con­clude that there is a Sovereign Pon­tifex in the Christian Church, Heb. 3.2. & 4.14. & 5.5, 6. & 7.26, 27. & 8.1, 2. & 9, to the 11. and add that the Pope of Rome is the Monarch of it, as if St. Paul the A­postle had not taught us that Jesus Christ is the Sovereign High Priest of his Church; or as if this his Priest­hood alone had not body and truth enough to accomplish all the figure of the Ancient; and as if on the contra­ry the Unity of the Antient Pontifex did not evidently exclude the preten­sions of Rome, it being clear that if they have place, there will be two High-Priests in the Christian Church a­gainst that which was figured in the Judaical, where they had but one; and finally, as if this High-Priest­hood ought to belong to the Bishop of Rome rather than to any other, supposing that there was one in the Christian Church besides that of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They have also recourse to that which the Lord promised St. Peter, Matth. 16.18.19. [Page 76]to build his Church upon him, and to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of bind­ing and unbinding; and that which he commanded him three times after his Resurrection, John 21.15, 16, 17. to feed his sheep, and to some advantages which he seem­eth to have had above the other A­postles, Matth. 10.2. Matth. 17.24. as, that he is called the first, and that the Lord payed Tribute-Money for him; and from all this conclude, that the Bishop of Reme is the Prince and Sovereign Monarch of the Catholick Church: an ill and im­pertinent reasoning, which suppo­seth falsities, and concludes ill. For to begin with the last, that St. Peter was the Foundation and Monarch of the Church, the Prince and King of the Apostles; and in sum, what you will; what is this in common to the Pope at present, or with any of his Bredecessours, to conclude from one to the other, Peter was the Head of the Church, the Pope sitting now at Rome is therefore so? How many Seas and Abysses must be filled before these two can joyn? for they must first prove that St. Peter was at Rome. [Page 77]Secondly, that he was Bishop of the Roman Church. Thirdly, that he left the Bishop of Rome all the dig­nities that he had. Now 'tis evident that they cannot prove any one of these three Articles by the Holy Scriptures; not so much as the first of these, which is the important. For let Rome be this Babylon from whence St. Peter dated his first Epi­stle, 1 Pet. 5.13. there is no necessity obligeth us to believe it; so that to be able to prove a Thesis by Scripture, one must not (according to them) enter into any Proposition in the proof of it, which is not in the Scripture; it is perfectly clear that the power of the Pope cannot be found in the Scrip­tures. And as for the other two Pro­positions, one that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome: the other, that he left all his Dignity to the Bishop of Rome, they are infinitely far from all appearance of truth and reason. But it sufficeth us for the designe of this Treatise, that it cannot be foun­ded upon the Scriptures. So then al­though it saith, Thou art Peter, and feed my sheep, one cannot draw from [Page 78]thence the Monarchy of the Pope. But I say moreover, that what they presuppose in their discourse, viz. that St. Peter was the Master and Prince of the other Apostles is false, and cannot be proved by any of those passages which they alledge. The Lord said to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this stone will I build my Church. But in what Logick doth that signifie that he should be the Monarch of the Church, and the Prince of the Apo­stles? I shall pass by the belief which the most part of the Ancient Fathers, and some of our Adversaries have of taking this Stone upon which our Lord promised to build his Church; for the Lord himself, the Rock or Stone of Ages confessed by St. Peter, a August. de verbis Dom. See Mat. Serm. 13. Tract. 124. in John. for his Faith and Confession, b. Tract. 13. in Epist. John. D. T. 9. Serm. 22. ex 40. Serm. edit a Serm. p 248. pri­mals. l. 2. in Apoc. p. 13.84. c. & l. 5. p. 1456. C. Bibi. pp. T. 1. Anselm. in eum loc. Gloss. in­terlin. Lyran. Joan. Arbor. Theosophia l. 5. c. 5. Alliac concord. l. 2. c. 13. c. Hilar. l. 6. de Trin fol. 30. b. col. 2. Ambros. 6. de Incar. Dom. Sa­cram. c. 5. in it. Aug. tract. 10. in ep. John. l. tom. 9. Auctor. and not for the person of St. Peter. I will suppose that these words, and upon this stone I will build my [Page 79]Church, be applied to St. Peter. What is it that gives him so much advan­tage about the foundation of it, and upon the Prophets themselves which God raised up at the beginning of Christianity, following that which St. Paul saith, That we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro­phets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; and what other thing doth it signifie, except that in preaching the Gospel they have abo­lished the Synagogue and founded the Christian Church, the new Repub­like of the Lord his Celestial King­dom: All the advantage which St. Peter had over the other in this re­spect was, that he preached the first 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 [Page 80]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 [Page 81]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 [Page 82]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 [Page 83]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: 'tis 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 [Page 84]his family there. In brief, whate­ver it be, 'tis 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 [Page 85]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 [Page 86]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 other­like 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 [Page 88]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 [Page 89]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 [Page 90](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. 'Tis 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 [Page 91]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 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 [Page 93]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 Ʋnction, nor of the Ex­treme Ʋnction, but rather of the Ʋncti­on 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 Ʋnction 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 Ʋnction.

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 [Page 95]Tribute to the Magistrates. For first, 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 96]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, [Page 97]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 [Page 98]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 [Page 99]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 [Page 100]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 [Page 101]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 [Page 102]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 [Page 103]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 'tis 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, [Page 104]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 [Page 105]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 [Page 106]incredible as all the other Articles which they assert, so that this can­not serve to prove that they 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 [Page 107]in Books of the Fathers, or no, 'tis a­nother Question. 'Tis 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.

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 [Page 124]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 'tis not possible to comprehend them; they wrap up things in inexplicaple con­tradictions; as 'tis 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 [Page 125]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 [Page 126]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 [Page 127]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 'tis thus, 'tis 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 [Page 128]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.