Faith Grounded Upon the Holy Scriptures Against the New Methodists, Part 3 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV. Reſolution of that which the Adverſaries pretend, that the above-mentioned Articles have been taught by the Apoſtles, although they are not contained in the Scriptures.
SO evident is it, that none of the Articles of the Belief of Rome, which we reject from ours can be ſhewen by Scripture.
Firſt, To which they will anſwer, it may be, that although it be ſo, they have nevertheleſs been revealed by the Lord, and taught by word of mouth by his Apoſtles, the Scriptures not containing all the Articles of the Chriſtian Doctrines; of which many have been (as they ſay) given and preſerved from hand to hand by a Tradition not written. But I ſay, firſt, that to conſider the thing exactly, it ſeemeth to me that the ſilence of the Scriptures upon theſe Articles is ſufficient to prove that they have been revealed, neither by Jeſus Chriſt, nor received and believed by his Apoſtles, nor by them given and commanded to their Diſciples for Doctrines neceſſary to faith and Salvation. For if at that time they had been kept in the liſt which Rome at this time gives them, if they had been eſteemed the principal Fundamentals of Religion, and the moſt exquiſite and important parts of the ſervice of God; why ſhould not theſe holy men have made ſome mention of them, in the many Books which they have purpoſely writ upon Divine things, and which by the Providence of the Lord are come to us? Why did the four Evangeliſts conceal them? the Acts make no mention of them? How comes it that St. Peter, St. John, St. James, St. Jude, and above all St. Paul in his fourteen admirable Epiſtles, ſo full and ſo abounding every where in Chriſtian Doctrine, have not ſaid one word of them? I do not now urge that theſe Books are the Cannon of Faith that they have been ſet down in writing to the end the Doctrine of Religion ſhould be preſerved entirely there. Let us ſuppoſe (ſince Rome will have it ſo) that they were written by chance, and without the deſigne of giving to us the whole body of faith. Yet one cannot deny but they have been written the moſt part of them upon matters of faith. Now who will believe that ſo many excellent perſons writing ſo many Books upon ſuch a Subject ſhould forget the principal, as by a conſort and common conſpiration? how happened it that in ſome place they did not ſpeak to us of the Sacrifice of the Maſs, the pretended Soul of all Religion? Of Tranſubſtantiation, which is the ground of it; of the worſhipping of the Hoſt, the heart of Devotion; of the Veneration of Images; of private Confeſſion; of the Invocation of departed Saints; all exerciſes of Piety ſo exquiſite and ſaving? If you believe thoſe of Rome. Why have they not in ſome places commanded obedience to the Pope, magnified his Authority, the only hinge upon which their faith turns, the life and Salvavation of humane kinde, according to the Mximes of our Adverſaries? Now and ſome Ages puſt there hath not been written any Book of Religion how little ſoever it hath been, where theſe Doctrines have not always been met withal; and indeed if they were of that importance which they make them, it were to betray men to ſpeak to them of piety without touching upon theſe. Let then the Scriptures of the New Teſtament be, if they pleaſe a Letter only of Credence, an imperfect Rule, and in ſum, what they will; yet it conſiſteth of many Books of conſiderable bigneſs, and it is no way credible but in ſome part or other there would have been ſome mention made of theſe Doctrines, if theſe divine Authors had believed and taught them.
Secondly, Above all, if you conſider that the particular deſigne of their Tracts and Diſputes would evidently oblige them to ſpeak of them in divers places, where they ſay nothing of them. For Example, St. Paul making a long compariſon between Chriſt and Melchiſedec in the ſeventh Chapter of his Epiſtle to the Hebrews, and treating almoſt of no other thing in all that Divine Epiſtle, but of the Prieſthood, was not he evidently obliged to ſpeak of the Sacrifice of the Altar, and of the Species under which he was offered, and ſo myſteriouſly figured ſo many Ages before by the bread and wine of Melchiſedec? and nevertheleſs he ſaith not a word of it. What do I ſay, that he ſaid not a word of it? he hath done more. For inſtead of ſaying theſe things ſo neceſſary to his Subject according to the Hypotheſis of Rome, he ſayeth others of it, which ſhakes it ſo rudely, that the Devoto's of his Sacrifice were all ſcandalized at it, their Doctors ſweating unprofitably to make theſe agree with their belief.
Thirdly, In the eleventh of the firſt to the Corinthians, the Apoſtle chaſtiſeth the irreverence of the Corinthians in the celebrating of the Sacrament who mixed their meals with the Communion of the Lord, could he alledge to them upon this Subject any thing more to the purpoſe than the Tranſubſtantiation and Adoration of the Sacrament, ſhewing them, that it is not bread which we receive in the Euchariſt, that it is the Lord of Glory, the very body which was crucified for us upon the Croſs? What Romiſh Doctor is there who being to treat of this Subject doth not uſe this reaſon at the beginning, middle, and end of his Diſpute? But the Apoſtle ſaith nothing of it, and (that which is altogether ſtrange) very far from ſpeaking ſo, in ſpeaking of the Sacrament, he calls it Bread three times.
Fourthly, in divers places of his Epiſtles, as namely in the 12 Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Romans, in the fourth of the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, in the third of the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, and elſewhere, he infers all along the duties of the faithful, as well for their piety towards God, as for their charity towards their Neighbours. But he ſaith not a word of their ſecret Confeſſion, nor of their Invocation of Saints, nor of their worſhipping of Images, nor of any ſuch-like things.
Fifthly, 1 Theſ. 4.13.In the firſt to the Theſſalonians, he ſpeaks of our duties in the mourning which we uſe for departed friends; but without ſpeaking to us to pray for them, which was the fitteſt place for it.
Sixthly, In the firſt to the Corinthians he reprehends their diviſions at the beginning, but '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, and in the Epiſtle to Titus he writes at large the conditions requiſite to to the Biſhops and Deacons. Tit. 1.6.How upon this point, did he not ſpeak of their not marrying, if it were eſteemed neceſſary in ſuch charges?
Ninthly, 1 Pet. 1.1. & 5.1.St. Peter in the beginning of his Epiſtle is qualified with the Title of the Apoſtle of Jeſus Chriſt; and in the laſt Chapter recommends to the Prieſts the duty of their charge, and to make them value his admonition, he alledges to them only that he is an Elder amongſt them. Why did he not take in ſuch an occaſion the name of Monarch of the Church, or, Of Servant of the Servants of God, that is to ſay, the firſt and higheſt of all the Officers of God, which are in the world: no body can be ignorant, but that it would have been an imprudence near to ſtupidity of theſe holy Authors to have forgotten theſe things in ſuch conſiderable places if they had believed them? But their Writings (although we knew no other things of them) doth enough juſtifie to us their wiſdom and dexterity in judiciouſly uſing every thing that might ſerve for their purpoſe. Read St. Paul, and the firſt Epiſtle of St. Peter, and you will not demand other proofs for this. It remains then that we ſay that their ſilence about theſe Doctrines of Rome ſo conſtant and ſo univerſal, and even in places where it had been to the purpoſe to alledge them, prove clearly that they did not know them.
10. After all, If it be not poſſible to ſhew by the Scriptures that theſe Doctrines have been revealed by the Lord, and taught by his Apoſtles, I do not ſee by what other means one can prove it. For as for the Books of the Antient Doctors, which they commonly call the Fathers, their Authority is not great enough, nor the teſtimonies which they render of theſe Doctrines evident enough to ground them upon, and to oblige us neceſſarily to put them amongſt the Articles of our Faith, as we have (in my Opinion) ſufficiently ſhewed in a Treatiſe which we have publiſhed upon this Subject. And as to the Authority of the Roman Church which now is, it is as doubtful and incredible as all the other Articles which they aſſert, ſo that this cannot ſerve to prove that they are Divine and Apoſtolique. Since then that the Articles of our faith are in the Scriptures, and thoſe of Rome are not there, it is clear that our Religion is certain and aſſured, as founded upon the moſt authentick Inſtructions of Chriſtianity, and that it cannot be rejected without denying Chriſtianity it ſelf; and that of Rome on the contrary in that wherein it differs from ours, is doubtful and uncertain, and cannot be imbraced with a full and intire faith.
11. But I ſay in the ſecond place, that all this Diſpute is out of our way: For my deſigne is only to ſhew that our Beliefs are in the Scriptures, and that thoſe of Rome which we reject, are not there; to deſtroy the accuſations of the Methodiſts who pretend that to eſtabliſh our faith, we are obliged to have recourſe to other Principles than Scripture. Whether the Beliefs of Rome be found in other Documents of Chriſtianity, as in Books of the Fathers, or no, '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.