Faith Grounded Upon the Holy Scriptures Against the New Methodists, Part 1

Faith Grounded Upon the Holy Scriptures Against the New Methodists · Part 1

p. 1FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures.

Part I.

CHAP. I. The Preface of the whole Work.

SOme years ſince certain Doctors ſtarted up, who, to render our Religion odious, publiſhed, that it could not be proved by the Scriptures; which nevertheleſs, according to us, is the only thing capable to ground our Faith upon. Their invention was found ſo plauſible, that many of our adverſaries have reduced all their dialectiques to it; thinking that to defeat us, there needs no more, but to demand ſome expreſs and formal paſſages upon every Article of our Confeſſion of Faith, and whoſoever p. 2can 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.

p. 3CHAP. 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 p. 4being 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 onelyonly 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 p. 5they 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 p. 6it 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 p. 7age 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.

p. 8CHAP. 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 onelyonly 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 p. 9poſſible 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 onelyonly 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 p. 10poyſons 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 p. 11having 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 onelyonly 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 p. 12all 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 p. 13the 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 p. 15of God, or that thoſe who believe his Goſpel ſhall have the happy Aeternity; We cannot prove the truth of it then but onelyonly 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 p. 14Faith, 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 onelyonly 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 p. 16ſince 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 p. 17examine 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.Rom 10:17of which the Scripture is the firſt, the moſt clear, moſt certain, and (in my judgment) the only infallible Doctrine?

p. 18CHAP. 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 p. 19long 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 p. 20by 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 p. 21revelations, 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 p. 22with 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 p. 23poſſeſſions 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.

p. 24CHAP. 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 p. 25they 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.Matt 4:6When 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.Matt 12:2Matt 12:3Matt 12:4Matt 12:5Matt 12:6and when the Phariſies imployed the ordinance of the Sabbath againſt his diſciples plucking the ears of corn, p. 26why 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 p. 27conſequences 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 p. 28lights 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 onelyonly 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.Matt 4:9Matt 4:10Matt 4:6Matt 4:7Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him onelyonly 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 p. 29the law, Mat. 15.4.Matt 15:4honour 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.Matt 22:32I 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 p. 30and 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.Acts 3:22Deut 18:15Acts 2:27Acts 2:29Acts 2:30Acts 2:31Ps 16:10Rom 4Ps 32:1Ps 32:2Gen 15:6a 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.Rom 9:8and 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.Gal 4:28that '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.Gen 21:12Rom 9:15Rom 9:16Exod 33:19in 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 p. 31the rejection of the Jews by theſe words of the Scripture, Rom. 9.23.33, Hoſ. 2, 23. Rom. 14.10, 11. Eſai. 45.25.Rom 9:23Rom 9:33Hos 2:23Rom 14:10Rom 14:11Isa 45:25behold 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.Heb 1:5Ps 2:7Heb 5:7thou 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.Heb 7:21I 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 p. 32many 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.Acts 17:2Acts 17:3Acts 18:28and 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 p. 33and 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. foreignActs 17:3uſeing 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 p. 34one 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 5:39John 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.Matt 22:29Matt 22:31Matt 22:32And in Matt. 22. diſputing againſt the Phariſes who denyed the reſurrection from the dead, you err p. 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.

p. 36CHAP. 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; **foreignand againſt the Arians that the Son is conſubſtantial with the Father, ††foreignand againſt the Neſtorians that the Holy p. 37Virgin is mother of God, **foreignand againſt the Eutichians that Jeſus Chriſt hath two natures, ††foreignall 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 p. 38not 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 p. 39the 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.

p. 40But 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 p. 41their 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 p. 42demand 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 p. 43of 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 p. 44or 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, p. 45ſo 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 p. 46Sylogiſms (ſay they) and give us a Demonſtration by writing that the Son is the true God aaAtha. Ep. de Synod-Arim. & Seleue. T. p. 911 Part. ultim. foreign. 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. bbEp. 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, ccId 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, p. 47but, 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. ddDial. 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? eeIn 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 ffScholar. 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 p. 48that 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, p. 49provided that the ſenſe of them be Orthodox; and in the treatiſe of the decrees of the Council of Nice, ccidem 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? aaAug. 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; bbIbid. 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? ccId 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. p. 50Chryſoſtome ddId. 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.eeChryſoſt. 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; aaGreg 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 bbp. 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 p. 51in 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, ccforeignit 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 p. 52is not begotten and without begining) written in ſo many words, or elſe we will reject them becauſe they are not written. aap. 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 p. 53(which they call Macedonians from Macedonius their Author) who alledged likewiſe, that tis no where writ that the holy Ghoſt is God. aaDialog. 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, p. 54is 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 onelyonly. 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 p. 55words of the Scripture ſimply without conſidering the things which they ſignifie, under pretence that they ſurpaſs the underſtanding of all men bbTheod. 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, eeId. tract. 23. p. 325. d.that they command to believe without reaſon aaIbid.to believe ſimply that which is ſaid without conſidering what is convenient and what is not ſo, bbIbid 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, ccIbid. D.that they would have p. 56ccIbid.their words believed without permiting any one to examine their Doctrine for fear they ſhould be convinced. ddp, 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, eep. 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, ffIbid. 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, aaIbid. 3.(which he verifieth at large by the induction of divers paſſages of p. 57eternity, and of the temporal birth of Chriſt which ſeems contrary, bbp. 310. D.ſo they expoſe the Scriptures to the mockery of the Infidels; ccp. 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, dd327. 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 p. 58through, 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 p. 59me 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 aaDialog. 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, p. 60which 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. aaIbid. p. 476. infrmed.And upon this debate of the p. 61manner 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, bbIbid. 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. aaIbid. med.Judge if this be not p. 62the 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? bbIbid. 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 p. 63the 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 p. 64their 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 p. 65me 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 p. 50unreaſonable 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.John 5:3John 5:6and how could he declare by all the p. 51Scriptures biginning with Moſes, and ſo through all the Prophets the things concerning himſelf: **Luke 24.27.Luke 24:27and 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.Acts 26:22Acts 26:23and finally, how could he in another place aſſure the **1 Cor. 15 34.1 Cor 15:34Corinthians 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 p. 68in 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 p. 69can 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 aaScholar. 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 p. 54and 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 bbBellar. l. 4. de Ec. c. 3.. Melchior Canus ccCan. loc. Theol. l. b. c. 8., Biſhop of the Canaries, Vega ddVeg. l. 9. dê juſtificat. c. 39., Gabril Vasques eeVaſques Tom. 1 in Thom. diſpute 5.6, 3. and diſput. 12. art. 8.6. ….Alfons Salmeron ffSalmer 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.

p. 55CHAP. 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 p. 72endeavoured 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 p. 73of 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 p. 58which 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 p. 59from 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 p. 76that 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 p. 77move, 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 p. 62is 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 p. 63not? 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 p. 80who 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 aaLook 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.Matt 7:9) p. 81but 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 p. 82injuſtice, 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.Gen 1:16and 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.Acts 10:13which 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 p. 83Mat. 5.2.Matt 5:2paid the laſt farthing, and their Sacrifice from the words of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.24. Matt. 26.26.1 Cor 11:24Matt 26:26do 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 p. 84with 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 p. 85them, 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, p. 86not 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 p. 87he 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 p. 88hath 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 p. 89grounded 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 p. 90which 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly; 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 p. 91in 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.Rom 3:10Rom 3:11Rom 3:12Heb 4:15John 3:16John 3:18It 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.Gal 3:10Deut 27:26Exod 20:14and 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 p. 92the 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 onelyonly 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 p. 93from 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 p. 94for 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, p. 95only 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 p. 96the 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 p. 97ſhould 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, p. 98learned 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 p. 99hath 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 p. 100reaſoneth, 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 aaMelch Canus lo…. theolog. l. 6 c. 8..

Vega ſaith likewiſe that nothing hinders theſe propoſitions from being ranked amongſt thoſe of Faith bbVega 9 de juſtifie. c 39.. And Vaſques makes the ſame judgement of it. ccVaſques. 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 p. 101prove 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 p. 102which 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 ddAmbroſ. 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 p. 103the 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 p. 104maximes 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.

The End of the Firſt part.