LA FOY fondée sur les Saintes Escritures.  
FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures; Against the NEW METHODISTS. by JOHN DAILLE. Printed in French at Paris anno 1634.  
And now Englished by M. M.  Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the Word of God, Rom. 10.18. 
LONDON, Printed for Benj. took at the sign of the Ship in S. Paul's Churchyard, 1675.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
ALthough the French translation, of the Holy Bible, made by the Doctors of Louvain, can, by no means, be comparable to the neatness, clearness and faithfulness of that which is read among us, yet, (to fit, myself to the gust of our Adversaries,) I have drawn from their Translations (and not from ours) the most part of the places of Scripture, which I make use of in this little book, namely in the second and third parts; to the end, they might not wrangle with us about words, as many of them do, and particularly these new Methodists against whom I have composed this Treatise.  
Only let me inform you, that in three or four passages which are nothing to our controversy, I have taken the liberty to correct that in the Greek and Latin texts which these Gentlemen had too evidently turned false, by in advertency (as I am willing to believe) and ignorance, and not by malice. As for example in the second part Chap. 4.3. pag. 124. I produce the first verse of the Gospel of S. John, in these words, the word was God, and not as these Doctors have expounded it, God was the word, whereof the two construction which these words are capable of, Deus erat verbum, they choose to follow that which is less to purpose, and which, besides the consusion which it brings to the contexture of the Apostles thoughts, does manifestly overturn the words of the Greek text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shows that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot of necessity, be the predicate, but the subject of the proposition, as those, who have any knowledge in the Laws and use of the Greek tongue, know well enough. So in the Epistle to Titus, see how they translate the words of S. 
Tit. 2.13.  Paul, expectantes beatam spem, & adventum gloriae magni Dei & Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, expecting (say they) the blessed hope, and the coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, separating this God, whose advent we expect, from our Saviour Jesus Christ, as if the Apostle should say, we expect the coming of God, and we expect also the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ, an interpretation, neither pertinent nor advantageous to the Church; for first, the Greek text cannot bear it which binds and ties up all these words, great, and our Saviour, in the same bundle by means of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Apostle put into their heads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obliging us necessarily to take them, not as names of two persons, one of which is called God, and the other Jesus Christ, but as two different qualities, attributed to one only and the same Jesus Christ, which is altogether the same with the great God, and the Saviour, whose advent we expect; but this same interpretation is also prejudicial, for it takes away from the Catholics a clear and invincible proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ, for if you follow it, suppose that Jesus Christ be our Saviour (which the Samotosateniens and Arrians confess,) yet still he is not our God, and this is that which they struggle for principally. No body then can blame me for leaving the Louvain version in this place to follow the Greek Text in translating this passage Part 2. Chap. 4.3. pag. 124. where I produce against the heretics, expecting the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. That which I have changed (part 2. Chap. 8. 1. pag. 106.) in the second chapter of the first of S. Peter, is less important, Love the brotherhood, instead of which our adversaries Bible saith, Love brotherhood, leaving out the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Greek.  
So in the first of S. Luke I read, and therefore that which is born of thee holy, shall be called the Son of God (Part 2. Chap 4. Sect. 7. pag. 92.) therefore the holy one that shall be born of thee, as they of Louvain have translated it, contrary to the Faith of the Greeks who say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & of the Latin, which saith likewise, quod nascetur ex te Sanctum, & not, qui nascetur ex te Sanctus. As for the small change of words in the 2 Cor. chap. 5. verse 8. where we say, we have a good will rather to be out of the body, and to be with the Lord, instead of that which is in the Louvain bible, I have a good will better to be out of the body, we have done this only to sweeten the manner of speaking, avoir bonne volonte meiux estre is rough and unknown in our language, and the Greek and Latin texts do no way oblige us to interpret it so.  
These are (if my memory doth not cheat me) all the passages in which I have varied from the Louvain version in divers other places I bear with its faults, because they do no great prejudice to the justice and truth of my cause, although there are some of them which testify (in these Doctors) a passion unworthy of the quality which they take of interpreting the Word of God, as among others, when in, Pet. 1.5, 3. (alleged part 2. ch. 8. 5. pag. 109. they read having dominion of the Clergy of the People of God, instead of the plainness of the Greek and Latin, having dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cleris over the heritage, being licenced to add the words, and people of God, and to hid, by this means, the sense which the Apostle gives in the word Clergy, employed to signify the Christian people, which is contrary to the use and pretence of those of Rome.   

FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures.  
Part I.  

CHAP. I. The Preface of the whole Work.  
SOme years since certain Doctors started up, who, to render our Religion odious, published, that it could not be proved by the Scriptures; which nevertheless, according to us, is the only thing capable to ground our Faith upon. Their invention was found so plausible, that many of our adversaries have reduced all their dialectiques to it; thinking that to defeat us, there needs no more, but to demand some express and formal passages upon every Article of our Confession of Faith, and whosoever can press that demand home he is the man that must overcome us. This easy 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 punctilioes, I have undertaken briefly to prove our Faith by the Scriptures; And that I may proceed as I ought, before I enter upon the matter, 'tis necessary for me to clear two points, The one is, what those things are which we are obliged to prove, and the other is, by what means we are obliged to prove them.   

CHAP. II. That we are obliged to prove by the Scriptures the things only which we believe, and not those which we reject.  
AS to the first point it is evident that our Faith is that which we have to prove, that is to say, the things which we believe true in Religion, and by the belief 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 show 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 opinion appear, it being evident (without that) no one is tied to believe since reason does not oblige us to believe any but what is true. From whence does already appear the extreme injustice of those new Disputants, who demand of us not only 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 show the truth of that which they believe, they desire us to produce some passages, importing the falsehood of what they believe; for example, they are not contented that we prove by Scripture, that the Son of God is our Mediator, 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 ourselves with passages which establish the Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ, which we believe, but with others too which formally rejects the pretended propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, which they believe and we do not. Likewise they pretend, that besides the passages which say, that Jesus is the head of the Church which is one of the Articles of our Faith, we ought to put in another, which saith that the Pope of Rome is not the head of the visible Church, which is (as every one knows) one of the Articles of their Faith and none of ours, and because that is not produced, they assert we are not able to prove our Faith by the Scriptures, and therefore we are Obliged to embrace theirs. Can any one imagine a more irregular piece of injustice. The law orders that he that puts an action should be obliged to prove it. It is enough for one that is accused to show the nullity of the proofs of the adverse party. No right, no law, no custom, let it be never so injust, hath ever obliged the accused to prove by affirmative witnesses, that he hath not done that, which they charge him with; he is quitted so soon as it appears that the reasons and allegations of the accuser are nulled; and from hence comes the proverb of the Lawyers, evidently Grounded upon natural justice, that it belongs to him who layeth the action, to prove it; for there is a respect to be had to the right of the action as well as to the action itself. 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 Romans, 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 expressly containing this deposition, and if I cannot produce this clearly and expressly, 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 expressly importing that the Cellar 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 age hold. They pretend that 'tis a deposition of divine right that the Faithful worship their Host, that he partakes of the Sacrifice of their Altar, that he acknowledges the Pope of Rome to be head of the Church. And instead of producing some passages of divine right, which say that their Host ought to be adored, that the Mass ought to be our sacrifice, and the Pope our head, they press us to prove that this is not so, and if we do not produce such proofs, they protest that our Faith is not to be proved, nor theirs to be refuted by Scripture. What man is there so blind who seethe not that it belongs to them alone to prove, what they believe, what they preach, and that which they would persuade me to, and to me only to hear their proofs and resolve, and in case they cannot produce pertinent arguments, to conclude that their pretensions are vain.   

CHAP. III. That the Articles of the Confession of our Faith are some affirmative and some negative: of their difference, and how they are proved by the Scriptures.  
THE colour with which they paint so wicked a procedure, is, that our Churches in their Confession of Faith, doth not only propose that which we believe, but jointly rejects, that which we approve not in the Romans belief. These men take from thence an occasion to make the whole pass for Articles of our Faith, and demand of us proofs from Scripture for both these points; which is an artificial disguise, it being evident, that although these things be exposed in the same treatise, nevertheless we do not hold them to be of the same rank and nature. For as for those which we believe as revealed from God, we esteem the knowledge of them necessary, it being not possible that a man should be saved without believing, as for example, that there is a God, that Jesus Christ hath suffered for us, that we are obliged to live holily and righteously, and other things of the like nature. But as for those which we reject, whither added or maintained by the Pope, 'tis only 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 Eternally 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 poisons, '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 wholesome truths communicated to us by the Lord Jesus: there is no need that he should know particularly the innumerable poisons which the enemy hath scattered in the World, nor that he should know exactly to what degree every one of these false doctrines are poisonous; '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 error 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 entire and sufficient, although it was ignorant of the seducements of that Impostor, and though it knows nothing of Martion, 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 having been calumniated of holding divers 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 only 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 joins 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 died to expiate our crimes, that his blood hath washed and purged our souls from all sin that he is risen and ascended into heaven, and there reigns at the right hand of the Father: that sins are pardoned to men, by the grace of God, when they believe in the Gospel, that believers are obliged to live holily; that Charity is necessary for salvation; that the Lord hath ordained that we should be baptised in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost, for the remission of our sins; and that he hath likewise commanded us to celebrate the memory of his death in taking, eating, and drinking the Sanctified bread and wine, that this bread and this wine are the communication of his flesh and of his blood; that those who believe and live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall have Aeternal salvation, and that those who believe not in him shall perish: But these following are of the second sort, That we ought not to adore the Host of the Church of Rome, nor invoke their dead Saints, that the mass is not an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of men, that the Pope is not the head and spouse of the universal Church, that he hath no power neither directly or indirectly over the temporals of Kings and States of the world; that neither he nor the Church which adheres to him, have the right of never erring in the Faith, nor are they the reason and grounds of our Faith, that it is not for the merits of our works that our sins are forgiven us, or that grace or life is given to us, that the bread which we break, and the cup which we bless in the Church loseth not their substance, that none of those who communicate at his table ought to be hindered from drinking of the Cup of the Lord: that neither the chrism, nor the penitence, nor the ordainor, the marriages, nor the extreme 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 show 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, sense, 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 of God, or that those who believe his Gospel shall have the happy Eternity; We cannot prove the truth of it then but only 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 showing that they are taught in these divine writings; 'tis for this we acknowledge ourselves obliged, and of which 'tis most easy to acquit ourselves, 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 justify and make appear that the holy Scripture teacheth no where to believe what itself 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 showed that we shall have clearly justified that we have been obliged to exclude such opinions of our Faith, since we hold, that all the things which we ought to believe, as necessary to our salvation, are taught in the Scriptures; for that if these be not found there, Rome is in the wrong to believe and preach it as necessary, and have reason not to receive it in our belief. 'tis an unjust cavilling to demand this of us further, that we should furnish them with texts, in which the second sort of Articles are contained, where, for example, it is said expressly 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 only to dazzle 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 Truth's necessary to the science of which it treats. Will you say that the books which Aristotle hath left us of Philosophy are imperfect, because they do not expressly reject that which the Masters of the sciences have since his time opened? or that the treatises of the ancient writers upon eloquence are imperfect, because they did not expressly contradict these new lights which the fantasy 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 showed 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 expressly anathematised 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 despise all that which the Scripture does not recommend, and not to disdain to examine what she doth not disdain to teach us. It speaks to me of God and of his Christ, what he hath done for me and what he requireth of me. It instructs and fills my soul with that wisdom 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 show it me in the Scripture and I will believe it as I do the rest; but if it be not to be found there, who can imagine but I must be ignorant of it. and cannot believe it without danger, faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God, 
Rom. 10.17.  of which the Scripture is the first, the most clear, most certain, and (in my judgement) the only infallible Doctrine?   

CHAP. IV, An answer to what our adversaries allege 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 Doctrines 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 always 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 alleged in the case, the Apostles of Christ would have wronged the Heathens about their Religion seeing they possessed it far long before; the Jesuits would do wrong to the Chinese, if they should endeavour to drive from their hearts the idolatry and worshipping of Pagods which they have possessed time out of mind, truth and virtue 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 yoke as that of our first and most ancient Masters. But God forbidden 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 alleged, and that it belongs to him who turns out the possessor to show that he held it unjustly, and to make it appear by good titles that the things belongs to him, in our contest with the Doctors of Rome there is nothing like this, they press us to believe with them the Purgatory the Mass and other articles. We desire them to show us the truth of them of which we can yet see but little. Instead of satisfying so just a request they allege 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 merely 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 knows the thing to be veritable, and he cannot without denying his nature yield an entire faith to that which is to him either shall or doubtful. Those who will persuade 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 revelations, it remains then that these gentlemen renounce this possession which they allege 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 persuade 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 than 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 with us, and who ought, by onsequence, to show us by good and lawful Doctrine 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 wind. 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. Until than they do show 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 field of which one allegeth the possession in the Court, is a thing which appears, and of whose existence no body can doubt. Here the purgatory, the Sacrifice of the mass, the all powerfulness and infallibility of the Pope the transubstantiation of the eucharist, and in short all their pretended possessions are things which our sense perceives not and which our reason cannot find out. That very thing then of which they pretend a possession, obliges them to show the truth of it by the Scriptures, since it doth not appear in nature. For to allege 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 doctrines 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 authentic instrument of the revelation of God, which both parties acknowledge; to conclude than it remains that to prove our faith by the Scriptures, we are only obliged to show that the things we lay down and firmly believe in religion, are taught in the scriptures, and that those which we do not believe are not taught there.   

CHAP. V That the new method was unknown to the Lord, his Apostles and the holy fathers, and that it is contrary to the procedure which the Lord and his Apostles took in disputing with their adversaries.  
BUt it behoveth us now to consider, in the second place, what proofs we ought to furnish ourselves with, to ground our belief upon the Scriptures. For these Methodists dedemand of us formal 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 easy to conclude it, they cry that these are dreams and Chimeras, and in short they will not acknowledge any thing for the Doctrines of Scripture but what they read precisely there; for example they do not think that the belief of the holy Trinity is a doctrine of the Scripture, because they do not meet with the very word there, though the thing which signifies it, be evidently set down there, This is all the cunning of this brave Method, with which they boast to gag the Ministers and subdue all the enemies of the Church; but if this pretended means of overcoming the heretics, 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 employed themselves against those of their adversaries who disputed by Scripture. 
Matt. 4.6.  When the Tempter alleged to our Lord that verse of the Psalms, he shall give his Angels charge over thee, to persuade him to cast himself down from a high pinnacle, how comes it to pass that he answered him not according to this abridged method, that the passage was not formal, 
Matt. 12.2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  and when the pharisees employed the ordinance of the Sabbath against his disciples plucking the ears of corn, why he give himself the trouble to justify 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 heretics pretended they had drawn from the Scriptures? Sabellius alleged. I and the father are one. Arius, the Father is greater than 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 show 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 heretics. Where was their judgement if they could (as they pretend) make void all the difficulty in one word only, by saying, that the passages are not formal, and that the consequences are nothing but Fantasies. Read the Books of Irenaeus against the Gnostics, of Justin against the Jews, of Tertullian against Martion, 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 Heretics, 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 days which the lights of the world have not yet been able to discover: and that poor truth should have sighthed so long in the bonds of consequences expecting its liberty only from the sword of these new Alexanders. But the Lord and all his servants hath not only permitted that to their adversaries, which ours deny us, viz, consequences and reasonings upon Texts of Scripture, but made use of it themselves to establish truth as well as to refute errors. The tempter promising the Son of God all the Glory of the world, if he would worship him, the Lord checked his impudence by that Scripture which saith, 
Matt. 4.9, 10, 6, 7.  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 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 allegeth the law, 
Mat. 15.4.  honour thy Father and Mother, and the ordinance, he that curseth Father or Mother shall die the death, against the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, who hold that a child who is obliged by an oath or a rash vow not to give any assistance to its Father and Mother, would not sin in refusing them the honour which is due to them. And nevertheless neither of these two passages do formally and in so many words express what they would conclude from them. To the Saduces who questioned him about the resurrection of the dead he produced that which God said in the Scriptures, 
Mat. 22.32.  I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the Saducees remained confused and all the multitude admired the force and strength of this proof. Our methodists laugh at it and demand a formal passage and say that the consequences are faulty. The Apostles follow faithfully the tracts of their Master, they prove the truth of the gospel against the Jews, not by formal passages of the old Testament, but by consequences and reasoning which they drew from it. In this manner holy Peter, shown the sending and coming of Christ to the world by the words of Moses, 
Act. 3.22. Deut. 18.15. Act. 2.27.29, 30, 31. Ps. 16, 10. Rom. 4. Ps. 32 1, 2. Gen. 15.6.  a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like to me; his resurrection by that of the Psalms, thou shalt not suffer thy holy one, to see corruption; so St. Paul concludes that a man is not justified by the law but by grace, in those words of the Prophet blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, 
Rom. 9.8.  and from that which is written, that Abraham believed, and 'twas imputed to him for righteousness.  
Thus he proves in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, 
Gala. 4.28.  that 'tis by faith and not by works that we are justified, and by the word of the Lord to Abraham, 
Gen. 21, 12. Rom. 9.15.16. Ex. 33.19.  in Isaac shall thy seed be called, and that the calling of beleivers, is not of him that willleth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, from that which God said to Moses, I will be gracito whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. In the same manner he shows the rejection of the Jews by these words of the Scripture, 
Rom. 9.23.33, Hos. 2, 23. Rom. 14.10, 11. Esai. 45.25.  behold I lay in Zion 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 judgement 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 showeth the excellency of Christ above the Angels by the words of David, 
Heb. 1.5. Psal. 2.7. Heb. 5.7. tot.  thou art my son this day have I begotten thee, his eternal preisthood by the History of Melchisedeck in Genesis, the advantage of his alliance above the ancients by the oath set down in Psalms 21.10 the Lord hath sworn and well not repert of it. 
Heb. 7.21.  I must wholly transcribe the Epistles of this divine man, if I would deny here all the examples where he furnisheth us with these sorts of proofs, for he disputes every where thus, and draws from the holy Scriptures, by the force of reasoning, thousands of conclusions which cannot be read there expressly. And if one cannot prove by the Scriptures, except it speaks in so many words (as the new method pretends) how did the same Apostle dispute by the Scripture against the Jews of Thessalonica; that it behoveth that Christ must suffer, 
Act. 17.2.3. Act. 18.28.  and that he should rise from the dead, and that this Jesus (viz. he who was crucified in Judea) was the Christ? and how did the Apostles demonstrate the same proposition by the same Scriptures? certainly this proposition that Jesus is the Christ is found couched in these terms in no places of the old testament, as every one confesseth. How comes it then that Paul and the Apostles shown it by this ancient Scripture? it is be cause they shown 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 form this proposition, he who has such and such qualities, who is born at such a time and in such a place who doth, suffers, and teaches such and such things, is the Christ: this being once so put, they consequently apply to their Jesus all the marks and qualities, of the Messiah, proveing by clear and irrefragable witnese that he had exactly in him, all that the prophets had attributed to the Messiah, from whence the conclusion follows of itself, that Jesus is then the Messiah; this is that which S. Luke calls to declare & propose in the book of the Acts, 
Acts. 17.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  useing two words most proper for this subject, the first of which signifies to open, the second to put one thing near another, to tell us that the Apostles prove these conclusions by the Scriptures, first in making the prophecies appear clear, and showing the true sense 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 acknowledge 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 itself expressly, except one were so desperate as to accuse the Sovereign Wisdom and his most faithful and intimate Ministers of having employed vain and frivolous Sophisms instead of good and solid 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 ancient and modern Interpreters commanded the Jews in the fifth of St. 
Joh. 5.39.  John to search the Scriptures. Why should he command that we should search for other things than those which are directly expressed there? all the circumstances of the passage show that he wisheth them to learn who is truly the Christ. But this cannot be drawn from ancient Scriptures but only by consequences. It follows then that the Lord expects that we should learn not only that which it tells us directly, but also that which may be concluded from it by good and valid consequences. 
Mat. 22.29, 31, 32.  And in Matt. 22. disputing against the Pharises who denied the resurrection from the dead, you err (said he to them) not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God etc. 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 expressly 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 wear ignorant of the Scriptures and are in danger of erring.   

CHAP. VI That the new method is contrary to the procedure and maxims of the holy Fathers in their disputes, and favourable to the Heretics 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 showed 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, enjoying freely that right which they give their adversaries. I should be too long, should I here repeat all the examples of them, as when they prove by the Scripture against the Sabellions that God the Father is not begotten and is without beginning; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and against the Arians that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and against the Nestorians that the Holy Virgin is mother of God, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and against the Eutichians that Jesus Christ hath two natures, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  all propositions which are not found in the Scripture exactly set down in the same words, and which nevertheless they profess to demonstrate by the Scripture, (as every one may see in their books) are an evident sign that they have believed that 'tis a good and sufficient way to prove a belief by the Scriptures when one draws from it by reasoning, although one cannot allege any passage where it is formally and expressly set down.  
In a word, you must either forsake the cause of God and instructions and convictions of the Heretics or proceed in this manner. For otherwise how could the father's 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 allege 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 show this truth since they do not exactly express it, for the law of his Method forbids him the use of this sort of proofs. Will he use the Authority of the council of Nice, or of the Church which he pretends is Catholic? but this would be to deceive himself and not to dispute, this would be to allege for proof 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 Catholic Church, he would not be an Arian. That which made him renounce both these, is the belief 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 Heretics who deny the Church any of her positive beliefs not expressed in so many words in the Scripture. Even the Jew will take advantage of your maxims, and laugh, by your example, at all which you produce from the Old Testament to make him believe the New; and will say, as you do, that the consequences are Chimaeras and fancies, and will protest not to yield unless that he hath a formal passage which saith expressly that Jesus Son of Mary born in Bedlam under Augustus Caesar is the Christ promised by the ancient Oracles. 
Council 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 gag of the Church and not Heresy, 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, poniard and cordage. What thunderbolt and ex-Communication do the Fathers of this Method merit, who (as much as in them lies) arm the Jews and Heretics with a buckler Shot-proof, and take from the Church the only arms which God hath put into her hands to scatter all sorts of enemies: to wit, his Holy word.  
But this method doth not only deprive us of the use of the Scriptures against those who receive them either all or in part. It renders likewise all truths unuseful to us, the knowledge of which God hath imprinted in the nature of men taking from us discourse or reasoning, without which it is not possible to explain them to be useful either for the instruction or conviction of the ignorant; For according to these new maxims every one will demand formal proofs of that which one would persuade 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 mere dreams, and none of their conclusions is worthy of an assured belief. 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 employ 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 expressly that the Pope is not the head of the Church. Who sees not that 'tis to fly the decision of the controversy, and desire the continuation of it for ever? for to demand of me to determine it, is a condition according to all the appearance of reason, impossible to be done, it being not credible, that the adversaries who acknowledge with me the Divinity and truth of the Scriptures, should bare me down that the Pope is the head of the Church; though it denies it formally and in so many words.  
If we desire then to end our differences we must absolutely renounce this Method, and proceed that very way which they so unjustly condemn, by proving all our conclusions, by the principles so well known to both parties, and those are by the grace of God, the oracle of the old and new Testament, determining doubtful things by certain, clearing the obscure by evident, and persuading those things. which they reject as false, by the connexion and dependence which they have one with another, that they confess them true. This is the true Method which one ought to follow in all disputes, and which indeed all masters of all Sciences have followed, those of Philosophy, Civil-law Physic, 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 shown at large that the Lord 
* The same chapped. and 14, 17, 18. Aug. tom. 6. l. ●. count. 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 falsehood, and this he cannot obtain without the help of God. Then being willing to unfold, 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, showing them these follow from those which they hold, either by reasoning or faith, so that by the truths which they consent to, they may be constrained to confess and approve those which they had denied, and by this means the truth which seemed false to them at first, would be discerned from the false, being found conformable to the truths which they knew before. Hitherto St. Austin, who could not more clearly Authorize 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 Heretics held formerly against the ancient Fathers.  
ANd though it be a thing most unworthy those praises, which they give ordinarily 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, so impertinent, and so contrary as well to the practice of the Lord, of his Apostles, and of the holy fathers, as to the common sense 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 ancient heretics, who to fly the searching and decision of the truth, demanded of the Catholics 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 syllogisms (say they) and give us a Demonstration by writing that the Son is the true God 
a Atha. Ep. de Synod-Arim. & Seleve. T. p. 911 Part. ultim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and Dialog. count. 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 show him the word consubstantial in the Scripture, not suffering him to draw it from thence by reasonings. 
b Ep. 174.178. Aug.  St. Augustine having else where proved the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, by these places of the Apostle which say, that we are his temple, so that if he were not God he would have no Temple, Maximinus an Arian Bishop against whom he disputed, answered that the truth is not concluded by arguments but proved by certain testimonies, 
c Id con. Mixim, l. 1 6 fol. 444. G.  and in a dialogue published under the name of S. Vigil (but in my judgement 'tis certainly Pope Gelaz's) the Arian, who is brought in there, disputes exactly as our Methodists do now. He would have one show him the word Consubstantial expressly and properly so writ, and that it be proved, not by any reasonings, but, by the naked and pure propriety of the words. Let them read it to me (saith he) so properly laid down or let them departed from their Confession. 
d Dial. inter Atha Sabell. Arian. inter Cassand. opera. p. 475.  Eutichus the head of another Heresy, 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? 
e In Act. cont. chalced. p. 115. A.  so that one ought not to wonder if Scholarius hath long since observed, that many Heretics made use of this pretext, viz. desire that they would show them all things expressly by the Scripture 
f Scholar. orat. Henet. 3. council. 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 Heretics? do they grant them that one ought to hold nothing but that for a doctrine 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 blows of our methodists aim? They do nothing of all this. They do not put the infalibility 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 itself is found there, and that 'tis gathered and deduced lawfully from thence, and prove upon discourse found upon divers 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 books above named) whither the words which one makes use of be in the Scripture or not, provided that the sense of them be Orthodox; and in the treatise of the decrees of the Council of Nice, 
c idem l. de decret. Synod. Nic. p. 270. B.  although that the words (saith he) be not so laid down in Scripture, 'tis no matter, so long, as they have a sense truly drawn from the Scripture (as it hath been said before) what can one call more contentious (saith S. Austin answering to Pascentius) then to dispute of the name when the thing is manifest? 
a Aug. Ep. 17, T. 2. p. 150. F,  and a little after, you see (saith he to him) that from those words which are not in the Scripture, one may give such reason, by which it may appear that they are truths; 
b Ibid. O.  Maximinus who pressed him to prove by express terms of the Scripture that one ought to adore the holy Ghost, '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? 
c Id l. 3. contr. Max. c. 3.  and following this distinction he professeth elsewhere, to have said, what he read in or understood by the Scriptures, conforming himself to their authority, and St. chrysostom 
d Id. l. 15 the civet. D. cap. 1.  gives us this rule, that we ought to hold those things for holy writ whose sense is found in the Scriptures although they are not found there in the same words. 
e Chrysost. Hom. 7. in 1 Cor. p. 380.   
S. Gregory of Nazianzen in his thirty seventh speech disputes against the Heretics, who denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost urged him with the same wrangling to produce them a passage of Scripture which testifieth it expressly; 
a Greg Nazian. c. col. 37.599.605 edit paris an. 1609.  Our methodists would have yielded to this assault, and would have granted them, that there being no formal passage to show this truth it could not be proved by the Scriptures. But S. Gregory on the contrary makes to them this wise and judicious remark with the Style and manner of the teaching of the holy Scriptures 
b p. 605.  that there are things which are said there, which notwithstanding are not there: and there are other things which are not said there, which nevertheless are not wanting there, some others are not said there, nor are they there in effect, and in fine some others are there and are spoke there. He puts in the first rank sleeping, waking 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 signify so. And though that be in these words 'tis not in that sense. And though it never says expressly that he is impassable or without beginning, 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  it signifies it notwithstanding in divers places in other words. Which the Divine made his adversaries confess who held, that God was not begotten and without beginning, and yet they could not produce any one passage which said it formally, from whence he concludes, that since by their own confession, own may very well prove by the Scriptures that God is without beginning although it saith no where so expressly, 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. Show me these things (saith) he that God is not begotten and without beginning) written in so many words, or else we will reject them because they are not written. 
a p. 606.  And a little after, how (saith he) dost thou keep thyself so closely to the letter? and how dost thou side with the Judaical wisdom, tying thyself 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, since 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 oblige 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 Heretics (which they call Macedonians from Macedonius their Author) who alleged likewise, that 'tis no no where writ that the holy Ghost is God. 
a Dialog. contr. Macedon. tom. 2. operum. Athan. p. 276 B. edit. Paris. An. 1627.  To which the Orthodox Divine answered, let us suppose that the name of God is not attributed to him in the Scriptures, do but acknowledge that he hath the nature and operations of God, and that satisfies me for the confession of his divinity. But (saith the other) why do you say that which is not written? 'tis sufficient (answers the Orthodox) if you but only acknowledge his nature, for though it were not written his nature of itself 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 Groaned the Heretic having replied that the Fathers had called the Son consubstantial, is that (saith the Orthodox) the sense and intention of the Scripture which hath moved them to use that word which is not writ, or have they said it of their own Authority? it is (saith the Macedonian) the sense of the Scripture which hath moved them to it. Now (answered the Orhodox) this is also the sense 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 only. But this same Author 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) shows us that the Spirit of our Methodists reigned at his time in certain Heretics whom he names not, 
Pho. biblioth. cod. 46. P. 31,  but who in my judgement were the Eutichians. He saith that they would have every one receive the words of the Scripture simply without considering the things which they signify, under pretence that they surpass the understanding of all men 
b Theod. tract. 16. secund. Phot. T. 2. Op. Athan, p. 308.  that they be constrained to hear some words of the Gospel those which they think favourable to them, but they will not suffer them to understand and interpret them religiously; that one hear the words but not search the truth and convenient sense of them; that they call Faith and inconsiderate not belief, which without any examen embraceth to its own ruin things not established by any demonstration, 
e Id. tract. 23. p. 325. d.  that they command to believe without reason 
a Ibid.  to believe simply that which is said without considering what is convenient and what is not so, 
b Ibid Tit. tract. 23.  without examining whither the thing be possible, useful, seemly, agreeable to God, or convenient to nature, whither it agreeth with the truth, whether it hath any connexion with the design of the Author, whether it doth not contradict the mystery, whether it be not agreeable to Godliness, 
c Ibid. D.  that they would have 
c Ibid.  their words believed without permitting any one to examine their Doctrine for fear they should be convinced. 
d p, 326. A.  Are not these the same fancies with our Methodists who receive nothing but formal words: who reject all expositions, evidences, and reasonings? but now Theodore● Dispates sharply against these men, accusing them of overthrowing by this means all humane affairs and of making men irrationale, 
e p. 903.  of changing them into bruit beasts, making them take their nature and habitudes; of making all the intentions of the Prophets and Apostles unuseful, who according to this reckoning of theirs, beat our ears in vain with the sound of their words, the hearers not carrying away any fruit from them, nor profit in the Treasury of their hearts, 
f Ibid. D.  that their procedure confounds every thing, and that he who follows this Method knows not how to make those things agree, which seem to clash, nor answer those who desire to ask him, as we are all obliged to do to them, 
a Ibid. 3.  (which he verifieth at large by the induction of divers passages of eternity, and of the temporal birth of Christ which seems contrary, 
b p. 310. D.  so they expose the Scriptures to the mockery of the Infidels; 
c p. 326.327.328.  and for these and such like reasons, he declares at the beginning of one of these Treatises, that this invention is the worst of all the Doctrines which the Devils have introduced among men, 
d 327. D.  and give us a rule quite contrary, wishing that in the interpretation of the Scriptures, in stead of being tied to the words made naked by their sense, they should seriously consider what belongs to God, what is convenient for our purpose, that which the truth carries, that which agreeth with the Law, that which hath a just correspondence with nature, the Purity and the Liveliness of Faith, the firmness of Hope, the sincerity of Charity, that which doth no wrong to Esteem, that which is above Envy, that which is worthy of Grace: 
e Ibid. p. 325. A.  and that he ought not to believe without reason nor speak without Faith. Let them take the pains to read these two Treatises through, for they are very short and most excellent. Athanasius, (whom the Author of the Dialogue published under the Name of S. Vigil made to Dispute against the Arians) follow exactly the precedure of Gregory and Theodoret against the Macedonians. For he constrained the Arians to confess, that one may prove by the Scriptures many things which are not expressed there, alleging 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 impassable: and against the Ennomians, that the Son is like the Father: and against Fotinus, that the Son is the Light of the Light; show me (said he to him) where it is written Purely, Nakedly, Properly, and in so many words, that the Father is impassable or not begotten, that the Son is God of God, Light of Light, or like the Father. It is not enough that you say, that the reason of Faith requireth it, piety teacheth it, the inference or consequence from the Scriptures obligeth me to the profession of this Name. I desire that you would not allege these things to me, since you will not suffer me to allege 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 senses; either show 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 yourselves out of this evil path, being wraped up in your own objections, 'tis not in your power to untie 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 yourself, since you find them not where directly set down in any place in the Scriptures 
a Dialog. in't. Sabel Photar. & Athan. litter. opera Cassandris. p. 475. med.  then beating him with his own weapons, he pressed him to bring him some passage, which speaks formally the belief of the Arians, viz. that there is three Substances in the Trinity. Here (saith he) the arguments serve for nothing where one concludes the truth by the consequence of reason: they demand proper and express passages, read to us three Substances expressly 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 truly 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 than 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 expressly set down in the Scriptures. 
a Ibid. p. 476. infrmed.  And upon this debate of the manner of the proofs, which should be used, by both parties, the Author of this Dialogue, caused a good man (whom they made arbitrator of their Disputes) to pronounce this judgement. In as much as it appears, by your Dispute, that you cannot show formally and expressly in the Scriptures, neither you the word Consubstantial, nor you that of three Substances; to the end than 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, 
b Ibid. p. 477. ante med.  and at the beginning of the following Sessions, repeating the result of the foregoing dispute, he saith that they did agree to prove the confession of one, or of three Substances by the consequence of Holy Letters, passing by the demand of a passage where the word is found Properly and Nakedly laid down. 
a Ibid. med.  Judge if this be not the very Image of the Disputes, of our Methodists? do not they demand of us as the Arians do of the Catholics 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 logic with which we endeavour to save our seves? 
b Ibid. p. 475. fin. Arius. de Athan.  Do not they press us with the same opiniatrety, either to read exactly what we believe, or to quit the belief of it? blessed be God that our cause is found to be like that of the ancient believers: And the procedure of our adversaries like that of the old Heretics. Since they choose the method of the Arians, let us keep ourselves to the defence 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. Show us exactly and expressly in the Scriptures, that the Pope of Rome is the spouse of the Church, and the Monarch of the World; that out of his communion there is neither Grace nor Salvation; that his judgements are infallible oracles, and that in matters of Faith 'tis impossible he should err; That 'tis from his hand only, that we ought to receive the Scriptures, and that without the Testimony which he gives them, they should have no more weight with us, than Aesop's sables or the Alcoran of Mahomet. Show 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 expressly 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 their Spirits, and acknowledge them for our Mediators. I would not have you say that all this can be concluded from Scripture. I demand according to your example precise and formal passages; either permit me to prove my Faith by consequences, or renounce yours, full of so many things of which you cannot read one word in the Scriptures. Here you have much more interest than I. For my Faith consisteth of less Articles than yours; and the Articles which I believe, are for the most part so clearly and expressly laid down in the Scriptures that I need no logic to draw them from it. 'Tis enough for our eyes to read them there; In stead of which, the beliefs which you and I contest about are so far from the words and sense of the Scriptures, that the greatest logic in the world is not sufficient to draw them from it. Here to unravel yourselves from these straits, you will not fail to allege the authority of your Church. But besides telling me of that, you go about to persuade me doubtful things, by that which is as much, or rather more doubtful, and by this you evidently renounce the procedure of them whom you call your Fathers, for if the authority of the Church, aught 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 unreasonable than 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 yourselves 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 also in certain places, or to the truth in accusing it to produce sometimes lies, 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 bore witness of him, 
† Joh. 5.3.6.  and how could he declare by all the Scriptures biginning with Moses, and so through all the Prophets the things concerning himself: 
* Luke 24.27.  and again how could his Apostles protest that he had said nothing but those things, which, as well the Prophets as Moses had foretold that they would come to pass, that it, behooveth that the Christ should suffer, 
† Acts 26.22, 23.  and finally, how could he in another place assure the 
* 1 Cor. 15 34.  Corinthians that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he risen again the third Day according to the Scriptures, since it is evident that none of these propositions, is literally and expressly 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 in their principles but one cannot deny them to be there in Virtue 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 man's '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 can reasonably be concluded out of his word Since then that all things that can be lawfully inferred from the Holy Scripture are unavoidably true and Divine, it is clear, that one doth sufficiently prove the truth and holiness of a Creed, when he shows 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 show 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 
a Scholar. orat. Henet. 3. part. Act. Conc. Flor. p. 580.  then, we must not expect (saith he) to find all the proofs expressly and in so many words in the Scripture, for this is an excuse which many Heretics 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 itself. Cardinal Bellarmin who alone hath more desert and reputation, in the Roman party, than 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 
b Bellar. l. 4. de Ec. c. 3. . Melchior Canus 
c Can. loc. Theol. l. b. c. 8. , Bishop of the Canaries, Vega 
d Veg. l. 9 dê justificat. c. 39 , Gabril Vasques 
e Vasques Tom. 1 in Thom. dispute 5.6, 3. and disput. 12. art. 8.6. ●.  Alfons Salmeron 
f Salmer T. 1 prolegum. de Canc. 91. , all very famous amongst our adversaries, make the same judgement of it; and the last especially speaks thus of it. We ought to hold for Doctrines of Divine Authority, and worthy to be received by Faith, not only the things which are expressly contained in the Scriptures: but those also which are inferred from them by an necessary and evident consequence. Certainly 'tis enough for us to prove to our adversaries the truth of our beliefs, either that we read them in the Scripture, or that we infer them from thence, since they agree with us that 'tis a book Divinely inspired.   

CHAP. X. That this pretended Method takes away certitude from all humane Knowledge, and plungeth Religion, the Sciences, and all the life of men into a horrible confusion.  
But these men demand of us here, how we can assure ourselves 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 truly be inferred from it. Arians and Eutichians who demand formal Passages of the catholics 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 Heresy which hath not endeavoured to ground itself 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 bottom, in my opinion, 'tis either an impudence or an extreme 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 of this so much bragged of certainty of the Catholic Faith which they have always in their mouths? it will be accounted to them no other than a mere 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 seethe 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 persuade you that Rome is truly 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 which depends all the Roman Faith but a doubtful and floating 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 Mathematics, natural Philosophy, Physic, and other sciences, because this reason which teacheth them is a cheating Mistress. We shall not be able to be assured whither the whole be bigger than its part, nor whither if you take away equal things from equal things that which remains will be equal. For (these new Sceptics 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 strait oar crooked, and robs the Sun, Moon, and other Stars of the greatest part of their grandeur. The taste and the nicest touch of our senses are sometimes mistaken. So that the Methodists will not be assured of any one thing which is conveyed 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 that Honey is sweet and wormwood bitter, they will believe that the light of the Sun, the roundness of the heavens, the Motion of the winds, the flux of the Sea, the course of Rivers, and the Visages of men, of their neighbours and domestics, 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 virtue 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 persuasion are as the hang upon which they turn themselves; without this they cannot move, but besides the wrong which this pernicious imagination doth to men, it is infinitely abusive to the providence of God, who (if we reckon after this manner) would have given the superintendence of all his works, and the keeping of his truth to a thing blind and deceitful, and incapable of bringing him any glory. And 'tis clear that this error had never been advanced neither in the schools of Christanity, nor any other Religion, if they had but never so little heart for the honour of God and the salvation of men. The new Academy alone had formerly produced it, judge then in what despair these Methodists were, who for the defence of their cause were constrained to raise up this Pagan Idol which hath been dead and buried so long since. To take from me the liberty of justifying my Faith by the Scriptures they ruin their own, they put out the light of Sciences, they bring to nought sense, they offend the Lord and wrap up humame kind in eternal darkness. What blind passion is this, to purchase the loss of those we hate by our own ruin, and (as Gobrias heretofore) had rather perish with his enemy then save himself by letting him live? but they may consider of this, if they think fit.   

CHAP. XI. That the faults which reason sometimes commits doth not argue that all her reasonings are doubtful and uncertain.  
'tIs not very difficult for us to defend ourselves from this blow which they throw at us with so much violence, for what can there be more vain than their objections? reason is sometimes deceived. Be it so, we cannot then assure ourselves 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 always? or is there no way to know the truth whether it errs or not? the eye sometimes is mistaken, as we said before, giving to its objects a greater or an other figure then that which they truly have Is this to say that the sense of sight is absolutely uncertain, and that it is weakness and sottishness to believe assuredly upon its credit that snow is white or that the Sun shines at midday, or that the emerald 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 ourselves 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 fever all meats seem 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 who should have the least doubt of any one of these truths, and send him rather to a Physician 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, aught 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 
a Look to the particulars 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 Heretics in General Chrysost. Hom. 87. in Mat. 7: 9 D. and Hom. 59 (lat. 58.) in John p. 298. A. Hierom. come 2. in Mich. p. 378. F. and comm. in Agg. p. 506. F. Gregro. Mug. Moral: in Job. l. 18, c. 14. ) but nevertheless, so let it be since they will have it so. Shall their fond imagination wrong truth, and that under the pretence of thinking to see that in the Scripture which is not there, I cannot assure myself of having found there all that which is there? divers men have all reasoned in Mathematics 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 than the part, that a triangle is bigger than the basis, and the Body of a man bigger than 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 Physic, who have discoursed ill, phancying to find something in the principles of these Sciences, which is not there. Would not this be not  injustice, but Sottishness or madness, to endeavour to perswade us, under this pretence that we cannot receive any of the consequences drawn from these principles, as certain and necessary? nor assure ourselves that if a horse, sees, hears, and runs, he is then an animal, or if a stone hath nothing of sense, than it is no animal? now we are exactly upon these terms in respect to the Scripture. Many have a mind to draw from it, by discourse, things which it speaks nothing of, 
Gen. 1.16.  and the Roman doctors more than 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 Emperor, and his spiritual monarchies in the Faith and qualifications, which it attributes to S. Peter. and his power to interdict States, to depose Princes among animals, 
Act. 10.13.  which it represents to us to have been signified to the Apostle in a vision. 'Tis by the same Logic that they conclude their purgatory from the parable, which saith, thou shalt not go out till thou hast 
Mat. 5.2.  paid the last farthing, and their Sacrifice from the words of the Lord, 
1 Cor. 11.24. Matt. 26.26.  do this; and their transubstantiation from the other, this is my Body. But if their consequences are false and even absurd, doth it follow that I cannot assure myself 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 particular 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 Situation of the object, or from the quality of the medium which is between them? as for example, 'tis the bilis with which the tongue of a sick man is moistened which makes it taste all meats bitter, and to those who have Jaundice, '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 than 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 near each other, in fine 'tis the diversity of the medium through which we see, which makes an oar appear to us in the water as if it were bend and crooked when it is really straight, except in these and the like cases the eye always to doth its duty faithfully, and the other senses likewise do theirs; so that it being most easy 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 ourselves of any one of their reports, under pretence that it happens to deceive them, when they fail of any one of the conditions necessary to perform their function well. Now 'tis the same in reason. If she concludes wrong, 'tis certainly because she takes that for a true thing which is not so, or that for clear and certain which is obscure and doubtful. As when our adversaries conclude from that which the Lord said to St. Peter, thou art Peter, that their Pope is by right the Monarch of the Christian Church, they conclude falsely, 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, not of the mind and reasoning of man, but of the will of God, as S. Austin expressly remarkes. The truth of consequences (says he) and connexion's 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 shows the situation of places, the nature of animals, of plants, or of Stones, doth not show the things instituted by men; and he, who shows us the stars and their motions, shows 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 disputing is reduced to a false conclusion, unless he has first granted something false from whence this conclusion of necessity, and whither he will or no form itself. 
* 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 lays 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 easy 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 Chimaera, which passion alone hath made them produce to Authorize 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 easy to overcome them; and so the defiance and fears of this danger carries them to demand of us proofs consisting in Nude and formal words.  
Shall I repeat hear the impertinent objections which they make to us upon this subject, that if we believe that which our reason concludes from the Scriptures, our Faith will then begrounded upon reason? as if our reason in this dispute should declare the proposition from which we draw a conclusion, and not the faculty of the spirit with which we draw it. certainly upon this account one might say also, that our Faith is grounded upon the sense of hearing, since the Apostle teacheth us, that Faith comes by hearing. But where is there a child that doth not see, that it is grounded upon the divine word, which we hear, and not upon the ear with which we hear? the ear is the Organ which receiveth this word, but the cause which moves us to believe it, is the truth which is there, and not the ear.   

CHAP. XII. That the faith which we add to the truths drawn from Scripture by reasoning, is grounded upon Scriptures, and not upon reason Rom. 10.17.  
REason in like manner or (to use another term less equivocal) understanding seethe in Scripture that which is there; that conceives, discerns, and believes it. But that which makes it believe it, is the Authority of the Scripture, in which it hath seen it, and not the action which it hath made use of to see it. As when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ is a man, you conclude, then that he hath a Soul, the ground of your conclusion is the saying of the Apostle and not the faculty or act of your reason. All that your reason hath done, is, that it hath found in the Apostles words that which is really so. Now this is not to give us Faith, but to receive it and to do that which is not only 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 only; but if that which reason believes and persuades 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 herself, in doing this, to be the foundation of our Faith. This is all which we require for her in this place, that she may have leave to open her eyes, to mind, and see, that which God hath propounded in his word. We do not pretend to the gift of revealing new secrets to humane kind, nor the privilege of making articles of Faith. We only beg that they would not take from us, that which nature hath given to all men, the faculty of seeing, that which is exposed to our eyes, and to understanding that which is said plainly to us, and from thence conclude that which evidently follows. 
Rom. 3.10, 11, 12. Hebr. 4.15. John. 3.16.18.  It seemeth to us that one may very well judge though he be not altogether a prophet, that the Scriptures which tells us that all men have sinned except our Lord, saith also that John, James, and Peter, have sinned; and that which tells us that all those who believe in Jesus Christ shall not perish, hath also said to us that Paul and Peter (presupposing that they believe) shall not perish; 
Gal. 3.10. Deut. 27.26. Exod. 20.14.  and that which sayeth that cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words written in the law, sayeth also to us that he who commits adultery is cursed by the law, since 'tis written thou shalt not commit adultery. Our adversaries will pardon us if we say, that to deprive us of the judgement of such consequences, 'tis to endeavour to take from us not only the light of the Prophecy or the Spirit of particular 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 laid down in Scripture, if one be not drawn from the word of God but from sense or humane reason; we cannot receive that which follows from it, unless it be for a humane truth, that is to say doubtful and uncertain, because in arguing the conclusion always follows the weakest part, as Logitions have observed; for example, if you dispute thus, he who hath created the heavens and the earth, is the true and eternal God worshipped heretofore by the Isrealites, Now Jesus Christ hath created the heavens and the Earth, he is then the true God worshipped heretofore in Israel; they will make no difficulty perhaps to receive this conclusion for a Divine truth and worthy of an entire 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 than for a humane doctrine, since from two propositions from which one is drawn, viz. The first is drawn from maxims of reason only, and not from Scripture as the second is. They triumph in this observation, and put it upon all occasions amongst their gravest and most serious conference; but I say, first that if our particular interest were only concerned in it, there were no need to consider it, since that which is granted, is sufficient for this dispute. For it grants us that the propositions which are lawfully drawn from two truths, one of which revelation teacheth, and sense, or reason the other, are true, at least to the same degree as the truths which we learn by reason and sense, and that we may give at least the same kind of Faith to believe them in the same manner as we believe (for example) that Snow is white, the Heavens round, or that the whole is bigger than its part. Now we demand no more for our design; for we employ the most part of these discourses, mixed with propositions of a different nature, only to overthrow their belief, and not to establish ours; now to destroy a doctrine and render it unworthy of belief, 'tis enough to show 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 uniform, always like to itself; 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 justify 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 forbidden) but hath polished and perfected in one what he had begun the rough drawn in the other. So 'tis manifest that (far from being obliged, in this kind of discourse, to employ propositions contained in Scripture only) I can use arguments drawn entirely 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 entire in a man's mouth, whereas the Eucharist may be held in an infants, he would answer impertinently that should allege 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 should be both true, as this, the Eucharist is a humane body, which is your opinion; and this other, the Eucharist is not a humane body, which is the conclusion of my discourse.  
But I say in the second place that their maxim is false, that to infer a conclusion from authority and divine Faith, it behoveth that the two propositions be drawn from the revelation of God; it is enough that one be revealed, and the other evident by the light of nature. The Church discourseth thus against the fond imaginations of Apollinaris, every man hath a foul endued with understanding, Jesus Christ our Lord is a man, therefore he hath Soul endued with understanding; of the two propositions from whence this conclusion is drawn, the second is in the Scriptures, the first is not there; but we have learned it in the school of reason; would you say under this pretext, that the conclusion, viz. that Jesus Christ hath a soul endued with understanding, is not a divine truth but a humane, learned from earth and not from heaven? but where is the infant that does not see, that God revealing to us, that his Son is a man, doth not reveal by the same means that he hath a body, a Soul, understanding, and in short all the essential parts of the nature signified by this word man. Otherwise one must say that in teaching us that Jesus Christ is man, it teacheth us nothing, but simply strikes the ear with the vain and unprofitable sound of the word, for what is it to say that Jesus Christ is man, unless he hath a body, Soul, understanding, and the other things of which the nature of the subject consist, signified by this word man. In the same manner when the Scripture teacheth us that God hath created the earth, it teacheth us by the same means that he hath created America, and the Austral Countries, China; and the Isles of the Sound, although it be sense and reason, and not Scripture which teacheth us that these Countries are part of the Globe of the earth, and he would be impertinent to the height, who should say that the Scripture hath not revealed to us, that God hath created China or Taproban, because it simply tells us that God hath created the earth, without telling that these Countries are part of it. And so of the rest, for God in his Scripture presupposeth every where that those to whom he speaks are men and not beasts; that they know, if not subtly and Phylosophically (that which is not necessary for his design) at least grossly 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 particularly, as when he tells us that Jesus Christ is a man, 'tis as much as if he should say, he hath a Body form like ours, consisting of quantity, occupying a space which is fit to it, moving itself in time from one place to another, in such manner that its parts are not altogether in the same place, that he hath a Soul which reasoneth, wills, loves, and in short endued 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 Catholic doctrine, not only that which hath been expressly 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 
a Melch Canus lo●. theolog. l. 6 c. 8. .  
Vega saith likewise that nothing hinders these propositions from being ranked amongst those of Faith 
b Vega 9 de justify. c 39 . And Vasques makes the same judgement of it. 
c Vasques. in. 1 Th●m. q. 1. disput 12. art. 8. c. 2.  F. Ambrose Catharin at that time Bishop of Minory, and since Archbishop 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 prove that the faithful may be assured of being in the grace of God, and produced Scotus for his Author; I think also (saith he speaking to Soto) that what you say is false, viz. that when one of the propositions is from Faith, and the other from science or experience, the conclusion which is drawn from thence is from science and experience and not from Faith, according to that rule, that the conclusion follows the weakest part. Against this strange proposition; which one may call truly inopiniable, Scotus teacheth (as you who are versed in the Scholastiques may have seen) that when one takes two propositions, one naturally evident and the other from faith, the the conclusion which follows from it is of Faith, see here the example which he brings, as (says he) if one should say, whosoever begets is really different from him whom he hath begotten (which is as he holds a natural maxim) and if one should add afterwards, now the father hath begotten in divinity (which is a proposition of faith) the conclusion which follows from it, viz. therefore the Father begetting in divinity is really distinguished from the Son begotten, this conclusion (say I) is not natural but of Faith, whereas if your hypothesis were true it ought to be natural, since that according to you the natural propositions is the weakest, now the reason of that is, that in our judgement, the proposition which is of Faith, is the most uncertain of them; and 'tis in this that you abuse yourselves and abuse others 
d Ambros. bathe 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 logic, 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 subtle and ingenious consideration of Catharin, I think for mine own part, that this rule of logic that the conclusion follows the weakest part is ill alleged to the purpose, by the methodists, in this dispute; for the Masters of Logic 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 sense, 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, than we will submit ourselves to the lash of their Logic. But to stretch this maxim further, and let it signify, 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 maxims and not amongst the Divine Doctrines, 'tis a fancy so far from reason that I am assured that none of the Logicians have ever dreamt of it.  
The End of the First part.    

THE Positive and Affirmative ARTICLES OF OUR BELIEF Are proved by Scripture.  
Second Part.  

CHAP. I. An exposition of the principal and most necessary Articles of our Faith.  
THese thing are sufficient, in my judgement, to keep our sense and reason from the troublesome and unjust chains with which the new Methodists pretend tyrannically to bind them: Let us come now to our design, and briefly show our Faith, that we may prove every one of the Articles of which it consists, by Scripture, whether they be read there, or evidently inferred from thence.  
First then, We believe that which heaven and earth teacheth us, that there is one God, eternal, infinite, incomprehensible, sovereignly good, wise, powerful, and just: Who hath created the Universe, and governs it by his Providence, nothing happening in Nature or amongst Men without his Order or Permission. We believe that this great God made Man, in the beginning of the World, according to his own image and likeness, and put him into the Garden of Eden, there to lead an immortal life, and that Man fell from this happy condition by his own fault, having disobeyed his Lord, and that by this crime, he and all his Offspring remains out of the grace of God, Slaves of Sin and Death. We believe that God, moved by compassion, towards his own work, hath sent his Son Jesus Christ into the World, in the fullness of time, who hath done and suffered all things necessary to draw men from perdition, and to give them eternal Life; that this Son is the same God, with the Father, of the same power and essence, and subsisted from all eternity with him, that he made himself man in time, and took to himself our nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary, uniting it personally with his Divinity, and after having preached his Grace to the people of the Jews, he was, at their accusation, crucified by Pontius Pilate, and being dead upon the Cross, and then buried, he risen the third day from the dead, and after having conversed forty days with his Disciples, he ascended into Heaven, where the Father hath given him all authority and power. We believe that he reigns there now in a Sovereign glory, governing all the World according to his good pleasure, and that one day he shall come to Judge it for the last time. We believe that by his death he hath satisfied the justice of the Father, in as much as he hath suffered the pains for the Sins of humane kind, and that he hath acquired an eternal Salvation, and that the Religion which he hath given us to obtain this consists in Faith and Charity; that the Father appeased by his Obedience, receives to mercy all those, who knowing their misery, and repenting of their Sins, do confide in his bounty, and believe in his promises, that he pardons them gratis all their faults, and treats them as if they had never offended, and these being animated, and enlivened by Faith, live afterwards holily and Christianly in Piety towards God, and Charity towards their Neighbours, according to the Gospel of Christ. For he wills, that all his Faithful love, and serve God with one love and sovereign adoration, and that they have a true Charity towards all men; carefully keeping themselves from violating their dignity, Life, Chastity, Estates, or Honour, neither in Deed, Word, nor Thought, every one subjecting themselves to their Order and Laws of their Civil Societies, and to the state of the Country where they live: but that they entertain a particular amity with the rest of the Faithful, cherishing them as their own Brethren, uniting themselves to them, that so there may be but one Body in Religion: and that for this end, there be amongst them Pastors and Supervisers, who have the overlooking of their Communion, administering to them, as well the divine Doctrine, as the holy Sacraments, which the Lord hath left as tokens of his grace, and marks and seals of his Covenant, having commanded that his faithful Servants should be baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for the remission of their sins, and that they should eat the Bread, and drink the sanctified Wine, in commemoration of his Death, and communication of his Flesh and Blood: We believe that although the truth of these things is most clear, yet men are so blinded by the Passion of their malice, that they would never understand them, if the HOLYSPIRIT, true God, eternally blessed with the FATHER and the SON, did not enlighten their understanding, opening their hearts, that the light of this heavenly Doctrine may enter in, and that God affords them this grace of his own good pleasure, giving it when, to whom, and in what measure it seemeth good to him. We believe, that to those who shall have believed, and lived according to this holy doctrine, God will give his Salvation, preserving them and taking care of them, and when they depart this Life gather their Souls into his repose, expecting the last day, in which having raised their Bodies, will lift them up with Jesus Christ their Head, into an incorruptable Heaven, there to live eternally in his Glory; but the Wicked and incredulous shall perish, being punished with the Devil and his Angels in the torments of Hell.  
Reader, if thou art conversant in reading the Holy Bible, say in thy Conscience, whether it be not too great a boldness to deny, that these things are clearly contained there? only hearing them named do you not as soon perceive, that these Divine Books, and especially those of the New Testament are full of them? How hard is it to find one verse, which lays not down some of these instructions? Nevertheless (because they will have it so) we verify them, Article by Article; and to the end that they should not (as 'tis their custom) wrangle with us about words, we will produce passages of Scripture in those very words, into which the Interpreter of our Adversaries hath translated them, and then say a little upon every point, contenting ourselves to mark the rest in the Margint. For if we should gather together all the places of Scripture, where these Doctrines are positively laid down or hinted, we must transcribe almost all of them, and as to the Scripture itself, we suppose the truth of it without disputing it in this Treatise, where the business is only to prove, that the Articles, whose belief we esteem necessary to Salvation, are all found in the Book, which we hold for the Rule and principle of our Faith. For that is sufficient to bring to nothing the calumny of these new Disputants, who to convince the Scripture of imperfection, and constrain us by the same means to have recourse to the Authority of their Church, crying incessantly that we ourselves who make so much account of Scripture, cannot prove by it all the things which we believe necessary to Salvation.   

CHAP. II. Of the Essence and Nature of God. Of his Qualities and Works.  
1. FIrst then as to the Article of the Essence, and Divine Nature, the Scripture lays down at the first word that there is one God, in saying, that he created the Heaven and the Earth in the beginning, and speaks of him every where as of a thing, whose being and subsistence, every one knows and understands, holding them not only for impious and irreligious, but for mere fools and sense-less creatures who think there is none. 
Psal. 13. (Heb. 14.) 1.  The Scripture makes him Act and speak in infinite ways and manners, from the beginning to the very end, teaching not only that he is, but that there is none besides him, who truly is, all the rest not being but in him and by him. So long then as there are passages in Scripture which attribute to God some quality, action, or word (and of this kind there are an infinite number) they are so much the stronger and evident proofs of this truth. 
See Duet. 4.39. & 6.4. ●sa. 45.5.6.21. John 17.3 and many other places.   
Heb. 11.6. It behoveth him that comes to God, to believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.  
Act. 17.27, 28. God is not far from any one of us, for in him we live, move, and are.  
1 Cor. 8.6. We have one God, who is the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him.  
Exod. 3.14. The Lord said to Moses, I am, that I am, than he said, thou shalt tell the Children of Israel, he that is hath sent me to you.  
Esaiah. 37.16. Lord of Armies, the God of Israel, who art set upon the Cherubims, thou art alone God of all the Kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made the Heaven and the earth.  
Esaiab. 43.10, 11. There was no God, form before me, nor shall be after me, I am, I am the Lord, and there is none other Saviour but me.  
Psal. 89. (Heb. 90.) 2. Before the Mountains were made, and the earth and world were form, from age to age, thou art God.  

2. That Godis Eternal.  
Gen. 21.33. 
See Ex. 15.19. Job. 36.26. Psal. 9 (Heb. 10) 8.37, 38. Heb. 90.2.  Abraham etc. called upon the name of God Eternal.  
Psalm. 101. (Heb. 102.) 27, 28. The heavens shall perish, but thou shalt be permanent, and all of them shall wax old as a garment, and thou shalt change them as a vesture, and they shall be changed, but thou art the same, thou art and thy years fail not.  
Rom. 16.26. 
Esai. 41.4.43.10.44.6. and 48.12. 1 Tim. 1.17. Re. 1.8.  By the commandment of the Eternal God.  
1 Tim. 6.16. God only hath immortality.   

3. That God is Infinite  
Jerem. 23, 24. 
2. Kings 8.27. and 2. Paralipom. 2.6. and 6, 18. Psal. 138 (Heb. 139) 7. Esa. 66.1.  do not I fill heaven and earth saith the Lord.  
Acts. 7.47, 48. The most high dwelleth not in Temples made with hands as the Prophet saith. Heaven is my throne and the earth is my foot stool, what house will you build me saith the Lord, or where is the place of my rest.  
Job. 11.7, 8, 9 Shalt thou by chance find out the ways of God, and shalt thou at length find out the Almighty? he is higher than heaven and what wilt thou do? he is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know him? his measure is longer than the earth, and larger than the Sea.   

4: That the nature and judgements of God are incomprehensible.  
Rom. 11.33. 
Exod. 33.20. 1 Tim. 1.17.  O profound riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God how incomprehensible are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! for who is he that hath known a thought of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor.  
1. Tim. 6.15, 16. The blessed and only powerful King of Kings and Lord of Lords, etc. Hath only immortality, and inhabits an inaccessible light, the which no man hath or can see.   

5. That God is Soveraginly good.  
Exod. 34.6, 7. Lord God ruler, Merciful, Pitiful, Patiented, and of great compassion, and true, who keeps mercies for thousands, who takes a way iniquity and sin Psal. 135. (Heb. 136.) 1. The Lord is good and his mercy endureth Eternally.  
Matth. 19.17. There is one good viz. God. (or as our bibles are translated) there is none good but one viz. God.   

6. That God is most just.  
Jerem. 12.1. In truth Lord if I dispute with thee thou art just.  
Psal. 10. (Heb. 11.) 8. The Lord is just, and hath loved justice, his face hath seen equity.  
Psal. 118. (Heb. 119.) 137. Lord thou art just and thy judgement is right.   

7. That God is Infinitely wise.  
Psalm. 146. (Heb. 147.) 5. Our Lord is great, and his Virtue great; and there is no numbering of his wisdom.  
Rom. 11.33. O profound riches of the Wisdom and knowledge of God.  
Rom. 16.27. To God only wise be honour and glory for ever through Jesus Christ.   

8. That God is all powerful.  
Gen. 17.1. 
Gen. 1●. 14, & 35.11. and 48.3.  God appeared to Abraham, and said to him I am the Lord all powerful.  
Matth. 19.26. To God all things are possible.  
Luk. 1.37. Nothing shall be impossible to God.  
Ephe. 3.20. To him, who by his power which Acts in us, can do in all abundance, above all that which we can ask or think, to him, I say, be glory in the Church in Jesus Christ, in all ages, world without end, Amen.   

9 That God hath created all things.  
Gen. 1.1. 
Acts 14.14.  God created in the beginning the heaven and the earth.  
Acts. 4.24. Lord, who hath made the heavens and the earth the Sea and all things which are there.  
Acts. 17.24. God hath made the World and all things which are in it.  
Rom. 11.36. Of him, and by him, and for him, are all things, to him then be glory eternally, Amen. 
Gen. 18.25. Job. 38.41. Psal. 103. (Heb 104.) 21. & 135. (Heb. 136.) 25. & 144. (Heb 145.) 15, 16. & 146. (Heb 147.) 8, 9 Prov. 16.1.4.33. & 20.24. & 21.1 Isa. 45.6. Jer. 10, 11, 12, 13, 23. Amos 3.6. Matt. 6.26.28, 29, 30.   
Ephe. 3.9. God hath created all.   

10. That God governs all things according to his good pleasure.  
Matt 10.29. Are not two Sparrows sold for a farthing, nevertheless one of them shall not fall to the ground without your father. And even the hairs of your head are all numbered.  
Acts. 17.25, 26, 28. God gives to all life, breath, and all things, and hath made all humane kind of one, to inhabit the whole space of the earth, determining ordained seasons, and the bounds of their habitation etc. in him we live, have motion, and are.  
Rom. 11.36. From him, and by him, and for him are all things.  
Esa. 45.6, 7: I am the Lord and there is none other forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil. I am the Lord doing all these things.    

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

1. That God created man at the beginning after his own Image.  
GEn. 1.26, 27. Furthermore God said: let us make man according to our Image and similitude, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the Sea, and over the Birds of the heavens, 
Gen. 2.7, 8, 15, 17.  and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing creeping upon the earth. God then created man according to his own Image and likeness; he created him according to the Image of God.   

2. That man is fallen from his happiness by his disobedience.  
You have the History of it in the third Chapter of Gen. and 7 Eccles. 30. God hath made man right and he hath entangled himself with infinite questions.   

3. That by the disobedience of the first man all his posterity have been subjected to sin and death.  
Rom. 5.12. By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death. And so death is come upon all men, in that all have sinned.  
1 Cor. 15.22. All die in Adam.   

4. That all men are from their nature defiled by sin and subject to death.  
Rom. 3.23. All have sinned, and have need of the glory of God.  
Eph. 2.23. We have all conversed sometimes in the concupiscences of our flesh, executing the desires of the flesh, and of our thoughts, and were from nature children of wrath as others, and in verse the fifth we were dead in sin.   

5. That this corruption is in men from their birth.  
Psal. 50. (Heb. 51.) Behold truly I have been conceived in iniquity, and my mother hath conceived me in sin.  
John. 3.6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh.  
Job. 14.4. Who can make man clean who is conceived of filthiness? is it not thou only?    

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

1. That God by his mercy hath sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to save humane kind.  
JOhn 3.16. God hath so loved the world, that he hath given his only Son to the end that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.  
Rom. 8.3. That which was impossible to the Law (in as much as it was weak through the flesh) God having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, etc.  
1 Cor. 1.30. Jesus Christ hath been made to us by God, wisdom, justice, sanctification and redemption.   

2. That the Son, sent for us, 
John. 3 13. comp. with John. 662. 1 Cor. 10.9.  subsisted before he took humane flesh in the womb of the Virgin.  
John. 1.1, 2. In the beginning was the Verb (or the word as our Bible's have it translated) and the Verb was with God, and the Verb was God, he was in the beginning with God, and vers. the 14 and the Verb hath been made flesh and dwelled amongst us.  
Phil. 2.6, 7. Jesus Christ being in form of God he hath not reputed it rapine to be equal with God, so he became nothing himself, having taken the form of a servant, made in the likeness of man, found in figure as a man, he did, I say, abase himself.  
2 Cor. 8, 9 You know the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord, viz. that he made himself poor for you, though he were rich, that by his Poverty you might be rich.  
John. 8.58. Jesus said to them verily, verily, I say unto you before Abraham was made I am.   

3. That the Son sent for us is God.  
St. John in the beginning of his Gospel speaking of the word which hath been made flesh (vers. 14.) saith, in the beginning was the Verb and the Verb was with God. and the Verb was God.  
Rom. 9.5. Christ who is God above all things blessed eternally.  
Titus. 2.13. We expect the happy hope and coming of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.  
1. 1 John 5.20. He, that is to say the Son, is the true God and life eternal. This is proved clearly thus, he who hath created heaven and earth, and who now preserveth them is the true God as Esay teacheth who makes the Lord speak thus, I am the Lord who makes all things alone, expanding the heavene, rendering the earth, from Esa. 44.24. From whence it comes, that the Scripture very often gives the quality of a creature to God as an elegy, which doth not agree with him, but only to distinguish him from all other things, as in Esay these things saith the Lord God, who hath created the heavens and stretched them out, who hath conformed the earth and the things which spring from it Esa 42.5. and likewise, Esa. 45.12. and 48.13. and 51.13. Now the Son of God sent for us hath created the heavens, and the earth, and all the things which are in them, and governs and sustains them by his power and wisdom, St. John speaking of the Verb made flesh: for us all things have been made by him, saith he, and without him nothing hath been done that hath been done. John 1.3, and to vers. 9, and 10. he is the true light which enlightens every man coming into the world, he was in the world the world hath been made by him.  
Col. 1.15, 16. The Apostle speaking of the Son of God's love, who is the image of the invisible God, first born (that is to say Lord) of every creature, adds, in him have been created all things in heaven and in earth visible and invisible, be they thrones, governments, principalities, or powers, all things, I say, are created by him and in him, and he was before all things, and all consist by him.  
Heb. 1.2, 3. God hath spoken to us in these latter days by his Son, whom he hath constituted heir (that is to say Lord) of all things, by whom also he hath made the ages, which Son being the splendour of the glory, and figure of the substance of him, and maintaining all things by his powerful word, having made the purgation of sins, is set at the right hand of Majesty in high places, and vers. 10, 11. The Apostle appropriates to him these words of the Psalmist, Lord thou hast founded the earth from the beginning and the Heavens are the works of thy hands.  
They shall perish but thou art permanent, and all shall grow old as a garment, and thou shalt change them as a vesture and they shall be, changed, but thou art the same and thy years fail not, it follows then that the Son sent for us is the true God.  
2. He who by his intelligence knows the thought of humane hearts truly is God, as Solomon teaches 3 Kings (Heb. 1 Kings) 8.39. 2 Chr. 6.20. Where speaking to God, thou alone saith he knoweth the hearts of all the Sons of men; now the Son of God knoweth the secrets of the hearts of men: Reve, 2.23. where he sayeth, I am he who examine the reins and hearts, and will give to every one of you according to his works.  
One must then confess that he is the true God.  
3. He whomay and aught to be served and worshipped with a sovereign worship properly so called is God, for the Scripture teacheth us that this worship appertains but to God alone Mat. 4.10. thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve.  
Now the Son of God ought to be worshipped by men and angels with a Sovereign worship.  
John. 5.22, 23. The Father hath given all judgement to the Son, to the end that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father, he who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him, Heb. 1. 6● when he bringeth his first begotten Son into the world, he saith, and let all the Angels of God worship him.  
Phil. 2.9, 10. God hath Soverainly lifted up (Jesus) and hath given him a name, which is above all names to the end that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, in the earth, and under the earth.   

4. That the Son of God is the same God who was worshipped heretofore in Israel, and who is called the Lord or the Eternal, in the books of the Old Testament  
1. This appears first from what we have already shown, that the Son is God. For all the Scripture teacheth us that there is no other God but the eternal Lord, known and worshipped in Israel, Deut. 4.35. The Lord is God and there is no other besides him. Deut. 6.4. Hear Israel the Lord our God is God alone, Deut. 32.39. See now that I am only, and there is no other God but me.  
Now Christ is God as we have shown by the Scriptures.  
It follows then that he is the same Lord or eternal, who was worshipped heretofore by the Israelites.  
2. He whose glory Isaiah saw in the sixth chapter of his revelations, is truly the Lord eternal, worshipped by the Jews, I see (saith he) the Lord sitting upon an High Seat and lifted up, and this appears in the 3, 5, 7, and 11. verses, now Jesus is he whose Glory Isaiah saw, as S. John in the 12. Chapter of his Gospel witnesseth vers. the 41. where having alleged some words of this passage of Isaiah, he adds, these things said Isaiah when he saw the glory of him (viz. of the Lord Jesus) and spoke of him.  
It follows than that Jesus Christ is this same eternal worshipped by the ancient people.  
3. The Lord of the Temple of Jerusalem is the eternal, since the Temple hath not been consecrated to any but him, as it appears through all the Old Testament.  
Now Christ is the Lord of the Temple of Jerusalem, as it appears by the Prophet Malachy, who foretelling the coming of the Messiah, the Governor whom you demand, saith he, and the Angel of the Covenant whom you desire, shall come to (or into) his Temple, Malachy 3.1. Christ is then the very eternal.  
4. The Lord of David, and other Beleivers, living under the old Testament, is the eternal whom they worshipped, at it appears by all the books of the Old Scripture. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other before me, Exod. 20.2, 3.  
Thou art our Father and Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath not known us.  
Lord thou art our Father and our Redeeemer, Isai. 63.16.  
Now Christ is the Lord of David, as Jesus Christ himself remarks, alleging! these Words from Psal. 109 (Heb. 110.) 1. The Lord hath said to my Lord sit thou at my Right Hand.  
He is then truly the eternal.  
5. He whom the Isralites tempted in the Wilderness is the eternal.  
Now Jesus Christ is he whom the Israelites tempted in the desert, 1 Cor, 10.9. Let us not tempt Christ as some of them have tempted him and have been destroyed by the Serpents.  
He is then this same eternal worshipped by Israel.  
6. He of whom David spoke in the 101 Psalms (Heb. 102.) vers. 26, 27, 28. Is the eternal, the God of Israel, as it appears through all that Psalm, and particularly by the 25. verse where he calls him his strong God (in the Hebrew text) which quality he had care, of not giving to any other then to the Lord eternal.  
Now Jesus is he to whom David, spoke in that place, as the Apostle in the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews vers. 10. witnesseth in applying to him the words of the Psalmist, already recited here above Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  
It follows then that Jesus is truly this same eternal.  
7. In a Word the Lord protesteth in Isaia, that he would not give his glory to any other, Isai. 42.8, and 48.11.  
Now the Father eternal hath given this glory to Jesus Christ, as he himself saith in St. John. The Father, etc. hath given all judgement to the Son, to the end that all might honour the Son as they honour the Father, John. 5.22, 23.  
It follows then that Jesus is none other than the Lord eternal.   

5. That the Son of God sent for us, is not the same person with the Father.  
Now although this eternal worshipped by the Israelites, and the Son sent for us, be one and the same God as we have already shown, and that theyave by consequence one and the same substance, essence, or nature, nevertheless these two persons are distinct one from the other, and are represented to us so in the Scripture, one being called the Father, and the other the Son. For since he who begets is not the same person with him that is begotten, nor he who sendeth the same person with him that is sent, the Father and the Son are of necessity two persons, since the Father hath begotten and sent the Son. Psalm. 2.7. where the Father speaks to Jesus Christ as the Apostle teacheth us in Acts 13.33. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Gal. 4.1, 4. God hath sent his Son, John 3 16. It remains then that we say that the Father and the Son are two persons, although they are one and the same divinity, which is the belief of every true Christian.   

6. That the Son of God is made man in the fullness of time, taking our flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary.  
John. 1.14. The World hath been made Flesh and dwelled amongst us (and we have seen its glory, 
Rom. 8.3. Phil. 2.6. Heb. 2.17. Rom. 13, 4.  glory I say, as of the only issue of the Father) full of Grace and Truth.  
Gal. 4.4. When the fullness of time is come, God hath sent his Son made of woman, made under the Law, that he might Redeem those who were under the Law.  
1 Tim. 3.16. Without contradiction the secret of Piety is great, viz. God is manifested in the Flesh, sanctified in the Spirit.  
Luk. 1.30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 
Mat. 1.18.  The Angel said unto her fear not Mary. For thou hast found favour before God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a Son, and shalt call his name Jesus, he shall be great, and shall call himself the Son of the Sovereign, and the Lord shall give him the Throne of David his Father, etc. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Virtue of the Sovereign shall over shadow thee, or in-shadow thee, therefore that also which shall be born of thee: Holy shall be called the Son of God.    

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

1. That the Son of God manifested in the Flesh hath been crucified in Judea by the Sentence of Pontius Pilate.  
ACt. 2.23. 
Acts 4.10, and 10, 39  Jesus of Nazereth being delivered by the determinate counsel and Providence of God, you have taken, crucified, and killed him by the Hands of wicked men.  
You have the History of it at large in the 27. of S. Mat. in the 15. of S. Mark; the 23. of S. Luke; and the 19 of S. John; which is known enough to every one.   

2. That the Son of God did rise the third day from the dead.  
1 Cor. 15.3, 4. Before all things I have given you that which I had also received viz. that Christ is dead for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he hath been buried, and is risen the third Day according to the Scriptures.  
You have the History of his Resurrection at large, 
Acts 2.24, 31. and 10.40. and 13.30. & 17.31. Rom. 4.25, & 6.4, & 8.33. & 14.9. 2 Tim. 2.  Mat. 28.6. Mar. 16.6. Luk. 24.5. John 26.9.   

3. That the Son of God is ascended into Heaven, and that he reigns there in a Sovereign power.  
The History of it is described in St. Mar. 16.19. Luk. 24.51. and more at large, Act. 1.9.  
Eph. 1.20, 21, 22. 
1 Cor. 15.25, 27. Eph. 4.10. Phil. 2.9.10.11. Heb. 2.9.  God hath raised Christ from the dead, and hath made him sit at his Right Hand in Heavenly places, above all Principalities and Powers, Virtue and Dominion, and every Name which is Named. Not only in this World, but in that which is to come. And hath put all things under his Feet.  
1 Pet. 3.22. Jesus Christ is at the Right Hand of God swallowing up death, to make us Heirs of life eternal, being gone to Heaven to whom the Angels, Powers, and Dominions are subject.   

4. That the Son of God shall come at the Last Day to Judge the World.  
Mat. 16.27. 
Mat. 24.30. Luk. 17.24.30. & 21.27. Acts 1.11, & 17.31. Rom. 2 16. 1 Cor. 4.5. 2 Cor. 5.10, 1 Thes. 4.16. 1 Pet. 4.4, 5. Rev. 20.11, 12, 13.  The Son of God shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels, and then he shall render to every one according to his works.  
Acts 10.42. Jesus hath commanded us to preach to the people and to Testify that 'tis him who is ordained by God, to be judge of the living and the dead.  
2 Thes. 1.6, 7, 8. This is a just thing with God, that he renders affliction to those who a flict you, and to you who are afflicted deliverance with us, when that the Lord Jesus shall show himself from Heaven with the Angels of his power, and with the flame of fire, doing vengeance upon them that know not God.  
2 Tim. 4.1. Jesus Christ shall judge the living and dead at his coming and reign.   

5. That the Son of God is dead for oursins, and bath Redeemed us in suffering death for us.  
1 Peter 3.18. 
Rom. 4.25. Gal. 1.4.  Christ hath suffered once for our sins, the just for the unjust that he might lead us to God.  
Isaiah. 53.5. He hath been wounded for our iniquities, he hath been bruised for our sins. The discipline of our peace is upon him, and we are healed by his stripes.  
Rom. 3.25. God hath propounded Jesus Christ a propitiator (propitiatory) by Faith in his blood to demonstrate his justice for the remission of sins past, through the forbearance of God.  
Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, 
Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.14. Heb. 9.12. Revel. 5.9.  when he was made a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is he who hangs upon a tree.  
1 Tim. 11.5. There is God and one Mediator (Moyenneur) between God and men, viz. Jesus Christ man, who hath given himself as a ransom for us all.  
1 Peter 1.18, 19 
Mat. 20.28  You have been Redeemed from your vain conversation (which was given to you by your Fathers) not by things corruptible as by Gold or Silver, 
Act. 20.28  but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and spot.  
Rom. 5 8. 
Luk. 22.19. John 10.11, 15. & 10, 51, 52. 2 Cor. 5 15. Gal. 2.20. Heb. 2.9. 1 Pet. 2.21. & 4.1. 1 Joh. 1.16.  God certified his love to us, in this, that although we were yet abandoned to sin, according to time Christ is dead for us.  
Rom. 8.32. God hath not spared his own Son, but hath given him for us all.  
Eph. 5.2. Christ hath loved us and delivered himself for us, an oblation and sacrifice to God, an Odour of a good smell.  
Tit. 2.14. Jesus Christ hath given himself for us, to the end he might Redeem us from all iniquity, and cleanse us, to be to him an agreeable people, given to good works.  
1 Peter 2.24. Christ hath born our sins in his Body upon the Tree, 
Heb. 1.3. Joh. 1.29. 1 Joh. 1.7.  to the end that being dead to sin, we might live to justice, by whose bruisings we have been healed.  
Hebrews 9.28. Christ hath been offered one time to abolish the sins of many.  
2 Corinthians 5.21. God hath made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, to the end we should be made the justice of God in him.  
Isaiah 53.4, 5. Truly he hath born our griefs, and himself hath carried our Sorrows, and we have esteemed him as leprous, and stricken of God, and abased; and verse 6. The Lord hath put upon him the iniquity of us all; and verse 11.12. This same is my just servant, in justifying many by his knowledge, and even he shall bear their iniquities, therefore I will part to him many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he hath given his soul to death, and hath been reputed amongst the wicked, and even he hath born the sins of many, & prayed for transgressors.   

6. That the Religion of the Lord consisteth in Faith and Charity.  
1 John 3.23. Behold the command of God, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another as he hath commanded ●s.    

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

1 That God appeased by the Sacrifice of the death of his Son, received into Grace all those who believed in him, pardoning their sins and treating them as if they had never sinned.  
●Ohn 3.18. He who believeth in 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ shall not be condemned, but he who doth not believe is already condemned.  
John verse 24. Verily verily I say ●nto you, that he who hears my word, ●nd believes in him who hath sent me, ●ath life eternal, and shall not come ●nto condemnation, but is passed from ●eath to life,  
John. 6.40. This is the will of ●im that sent me, that who ever ●eth the Son and believes in him ●ath life eternal, and therefore I will raise him up at the Last Day  
Romans 3.21, 22, 23, 24. No● the justice of God is manifested with● out the Law, having witness of 〈◊〉 Law and Prophets, viz. the justice 〈◊〉 God by the Faith of Jesus Christ fo● all, and upon all them which believ● in him; for there is no difference sin● all have sinned, and have need of th● Glory of God, being justified grat● by his Grace, by the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ, whom G●● hath Propounded a Propitiator b● Faith in his blood.  
Romans 4.5. To him who work● eth not but believeth in him wh● justifieth the wicked his Faith 〈◊〉 counted to him for Righteousness according to the good will of th● Grace of God. And verse 23, 24▪ Now that this was imputed to Abr●ham for righteousness, was not o●ly written for him, but also for us, t● whom also this shall be imputed, viz to us, who believe in him who hat● raised from the dead our Lord Jes●● Christ.  
Romans 10.9, 10. 
Rom. 5.1.  If thou confesseth the Lord Jesus Christ wit● thy mouth and believest in thy heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  
Ephesians 2.8. By Grace are you saved through Faith, and this is not of yourselves, (for it is the gift of God) not by works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, being created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath prepared, that we should walk in them.  
2 Corinthians 5.19. God was in Christ, reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their forfeits to them.  
1 John 1.19. If we confess our sins he is Faithful and Just to pardon our fins and cleanse us from all iniquity.  
1 John 2.12. If any one hath sinned we have an Advocate with the Father, viz. Jesus Christ the Just. For 'tis he who is the Propitiatory for our sins, and not only for ours, but for those of the whole World.   

2. That those who believe in God and know him truly give themselves to Sanctification and good works.  
James 2.26. As the Body without the Soul is dead, so Faith without works is dead.  
1 John 2.3. By this we know that we have known him, 
Gal. 5.24.  viz. If we keep his commandments, he who saith he knoweth God, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.  
1. This is proved clearly thus who is begotten of God, gives himself to holiness and good works, and doth no more the mystery of iniquity 1 John 3.10. By this is manifest the children of God and the children of the Devil. Whoever doth not justice nor loveth his brother is not of God. Now whoever beleiveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God, saith S. John in his first Epistle Chapter 5. verse 1. Then who ever believes that Jesus is the Christ gives himself to Holiness and good works.  
2. Who ever shall have eternal life is sanctified, as 'tis clear by that which the Apostle saith, Heb. 12.14. without holiness no man shall see God.  
Now who ever believes shall have eternal life, he who believes in the Son of God shall not perish but have eternal life, John. 3.16, 18. and 5.24. and in other places alleged here above, than who ever believeth is sanctified.    

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

1. Of the Charity and sanctification of the faithful; and first that they ought to love God and serve him with a Sovereign adoration.  
MAt. 22.37.38. 
Deut. 6.5, Luk 10.27.  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy Soul, and with all thy thought, this is the first and great command.  
Matt. 4.10. Thou shalt worship. the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
Rom. 12.1. I beseech you then brethren by the mercy of God, that you offer your bodies a living sacrifice● holy, pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service.   

2. That we must love our neighbours with an ardent and sincere affection.  
Mat. 22.39. The second commandment is like the first, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  
Mat. 5.43, 44, 45. You have heard that it hath been said thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy, but I say unto you love your enemies, do good to them who hate you, and pray for them who calumniate and persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven, who makes his Sun to rise upon the good and evil, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust.  
Rem. 12.9. Let love be without dissembling, etc. Be inclined by brotherly Charity to love one another, preferring one another in honour.  
1. John 4.7, 8. Well beoved let us love one another. For charity is of God, and whoever loves, is born of God, and knoweth God, he that loves not knows not God, for God is charity.   

3. That we must honour our Superioves.  
Eph. 6.1, 2, 3. Children obey your Parents in the Lord, for that is just, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee; and that thou mayest live long upon the earth.  
Verse 5. Servants obey them that are your Masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in simplicity of heart, as to Christ, Rom. 13.7, 8. Render then to all that which is their due, to whom tribute is, tribute, to whom custom is, custom, to whom fear, fear, to whom honour, honour, own no man any thing, but love one another, for he who loves his neighbour hath accomplished the Law.   

4. That we must preserve ourselves pure from all murders, outrages, offences, and battered against our neighbours.  
Mat. 5.21, 22. You have heard that it hath been said by them of Old time, thou shalt not kill, and he who shall kill, shall be worthy to be punished by judgement; but I say unto you whosoever is angry with his brother he shall be worthy to be punished; by judgement; and he who shall say to his brother Raca, shall be worthy to be punished by the Council; and who shall say to him fool, shall be worthy to be punished with the fire of hell.  
Eph. 4.31, 32. Let all bitterness, anger, indignation, clamour, and evil speaking be taken from you with all malice. Be ye kind one to another cordially, pardoning one another as God hath pardoned you by Christ.   

5. That we must fly all the filthiness and stains of the flesh.  
Mat. 5.27, 28. You have heard that it hath been said to them of Old time thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, whosoever shall look upon a woman to covet her, he hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  
Eph. 5.3. 
Col. 3.5.  Fornication and all uncleaness, or covetousness, let it not be once named amongst you, as becometh Saints, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, etc.  
1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. 
1 Cor. 6.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,  This is the will of God, your sanctification, that is to say, that you abstain from whore doom, and that every one of you possess his own vessel in sanctification and honour, not being passionate with concupiscence, as the Gentiles who know not God.   

6. That we must keep ourselves from Thieving, and every one work in his calling.  
Eph. 4.28. Let him who stole, steal no more, but rather let him work, being busied with his hands in that which is good, that he may have to give to him who hath need of it.  
2 Thes. 3.10. When we were with you, we told you that if any one would not work he should not eat.   

7. That we must fly lying and calumny, and be true in all our Actions and Words.  
Ephesians 4.25. Put away lying, and speak truth every one to his neighbour; for we are members one of another.  
Col. 3.9. Lie not one to another having put off the Old man with his deeds; and having put on the new.   

8. That we must be subject to, and humbly obey, the superior powers of the Country where we live.  
Rom. 13.1, 2, 5. 
Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13. 14, 17.  Let every person be subject to the Higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers which are, are ordained of God. Wherefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God, and those who resist it draw damnation upon themselves, etc. Therefore we must be subject not only for fear of anger, but also for conscience.  
Matthew 22.21. Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God those which are Gods.   

9 That in a Word we live Holily and Honestly.  
Romans 12.2. Do not conform yourselves to the World but be you transformed by the renewing of your senses to try what is the good will of God, well pleasing and perfect;  
Ephesians 4.22, 23, 24. Put off the Old man according to the foregoing conversation, which is corrupt by concupiscences, which seduce it, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and be ye clothed with the new man, created according to God in justice, and true holiness.  
Phil. 4.8. Finally my brethren, what ever things are true, 
Col 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  what ever things are modest, whatever things are Just, what ever things are Holy, what ever things are Lovely, what ever things are of good renown, if there be any virtue and any praise of discipline, think of these things.  
Titus 2.11, 12. The grace of God which bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared, teaching us that by renouncing infidelity, and Worldly desires we should live in this present Age, Soberly, Justly, and Religiously, expecting the happy Hope and advent of the Glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.   

10. That this Holiness of life is necessary for the having a part in the Kingdom of Christ.  
Matthew 5.20. 
John 3.2.  I say unto you that if your Righteousness doth not surpass that of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Rom. 8.13. If you live according to the flesh you shall die, but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh you shall live.  
1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Know you not that the unjust shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? 
Eph. 5. Heb. 12.14. Gal. 6.7, 8.  do not abuse yourselves, neither Whoremongers, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Effeminate, nor (les bougrees) abusers of themselves with mankind, nor Thiefs, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor evil speakers, nor (ravisseurs) Extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God.    

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

1. That we must particularly love the Faithful.  
JOhn 13.34, 35. I give you a new commandment that ye love one another as I have loved you, to the end that you love one another, by this all shall know that you be my disciples, if you have love one to another.  
John 15.12, 13. 
1 John 3.2, & 4.12. 1 Pet. 3, 8. Heb. 13.3. Mat. 18.6, 10.  This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. None hath greater love than this, viz. when any one lays down his soul for his friends.  
Gal. 6.12. Whilst we have time let us do good to all, but especially to the Household of Faith.  
1 Peter 2.17. Bear honour to all, love the brotherhood.   

2. That the Faithful aught to meet together to pray to God, and to mind other exercises of Religion.  
Heb. 10.24, 25. Let us take care of one another, to incite us to charity and good works, not forsaking our assembling as some have used to do, but admonishing one another.  
This appears by the examples of the first Christians in the times of the Apostles, when you gather yourselves together (saith St. Paul to the Corinthians) you hold not the form of eating the Supper of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.20.  
And by the promise which the Lord made us, Matt. 18.20. Where there be two or three gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them.   

3. That there ought to be Pastors and Overseers in the Church of the Faithful.  
Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us whether prophesy, let us prophesy, according to the proportion of Faith: or ministry let us wait on our ministering, or he that teacheth on teaching; or he that exhorteth on exhortation, he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity: he that ruleth with diligence, he that showeth mercy with cheerfulness.  
1 Cor. 12.27, 28. Now ye are the Body of Christ and (membres de member) members in particular; 
Eph. 4.11,  And God hath set some of them in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Doctors, after that virtues, than gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues, interpretations of them.  
Tit. 1.5. I have left thee in Crete, to the end that thou shouldest correct the things which remain, and that thou shouldest constitute Priests (or elders) through the Towns as I have ordered thee.  
You have the History of the institution of the Deacons, and the distinction of the Ministers serving the word, from those who serve the table and Alms, in the 6 Chap. of the Acts.   

4. What ought to be the Morals of Pastors and other Ministers  
1 Tim. 3.1, 2, 3. and so on. 
Tit. 1.7, 8, 9  This word is certain, if any one hath an affection to be a Bishop he desireth an excellent work. But a Bishop must be irreprehensible, the Husband of one woman only, Sober, prudent, modest, chaste, willingly receiving strangers, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, but benign, no quarrel, not covetous, but governing his house honestly, having his children subject in all chastity, etc. Not a new convert for fear he being puffed up with pride, should fall into the condemnation of the devil; he must also have a good testimony from them who are without, lest he fall into reproach, and the snare of the devil. Likewise the Deacons must be grave not double in words, not given to much wine, nor covetous of dishonest gain, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, and let these first be proved, then let them serve being irreprehensible, etc.   

5. What the Charge of Pastors is.  
1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. 
Act 20.28, 1 Cor. 4, 1, 2 1 Tim 5.20. 2 Cor. 1.23. and 13.8.  5.1, 2, 3. I beseech the esders which are amongst you, I who am an elder with you, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed? feed the flock of God, which is committed to you, having, care over it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God; not for dishonest gain but of a ready mind, not as having Lordship over the people and clergy of God, but so that you be examples to the flock by good will.  
2 Cor. 4.5. We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord, and that we are your servants for Jesus.  
2 Tim. 2.2. that which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, do thou commit to faithful men, who shall be sufficient to teach others also, and verse the 14 remember these things, protesting before God etc. Study to render thyself approved to God, to open without confusion, and handling rightly the words of truth.  
2 Tim. 4.2. Preach the word, be instant, in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all patience and doctrine.   

6. The dignity of the charge of Pastors and Supervisors.  
1 Cor. 4.1. Let a man esteem of us as of the Ministers of Christ, 
2 Cor. 5.10.  and dispensors of the secrets of God.  
1 Tim. 3.1. This word is certain if any one hath a mind to be a Bishop he desireth a good work.   

7. That the Faithful aught to honour their Pastors, obey, and nourish them.  
Matt. 18.17. If thy brother disdains to hear the Church let him be to thee as a Pagan and Publican.  
Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, saith the Lord, speaking to his Disciples, and he that rejects you rejects me.  
Heb. 13.17. Obey them who rule over you and submit to them, for they watch for your souls, as they who ought to give an account of them, that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that will not become profitable to you.  
1 Tim. 5.17. The Priests (or elders as the Louvain version renders this word, Sect 5 in the passage of St. Peter, 1 Ep. Ch. 5.1.) who rule well, let them be reputed worthy of double honour, principally they who labour in the word of doctrine. For the Scripture saith, thou shalt not tie the throat of the Ox that treadeth out the corn, and the work man is worthy of his hire.  
1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Do you not know that those who do Sacrifices, 
Gal. 6.6.  eat the things which are sacrificed? and they who are busied at the altar, partake with the altar? so likewise our Lord hath ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. See the verses 7, 8, 9, 10. Of the same Chapter.   

8. That the Faithful aught to reject the Ministers who preach any other thing then the Gospel of Jesus Christ  
Gal. 1.8. If we ourselves, or an an Angel from Heaven should preach, other wise than we have preached to you, let him be accursed. So as we have said before, now also I say again, if any one preach to you any thing but that which you have received let him be accursed.  
1 John 4.1. Beloved, believe not all spirits; but try the spirit whether they are of God. For many false Prophets are come into the World.  
2 John verse 10. If any one comes to you, and brings not this Doctrine do not receive him into your house, nor salute him.    

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

1. That Christians ought to be baptised in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  
MAt. 
Mark, 16.16.  28.19. Go and teach all men, baptising them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  
Examples of this are common, in the books of the New Testamentperticularly in the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that those, who believed the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and received it, were baptised, Acts 2.38, 41. and 8.12, 13. and 9.10. and 10.47, and 16.15.   

2. That Baptism gives remission of sins, and the Grace of the Holy Ghost  
Acts 2.38. Peter said to them repent, and be every one baptised, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  
Rom. 6.3. 
Mar 6.16. 1 Pet. 3.21 Ehh. 6.26.  Know you not brethren that all of us who have been baptised in Jesus Christ, have been baptised in his death? for we are buried with him in death by baptism, so that as Christ is risen from the dead, by the glory of the Father, we also should walk in newness of life.  
Gal. 3.27. You all who were baptised in Christ have put on Christ.  
Col. 2.11, 12. You being circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of Flesh, viz. by the circumcision of Jesus Christ, being buried with him by baptism, in which also you are risen together by the Faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.   

3. That the Faithful aught to eat the bread and drink the sanctified wine in commemoration of the death of the Lord.  
1 Cor. 11.23. etc. I have received from the Lord that which also I give you; that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it, and said, take eat; this here is my Body which shall be given for you, 
Mat 26, 26, 27, 28. Mar. 14.22, 23, 24. Luk. 22, 17, 18, 19, 20.  do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the chalice, after he had supped, saying, this chalice is the New Testament in my blood, I do this every time that you drink of it in remembrance of me. For every time that you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, you will show forth the Lords death till he comes, etc. Let a man then try himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of this chalice.   

4. That the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the communication of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ.  
1 Cor. 10.16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Lord.    

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

1. That the malice of man is so great that of himself he neither understands nor believes the heavenly Doctrine preached by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, nor can he live in piety according to the Gospel.  
JOhn 3.3. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, that who is not born again cannot see the Kingdom of God.  
John 6.44. No one can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him.  
Rom, 8, 7. The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, nor in truth can it be.  
1 Cor. 2.14. The Animal man doth not comprehend the things which are of the Spirit God, for they are to him folly, and he cannot understand them in as much as they are discerned spiritually.   

2. That the Spirit of God which gives to men the graceof understanding & believing the Gospel, and of living according to the Doctrine of the Lord.  
1 Cor. 2.7, 8, 9, 10. We speak the Wisdom of God, which is a mystery, which is hid, etc. Which none of the Princes of this World hath known (for if they had known if, they had never crucified the Lord of glory) but as it is written the things which the eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard, and which are not entered into the heart of man, are those which God hath prepared for those which love him: but God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit.  
Matth. 11.25. At that time Jesus answered and said, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, I thank thee, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and understanding; and hast revealed them to little Children.  
Matth. 11.17. Thou art blessed Simon, Son of Ionas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, but my Father which is in heaven.  
John. 1.12, 13. Those who believe in the name of God, are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but are born of God.  
Acts 16.14. The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, to understand the things which Paul said.  
Phil. 1.29. It is given to you for Christ, not only to believe in him but also to endure for him.  
Phil. 2.13. 'Tis God that worketh in you to do and to will, according to his good will.  
Ezech. 
Jer. 31.33. and 32.39.  11.19, 20. And I will give them a heart, and will put into them a new spirit, and I will take away the heart of stone from their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh, that they may walkin my commandments, and keep my judgements, and do them, and that they be my people, and that I be their God.   

3. That the Holy Ghost is a person distinct from the Father and the Son.  
John. 14.16, 17. I will pray the Father (saith our Lord Jesus Christ) and he shall give you another comforter, to abide with you eternally, viz. The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive, because it neither seethe him nor knows him, but you know him, for he shalld well with you, and be in you, and verse the 26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and shall inspire into you all things which I have said.  
Matt. 28.19. Teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  
This appears because he proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Son. When the Comforter shall come (saith the Lord) which I will send to you from my Father, the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from my Father that shall witness of me. John 15.26. If I go I will send to you the Comforter Joh. 16.7. and ver. 13, 14. When the Spirit of truth shall come he will teach you all truth, for he will not speak of himself, but will say all which he shall have heard, and will tell you things to come, he shall glorify me, for he shall take of mine and show it unto you.   

4. That the Holy Ghost is God.  
Acts. 5.3, 4. Peter said to Ananias, Ananias why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost etc. Thou hast not lied unto men but God.  
This is proved evidently because the proprieties and works of the true God, are attributed to him in the Scripture: as first, His presence in all places, Psal. 138 (Heb 139.) 7, 8. Where shall I go back from thy Spirit, or where shall I flee back from thy face; if I go into heaven thou art there, if I descend into hell thou art present there.  
Secondly, his presence in the persons of all the faithful, Rom. 8.9. You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you, 
1 Cor. 6.19.  1 Cor. 3.16. Know you not that you are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 2 Tim. 1.14. The Holy Ghost dwells in us.  
Thirdly, His knowing all things, 1 Cor. 2.10, 11. The Spirit searcheth all things, yea even the deep things of God, for what is it in men which knows the things of man, except the Spirit of man which is in him? likewise no man hath known the things of God except the Spirit of God. John. 14.26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, which the Father will send in my Name, shall teach you all things, see also, John. 14.13.  
Fourthly, His knowledge and prediction of things to come, 1 Tim. 4.1. The Spirit saith expressly, that in the last times some shall revolt from the Faith.  
Fifthly, His all powerfulness, 1 Cor. 12.11. One and the same Spirit doth all things, distributing to every one particularly, according as he will.  
Sixthly, His right of having a Temple an evident sign of his Divinity, 1 Cor. 6.19. Do not you know that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, the which you have of God.  
Seventhly, His virtue of creating, Job. 26.13. His Spirit hath adorned the heavens, Job. 33.4. The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life, Luk. 1.35. The Angel answered and said to Mary. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Virtue of the Sovereign shall over shadow thee, and therefore the Saint which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.  
Eighthly, That 'tis he which teacheth the faithful of Jesus Christ, which is a work of God, (as it appears by Isai 54.13. alleged by the Lord, John. 6.45. They shall be all taught of God) 1 Cor. 2.10. God hath revealed to us heavenly things by his Spirit, and verse 12. and in John. 16.13. The Spirit of truth shall teach you all truth.  
Ninthly, That he subsisted before the creation of all things, Gen. 1, 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the waters.   

5. That the Holy Ghost is that same God which is called the Lord or Eternal in Scripture.  
This appears clearly. For since there is no other God but the Lord Eternal, (as we have already proved by Scripture) the Holy Ghost being God, (as we have shown) it must necessarily be concluded that he is the same Lord eternal, since otherwise he would not be God.  
Moreover this is proved most evidently thus, he who hath instructed, sent, and inspired the ancient Prophets of the Old Testament is the true eternal God worshipped heretofore in Israel, as it appears through all their prophecies, now it is the holy Spirit which hath instructed, sent, and inspired them, 2 Pet. 1.21. The holy men of God being inspired by the holy Spirit have spoken. 'Tis he particularly (Acts. 1.16.) who hath foretold that which we read in David, Psal. 40. (Heb. 41.) 10. 'Tis he who spoke by Isai. (Acts. 28.25.) and commanded him to say that which we read in the 6 Chap. verse. 9 of his prophecy, 'Tis he (Heb. 9.1, 8.) who gave to Moses the ordinance which we read, Levit. 16.2. 'Tis he (Heb. 10.15.) who spoke in the 31 Chap. verse 32. of Jeremy. 'Tis he last (Heb. 3.7) who saith in the 94 Psal. (Heb. 95.) 8. that which we read there: it follows then of necessity, that he is the same Lord Eternal, whom the Faithful under the Old Testament adored.  
Thus have we clearly proved the Doctrine of the Trinity. That there is three of them, the Scripture teacheth it expressly, 1 John. 5.7. There are three which gives witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one, Matt. 28.19. Teaching all Nations baptising them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, 2 Cor. 13.13. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the Communion of the Spirit, be with you all, Amen. And when the Lord Jesus was baptised these three persons were manifested distinctly, the Father crying from heaven, this is my beloved Son in whom I have taken delight; the Son receiving the baptism in his humanity, the Holy Ghost descending from heaven upon him in form of a dove, Matth. 3.16, 17. And that these three persons are one and the same divinity, appears by what we have all ready said. Now that the Father is the true eternal God adored by the Israelites all the Scripture saith it, and the words alone of Jesus Christ, John. 17.3. sufficiently teacheth it, were speaking to the Father, this is life eternal (saith he) that they should know the only true God. That Jesus Christ is likewise the true eternal God, and that the Holy Spirit is so also, we have proved here above. Since than that all the Scripture professeth, that this eternal Lord is one only God, as we have also justified, one must then of necessity conclude, that these three blessed and glorious persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; are but one and the same God; which is that which the Church nameth the doctrine of the Trinity.    

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

1. That God gives the Grace of his Spirit according to his good pleasure.  
ROm. 9.15, 16. I will have mercy (saith the Lord) on him on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on him on whom I will have compassion. It is not then (concludes the Apostle) of him who wills; nor of him who runs; but of God who doth mercy.  
Eph. 1.5. God hath predestinated us into the adoption of his children by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will.  
Phil. 2.13. 'tis God, which hath made in you both to will and to do according to his good will.  
Matt. 11.25, 26. O Father Lord of heaven and earth, I render thee thanks, that thou hast hid these things from the wise, and understanding, and hast revealed them to little children, even so Father for as much as thy good pleasure hath been such.   

2. That those whom God hath enlighttened by his Spirit come unto him.  
John. 6.45. Whosoever hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, he cometh to me.  
Rom. 8.29. Those whom God hath before known, he hath also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son, etc. And those whom he predestinated, he hath also called, and those whom he hath called, he hath also justified, and those whom he hath justified, he hath also glorified.   

3. That God will give his Salvation to those who shall have-believed in his Son, and lived according to his Gospel.  
John. 3.36. Who believeth in the Son hath eternal life.  
Rom. 8.1. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Jesus Christ, who walk not according to the flesh, see also, verse 13. and 14.  
Joh. 5.11, 12. God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; who hath the Son of God, he hath life, who hath not the Son of God, hath not life.   

4. That he preserveth and comforts them by his Spirit dureing this life.  
John. 15.18. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter to dwell with you eternally. etc. I will not leave you Orphans, and adds Matth. 28.20. behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.  
John. 17.11. Now I am no more in the world; (said the Lord upon the point of his passion) but these are in the world, and I come to thee, Holy Father, keep them in thy name, those I say, which thou hast given me, to the end they may be one, as we are, etc. And in verse 15. I do not pray that thou wouldst take them out of the world, but that thou wouldst keep them from the evil, and in verse. 20. Now I pray not only for them, but also for those who shall believe in me by their word.  
Rom. 8.32. God who hath not spared his own Son, but gave him for us all, how shall he not give us also all things with him? and in verse. 35.37. Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ, shall it be oppression, or trouble, or 'samine, or nakedness, or peril, or persecution, or sword? etc. But rather in all these things we are conquerrours, through him who hath loved us.  
1 Cor. 1.8, 9 The Lord shall preserve you unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful by whom you have been called into the company of Jesus Christ our Lord.  
1 Cor. 10.13. God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted beyond what you are able, so he will give you aid in temptation, to the end you may be able to bear it.    

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

1. That God gathers the Spirits of the Faithful into his Repose when they depart this life.  
REvel. 14.13. Blessed are the dead who die to the Lord from henceforth (saith the Spirit) that they rest from their labours for their works follows them.  
2 Cor. 5.1. We know that if our earthly habitation of this body were destroyed we have a building from God, viz. a house which is not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens, and ver. 6, 7, 8. Wherefore having always confidence, and knowing that when we are in this body we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by Faith and not by sight) but we are assured, and have a good will rather to be out of the body, and to be with the Lord.   

2. That God shall raise the Faithful at the last day, and shall lead them into heaven, to live and reign eternally with Christ in a Sovereign glory  
John. 6.39. The will of my Father, which hath sent me, is, that I should lose nothing of all that which he hath given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day.  
Rom. 8.11. If the spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal Bodies, because of his Spirit dwelling in you.  
Phil. 3.20, 21. We expect from heaven a Saviour, viz. the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall transform our vile body, that it may be made conformable to his glorious body, according to the efficacy by which, he can even make all things subject to himself.  
1 Thes. 4.14. If we believe that Jesus is dead and risen, likewise those who sleep in Jesus, 
ver. 16.17:  God will bring them with him. Then in verse 15.16. For the Lord, with the command and voice of the Archangel, and with the trumpet of God, shall descend from Heaven, and those, who are dead in Christ, shall rise first. Then we, who live and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds before the Lord in the air, and so shall be always with the Lord.  
See the description, the clearness, and the history of all the Mystery of our last resurrection in the Chap. 1 Cor.   

3. That life eternal is a gift and grace of God.  
Rom. 6.23. The wages of sin is death, and the grace of God is life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord.  
2 Tim. 1.18. The Lord give to Onesiphorus, to find mercy from God in the last Day.   

4. That the wicked and incredulous shall perish eternally.  
2 Thes. 1.7, 8, 9 The Lord Jesus shall show himself from heaven with the Angels of his power; with a flame of fire doing vengeance upon them, who know not God, and who obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with eternal punishments, from the face of God, and from the glory of his power.  
Revel. 21.8. But the fearful, and Unbelieving, and execrable, and Murderers, and Whoremongers, and Poisonous, and Idolaters, and all Liars, their part shall be in the lake burning with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.  
The End of the Second Part.     

FAITH Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures.  
Where the Articles of our Faith are justified by the Scripture Negative and Exclusive; of the Creeds of the Roman Church.  
Part III.  

CHAP. I. The Antiquity, Universality, and Clearness of our Religion; and from whence comes our difference with Rome.  
THus have we shown our faith by the Scriptures. The Passages are clear, and for the most part express and formal; which Rome and Geneva equally acknowledge in their Version, which the East and West, North and South read in common, since the first times of Christianity to this minute, without their being able to reproach us, that we have violated the Original, abused the Pricks of the Hebrew, or the Accents of the Greek. The Consequences are of so evident necessity that Children are capable of understanding them: So easy is it to prove, that the Beliefs which we have just now demonstrated by Scripture, are common to all Christians. The Ancients have explained & cleared them in their Symbols and Councils. The Moderns have retained them notwithstanding all the Changes which has happened in Religion. All the Climates of the Christian world have received them with an universal consent. Rome itself doth not contest with us about them; she makes a Profession to believe them also. There is but Sabellius, Paul de Samosate, Arius, Fotinus, Manicheusi, Pelagius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, every one of whom debate something of them with us, all Heretics, being crushed by the Thunderbolts of the Catholic Church many hundred years since. They alone demand proofs of us, the others believe all with us: From whence it appears by the way, how false the Calumny of those is, who accuse our Religion of novelty or particularity. For what is there either more Ancient or Universal among Christians than those Creeds of which it consists? Who can deny that the Catholic Church hath had them in all Ages? That Rome itself hath them not now? Whether Antiquity hath had any Opinion which I have not, it is another Question; and upon which it falls out to consider: First, Whether this be a thing which hath been revealed by Jesus Christ, and preached by his Apostles. And Secondly, ipresupposing it to be a truth, that it is so necessary, that one cannot without believing it, have part in the Grace and Glory of God. But as to my Religion, that is to say, this faith which I have proved by the Scriptures, it is clear, that all the true Christians both Ancient and Modern are agreed in it; who by confequence are all of my Religion, although perhaps I am not of their Opinion in all other things. They hold all my Beliefs, only I confess, 'tis better that I hold not all their Opinions; see the terms upon which we are with those of Rome. For they profess to believe the Articles which we have explained. All the difference springs from the Articles which they lay down to the confession of which they would oblige us, and which we cannot receive. This is all our Controversy. From whence every one may see the injustice of the new Methodists, who press us to prove by formal passages the points of our faith, controversed between them and us: Whereas the Points of my faith (Gentlemen) are not controversed, but those of yours; as for Example, the Question is not whether we ought to worship God and Jesus Christ, which is a Point of my faith; but whether we ought to worship the Host, which is an Article of yours. The Question is not, whether Jesus Christ is our Mediator, or whether the Oblation of his death is a Sacrifice, which are Articles of my belief; but whether the Saints departed are our Mediators; and whether the pretended Oblation of your Altars is a true, a properly called Sacrifice, which are the Points of your Faith. We do not dispute whether we ought to call upon God, or hope for Paradise, and fear Hell, which is my belief; but whether we ought to Invogue the Saints and apprehend the fire of Purgatory, which is your Doctrine. 'Tis you than ought to prove your saith, & not I mine. Since to dispute well and lawfully, one ought to prove, not things which the parties are agreed on (which would be a superflous labour) but those about which they differ. Nevertheless to content your humour, we have proved our faith by the Scripture. Let us see now if you can as easily find yours there, and that which you add to ours, upon which indeed is all your contest.   

CHAP. II. An Exposition of the Principal Beliefs of the Roman Church, which we reject from our Faith.  
FOr we confess voluntarily that we cannot believe, neither that which you teach, that Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world, besides his being once offered upon the Cross, is still every day immolated, and truly and properly sacrificed upon your Altars, under the Signs of Bread and Wine, for the expiation of the sins of men; nor that which you presuppose to this purpose, that the body of Jesus Christ, although it be in Heaven in Sovereign Glory, is notwithstanding here below really and substantially under the Species of Bread and Wine which you consecrate entirely under every part of the Species of the Bread and the Wine losing their first substance, and being changed into that of his Body and Blood; nor that which you conclude, that all the faithful of the Lord are obliged, without scrupling, to render to your Sacrament the adoration, 
* Cult. de Latria.  worship and service due to the true God.  
We reject also from our faith, this which you assert in yours, that the Souls of some of the faithful, after having been washed in the Blood of Christ, which cleanseth from all sin, ought yet to be purged by, I know not what, subterranean flames, in a place which you name Purgatory: Nor can we persuade ourselves to believe what you so firmly maintain, that sinful men obtain the pardon of their Crimes not by faith alone (as we all believe) but also by the merits of their own works, such (as most of you say) as they even merit Divine Grace, and life eternal.  
Neither can we receive that which you teach, that besides this great God whom we adore, we ought also to serve the Saints departed; and besides the love and honour which we bore them as persons who have lived in the fear of God, and who now rejoice in his Glory, we ought moreover to invoke them, pray to them, and have recourse to their aid, and render as well to their Images as to those of Christ, a certain Religious Veneration, in kissing and saluting them, uncovering our heads and prostrating our bodies before them.  
Less yet do we think ourselves obliged (as you do) to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for the Head and Spouse of the Universal Church, besides Jesus Christ our Lord, or to attribute to him a Sovereign and Independent Authority over all other Pastors and Bishops, and even over Councils; and an infallible Light in the Faith, never erring in the decision of things which concerns it: and therefore we do not believe that the Laws which he hath made of celebrating certain Feasts, and of abstaining certain days from certain kinds of meats does oblige the Consciences of the Faithful.  
And as to the Ministers of Religion in particular, we do not believe (as you do) that they are obliged to abstain from Marriage, which the Astle calls honourable, believing that it is enough that they have the good qualities which is required in them in the first of Tim. and elsewhere.  
Upon the Articles of the Sacraments, we confess that Baptism and the Supper are sufficient for us, not being able (as you have ordained) to receive for true and proper Sacraments of the Christian Religion; your Confirmation, Orders, Extreme Unction, Penitence, nor Marriage; nor do we believe (as you do) that the faithful are obliged before they communicate of the holy Eucharist, to confess to a Priest all and every one of their sins in particular, declaring to him the kinds and circumstances of them, believing that it is sufficient, that a man try himself, 
1 Cor. 11.28,  and so eat of that bread, and drink of that wine of the Lord, as the Apostle prescribes.  
In a word, we cannot believe that your Clerks ought to be exempted from the Jurisdiction and Subjection of Princes and States in the Country in which they live; nor that Princes and States should be subject to your Pope, or to any other Ecclesiastical Minister in his Temporal Concerns, as the Court of Rome holds, which you acknowledge as the Mother and Head of the Catholic Church.  
These are the Principle Articles of the Faith of our Adversaries, which we will not receive. Let us consider now as briefly as 'tis possible whether they are found in the Holy Scriptures. If we will follow their Principles, it will be very easy for us to finish all this Dispute in one word. For since according to the Maxims of their Method we ought to hold for Doctrine of the Scriptures, nothing but what we read there, precisely & in so many words, the Consequences being faulty and discourse deceitful abusive; who seethe not but by their own Confession all the Articles which we have excluded from our faith, are out of the Scripture, and cannot be proved by it; it being clear that one cannot read there any one thing expressly, formally, and literally in the same terms as they believe them and expound them; and upon this account I should be already at the end of my task. For since that according to us the Scripture is the only Principal of faith, so perfect that we do not think that it is permitted us to receive into our Religion any Article of Belief which is not taught by the Scriptures: and since on the other side, none of the Articles which those of Rome lay down, can be read there, which is according to these new Disputers, the only Method to justify a Belief by the Scripture, it follows clearly that my faith is all entire, and most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures (which is all the design of this Treatise) since that which it believes is found there, and that which it doth not believe is not found there. But God forbidden that we should take advantage by the wrangling of our Adversaries. We shall always acknowledge for true Doctrine of the Scriptures, that which can be clearly and necessarily drawn from thence; all that which they charge upon Reason being false, and not to the purpose, as we have showed here above. Let us deal honestly then, and examine whether their Beliefs which appear no where in formal and precise terms in the Scripture may notwithstanding be concluded from thence by some evident and necessary Consequences. We will recite here only those which seem to them to be most strong, passing by a great number of them; which though used by their Authors are so weak, and (if I may be permitted to say it) so extravagant, that whoever hears them will think them the idle talk of a sleeping man, rather than the discourse of one that is awake. For to what purpose should I go about to spoil Paper, and lose time to copy the Arguments of those who conclude the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome from that which Jesus Christ said to St. 
Luke 5.4.  Peter, Duc in altum, Go into the deep: or the truth of Purgatory from that which David said, 
Psal 129.1. (Lat. 130.1.) (Hebr.)  De profundis clamavi ad te, Domine: Lord, I have cried to thee from the deep places: or that the Priests are obliged to a single life, from that which St. Paul sayeth, 
Rom. 8 8.  that those who are in the flesh cannot please God; or the worshipping of Images, from that which is said, the Lord made man after his own Image, and the like? Without lying, if these Consequences, and the works of our understandings were all of this nature, these Gentlemen would have great reason to reject them. We will produce as much as possible we can, only those of their proofs which seem to have some colour and shadow of Reason, although at the bottom any one may easily know, in bearing but attention to them, that they are nothing in effect.   

CHAP. III. That the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass is not taught in the Scriptures.  
FIrst, To prove that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice truly propitiatory for the sins of men, they allege, that Melchizedek the Type of Jesus Christ offered bread and wine. 
Geu. 14.18.  But what appearance is there in this Consequence? First, the Sacred Text both in the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Original, and in their own 
† Proferens.  Version, signifieth, that Melchisedek produced bread, and brought out wine, and not that he offered it; and all these circumstances lead us to believe that it was for the refreshment of Abraham and his men being weary with fight, 
2 Kings (Hebr. 2 Sam.) 17.28.  and with the Journey; by a humanity like to that which Berzillai the Gileadite hath since used to David and those who were with him. Secondly, though Moses did say that Melchisedek offered bread and wine, not to refresh Abraham, but in Sacrifice to God, how can they prove that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice, and not rather an action of thanks; since under the Old Testament all the propitiatory Sacrifices had with them an effusion of blood? 
Heb. 9.22.  And in a word, suppose that this pretended Oblation of Melchisedek had been a Sacrifice realy propitiatory, how can they prove that it figured the Eucharist, which is never called Sacrifice in the New Testament; and not rather the death of Jesus Christ, acknowledged for a true Sacrifice through out all the Scriptures, and by all Christians, where the Lord, the true bread of life, descended from Heaven, hath been offered to the Father, for the expiation of the sins of humankind?  
Secondly, They produce Malachy, 
Mal. 1.11.  who prophesying the times of the New Testament, saith, that in every place they shall offer to the Lord an oblation pure, or clean: that is (say they) the Eucharist. But first, although it should be so, how could they conclude from thence that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice truly and properly expiatory? The thanks which accompanies this action, and gives it the name of Eucharist, that is to say, of an Action of Thanksgiving, may be called a pure Oblation, which one presents to the Lord for his goodness to us, without being a propitiatory Sacrifice, any more, than Alms, Prayers, and the Preaching of the Gospel, which are named also Sacrifices. Secondly, What necessity is there to assert that this pure Oblation predicted by Malachy should precisely be the Eucharist? 
Heb. 13.15, 16. Rom. 15.16.  it's aim evidently enough is to signify, that the Service of God should be no more as formerly tied to the Mountain of Zion, but should be done in all places, from the rising to the going down of the Sun, not to the people of Israel only, but communicated to all Nations. For these Divine Authors very often employ the terms and things of the Church of their times, to signify the state and things of the Church to come; as when Esaiah saith, 
Esa. 2.3.  that the nations shall go up to the Mountain and Temple of the Lord, to signify that they shall make profession of his knowledge, and shall serve him: And when the Lord himself represents the estate of the Church to the Age to come, in saying, 
Mat. 8.11.  that we shall be set at the Table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, terms which agree properly to the present Church. Malachy in the same manner used the word Oblation, which is properly a part of the Service which had place in the Church of his time, to denote the Evangelical Service which succeeded him under the New Testament; and to signify it more particularly, he called it, a pure Oblation; no more carnal and gross, consisting of Fat and Oil, in Flower, and in the blood of Beasts, as heretofore, but wholly spiritual and true; this is the service St. Paul understands where making opposition of the Christians with the Jews, he sayeth, 
Phil. 3.3. Rom. 1.9.  that we should serve God in spirit; and speaking of himself, he saith, that he served God in his Spirit; and showeth elsewhere, that his preaching was part of it, where he saith, 
Rom. 15.16.  he applied himself to the Sacrifice of the Gospel of God, to the end that the oblation of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. He describes it so in general in the 12th of the Romans, That our service (which he calls reasonable, for the same Reasons for which Malachy names it pure) is that we should present our bodies as a living Sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. 
Rom. 12.1  Jesus Christ a long time since Malachy, foretold exactly the same thing, at the time of his compliment. 
John 4.20, 23.  The hour cometh (saith he) that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth; no more in the mountain of Gerezim as the Patriarches did, nor in Jerusalem as the Jews, but in every place, as the Prophet said. By comparing of these passages 'tis easy to find out that the pure oblation of Malachy is nothing else but the worshipping in Spirit and truth, which our Lord saith, and the oblation of our bodies as a living Sacrifice, as St. Paul speaks and our service in Spirit, as he saith, and so consequently not the Mass.  
Thirdly, But they allege from the New Testament that Jesus Christ in celebrating the Eucharist, said to his Disciples, Do this; now to do, signifieth sometimes to sacrifice: but what necessity is there to take it so in this place? Who seethe not that, do this, signifieth an action of which the Lord had spoken. Now he had said nothing of sacrificing (he spoke not one word of that) but of eating and drinking. For after having given them the sanctified bread to eat, & the sanctified Cup to drink, he adds, do this in remembrance of me. Wherefore then shall not we take these words, do this, to signify, to eat this Bread, and drink of this Chalice? St. Paul explains it clearly so, when after having rehearsed these words of the Lord, Do this every time, and as oft as you drink of it in remembrance of me, he adds, for every time and as oft as you eat of this bread and drink of this Cup, you signify the Lords death till he come. 
2 Cor. 12.25, 26.  The connection of this Verse with the precedent evidently showeth, that to do this, signifieth eating of this bread, and drinking of this Cup.  
Fourthly, They produced also, that our Lord in the 22 of St. Luke speaking of the Cup of the Eucharist, saith, 
Luke 22.20.  that it is shed for us; from whence they conclude, that it is then an expiatory Sacrifice for our sins. But I say, first, that although the words of the Lord in Saint Luke cannot be taken otherwise than in saying that the Holy Cup is shed for us; nevertheless it doth not follow that the Eucharist is, to speak properly, a propitiatory Sacrifice. What? is not the Water of the Holy Baptism spilt for those who receive it? Do you conclude from hence that Baptism is a propitiatory Sacrifice? Many things make for us which nevertheless are not Sacrifices. The Chalice of the Eucharist is it not useful and wholesome for us? Is it not given us to communicate to us the blood of the Lord, Grace, and the remission of our fins? It is enough to say truly that it is shed for us, there being no need to change it into Sacrifice to explain this manner of speaking. But without coming to this one may justify this otherwise. For since the Cup is the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, which hath been truly shed as a Sacrifice on the Cross, to merit the remission of our sins; and since it is the custom to give to the Sacraments the qualities and attributions of the things of which they are Sacraments, none ought to think it more strange that the Cup should be said to be shed for us, than that which St. 
1 Cor. ●0. 4  Paul saith, that the Rock in the Desert was Christ. Secondly, I say, that it is not necessary to take the words of St. Luke in that sense which they produce them. On the contrary it seemeth that their Belief, and their Latin Interpretation licenced by the Council of Trent, 
Council of Trent, Sess. 4.  doth not permit them to take them so. Their Belief. For if the Cup of the Eucharist is shed for us, since by the Cup they understand the blood of Jesus Christ contained in the Cup they must say that the blood of Christ is shed for us in the Eucharist, which is directly contrary both to what they confess of the glorious and impassable state of the body of the Lord, and to that which they expressly assert, that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice not bloody, and that Christ is offered there without the effusion of blood. Their Interpreter. For thus he translates these words: This Chalice is the New Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 2.  showing evidently by the Future-Tense in which he puts the Verb, which shall be shed; that he attributes this effusion, not to the Cup, but to the blood of Christ, which was shed some time after; whereas the Chalice was shed at that very hour. He ought then to apply the effusion to the blood of Christ, and not to the Cup; and to translate this passage thus, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you. And they ought not to allege that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, spilt, is in another case, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, my Blood; the first being in the Nominative, and the other in the Dative, as the Grammarians speak. For though this sort of Construction be extraordinary in the Greek, nevertheless 'tis in use in the Books of the New Testament, as in the 8th Chapter of the Revelation, 
Revel. 8.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 1.5.  the third part of the Creatures which were in the Sea and had life, died; where the Participle having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not agree with the Noun of Creatures in this Case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which nevertheless it it is clearly applied; one being in the Genetive and the other in the Nominative; and in the first Chapter of the same Book, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness; where these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faithful Witness, which are in the nominative, are applied clearly to the Name of our Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jesus Christ, though it be in the Genetive, as all Interpreters acknowledge. Those who understand the Greek tongue, may remark other passages where, these Divine Authors do construe alike the words different in Case and in number, Luke 5.9. & 9.53. John 21.12. 1 John 4.3. Mark 12.38, 40. Apoc. 3.12, 21. 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. One may here then likewise without staying one's self so scrupulously to the Grammar, construe the word, shed with the blood, and not with the Cup; and translate, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you; 
Bazil. Ethic. definite. 21.  and 'tis just so that the holy Bazel reads it, ancienter than us, more than 1256 years, where he mentions it in his Morals.  
5. But they make show likewise to stand upon the words of St. 
1 Cor. 10.17, 18, 21.  Paul in the 10th of the first to the Corinthians, comparing the Table of the Lord with the Altar of the ancient Hebrews, and with the profane Altars of the Pagans. For in doing this (say they) doth he not give us to underderstand that the Eucharist is a true and properly named Sacrifice, as those which they offered upon the Altars of the Hebrews, and the Gentiles. But if this must be thus urged, I will then conclude that the Eucharist is a bloody Sacrifice, since those of the Jews & Pagans, with whom they pretend that it is compared, were of the same nature. Who seethe not that the Apostle in all these places doth not compare the action of the Hebrew and Gentile Sacrificers offering their Sacrifices with the action of Evangelical Ministers, blessing the Eucharist: But the action of the Hebrews and Gentiles every one eating the bread, and drinking the Chalice of the Supper? And that he compares them only in this point, that as one was a public protestation which the Hebrews and Gentiles did to participate with the Altars upon which had been sacrificed the flesh whereof they eat, and to the Divinity to which they had sacrificed them; so also the second was a solemn and authentic act the Communion of which the faithful have with Jesus Christ, and of the part which they pretend in his flesh and in his blood? So that since 'tis impossible to have Communion with Jesus Christ, and with the Devils together; the Apostle concluding that to eat meats sacrificed to the Devil is a thing inconsistent with the marks and profession of Christianity: behold how far he design of the Apostle extends, and no farther.  
6. Lastly, They endeavour to establish their pretended Sacrifice upon this Divine Altar which we have (saith the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) and of which those who serve at the Tabernacle have no power to eat. 
Heb. 13.10.  But the circumstances of the passage, and even the most celebrous Writers amongst 
* Nic. de Lyra, Thomas. and others upon this passage.  our Adversaries teach us, that the holy Apostle spoke in that place of the mystical Altar of the Church, Jesus, our Priest, our Victim, and our Altar; the virtue and life of which those who are yet under the shadow of Moses and the Service of his earthly Sanctuary, have no part in; as aforetime under the Old Testament, 
Leu. 16.27  the Ministers of the Mosaical Tabernacle eat not of the flesh of the Victims sacrificed for sin.   

CHAP. IU. That the pretended Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist is not taught in the Scriptures.  
SO it appears that the pretended Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is not in the Scriptures, it being as impossible to draw it from thence by Consequences, as to read it there in formal terms.  
Let us see if this marvellous change which they presuppose of the Substance of the Consecrated Bread into that of the body of Christ, may be found more easily there.  
First then, 
Matth. 26.26. Macrk. 14.22. Luke 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.24.  They seek it in the words which the Lord pronounced in his instituting the Eucharist: for having taken and blessed it, he said, This is my Body. From whence they conclude, that the bread hath then lost the Substance of bread, because otherwise it could not be the body of Christ. But what necessity is there in this Consequence. St. Paul said of the Church, the same which is said of the bread of the Eucharist, that she is the body of the Lord; 
1 Cor. 12.27. Eph. 1.23. 1 Cor. 6, 15.  and saith particularly of the Corinthians, that they are the body of Christ; and nevertheless, no one concludes from thence that the Church hath lost its first Substance, nor the Corinthians theirs. The same saith well, that our bodies are the members of Christ; and every one confesseth that they have not changed their Substance, because of that. And then why shall one conclude that the Eucharist is not bread, because it is called the body of Christ? 
Cajetan in Thom. q. 75. art. 1. Scot cite per Bellard. l. 3. c. 23. of the Eucharist.  The Cardinal Cajetan one of the most famous Writers of the Church of Rome, confesseth himself that there was no necessity for it there: There appears nothing in the Evangelist (saith he) which constrains us to take the words literally. Scotus holds it likewise. And it will avail nothing to reply, that the Lord said, that it was his body which should be delivered for us, which cannot be understood but of his true body. 
Cajetan ibid.  From whence (saith Cajetan) one cannot evidently conclude that the words mentioned aught to be understood properly, since that these relative words (which are given for you) do not show us that it is properly the body. For the relative, which doth not signify the conjunction of the predicate with the Subject, but this relates to the predicate only, viz. My Body: and with the truth of this relation remains the true proposition mentioned, This is my Body, taken only in a Metaphorical sense, as it appears by the example, now the Stone was Christ. For if the Apostle had added, who hath been crucified, who is risen, and who is ascended into Heaven, in saying, now the Stone was Christ, which hath been crucified, etc. nevertheless the underwritten Proposition, now the Stone was Christ, should be understood Metaphorically and not properly. Even so in our dispute are the words of the Lord, This is my Body which shall be delivered for you. This addition, which shall be delivered for you, doth not restrain the precedent Proposition to a literal sense; for it is nevertheless as true, though it were spoken in a Metaphorical sense only. Thus far Card. Cajetan.  
So all that one can lawfuily and necessarily conclude from the words of the Lord, is that the bread of the Eucharist is the Mystery, the Sacrament, and the memorial of his body; which we believe and confess with all Christians, and which the Lord expressly pronounceth himself in the following words, in saying, Do this in remembrance of me; as from the words of St. Paul, the Church is the body of Christ, one cannot evidently infer any thing, 
Mat. 13.37, 38, 39 1 Cor. 10. Apoc. 4.1, 20. & 17.9, 28. Gen. 17.15. & 40.12. & 41.27. Exod. 12.11. Judg. 7.14. 2 Kin. (Heb. 2 Sam.) 12.7. Ezt. 37.11. Dan. 2.38. & 4.19. & 7.24.  except that the Church is the Mystery of the natural body of Christ, and (as they say ordinarily) his Mystical body. For it is an ordinary Phrase in the New Testament to say, That the sign is the thing which it signifieth, and the Image that which it represents, drawn from the stile of the Old Testament, which gives always to the Sign the name of the thing signified; and reciprocally, the name of the Sign to the thing signified.  
2. They allege in the Second place, the words of the Lord in St. Luke, This Chalice is the New Testament in my Blood, which shall be shed for you, saying, that because the Cup, that is to say, the Liquor which is in the Cup) is shed for us, it is then the blood of Christ (and not Wine) really and in Substance; it being clear that is the blood of the Lord, and not Wine which hath been shed for us. But we have already shown above, that we ought to apply this word shed, to the blood of Christ shed really for us on the Cross, and not to the Cup, notwithstanding the disagreeing of the Gender, which is found between these words in the Original Texts; & although the Lord said, that this which is in the Cup is shed for us, it doth not follow nevertheless that it is not Wine in substance, since that without putting any Transubstantiation in the water of the Holy Baptism; one may as well say, that it is shed for those who are baptised with it.  
3. They use in the third place the words of St. Paul, 
1 Cor. 10.16.  The bread which we break is the communication of the body of the Lord, and the Chalice of Benediction which we bless the communication of his blood. For (say they) How is it that the Bread and the Chalice consecrated, should communicate to us the body and blood of Christ, if they are not in substance the body and blood of Christ? But this Consequence is ridicule. For 'tis unlikely that it should follow from these words, that the bread consecrated, is no more bread, but quite contrary; the words evidently express that it is bread, the Apostle saying expressly, that it is bread broken for us, which is the communication of the body of the Lord; in the same manner as he adds in the following Verse, 
Ibid. ver. 18.  That those of Israel which eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar; it evidently follows, not that the Sacrifices, by the eating whereof they participated of the Altar, were changed into the Substance of the Altar (which would be absurd and prodigious) but that they were Sacrifices, having a Substance different from that of the Altar: and what an extragavant speech would it be to say that those who eat the Sacrifices participate of the Altar, as if the Sacrifice & the Altar were one & the same thing in substance; (for this would be to say, that those who eat of the Altar are partakers of the Altar) so would it also be a cold and impertinent Proposition, to say, that the bread which we break is the communication of the body of Christ; as if this bread is in Substance one and the same thing with the Body of Christ. For upon this account it should be said that the body of Christ is the communication of the Body of Christ. As then the Sacrifices of the Hebrews communicated the Altar upon which they had sacrificed to those who eat them (for those who eat, were, said the Apostle, partakers of the Altar) without losing their substance, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or being changed into that of the Altar; even so the Bread and the Chalice of the Eucharist, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  communicates to us the Body and blood of the Lord, of which they are the Sacraments, without losing their first Substance, or being changed into that of the body and blood of the Lord. And as those who eat the Sacrifices of the Hebrews communicated to the Altar, in as much as they had part in the virtue and sanctification of the Altar, without necessity of touching corporally the substance of the Altar itself: So those who eat the bread and drink the Chalice of the Lord communicate of his body and of his blood, in as much as they have part in the virtue and efficacy of his body and of his blood, broken and shed for the remission of our sins, without necessity of touching corporally their substance.  
4. But they lay great force upon that which the same Apostle saith in the following Chapter, where speaking of the Eucharist: 
1 Cor. 11.27, 29.  Whosoever (saith he) shall eat of the bread or drink of the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And in the Verse beneath he adds, that they discern not the body of the Lord. How can that be (say they) if the body and blood of the Lord be not really present in the Eucharist? But first, they conclude not that which is in Question. The Question is, whether the bread and wine change Substance? and they conclude that the body and blood of the Lord are present in the Eucharist; now they may be present there, and yet the bread and wine not lose their Substance. And 'tis very unlikely, that these Propositions of the Apostles infer, that that which he calls bread and Chalice, should be in Substance one and the same thing with the body and blood of the Lord, that contrarily they evidently presuppose that they are different Subjects. For if the bread which one eats unworthily were the very body of Christ, this language would be cold and impertinent; he who eats of this bread unworthily, is guilty of the body of Christ, and doth not discern the body of Christ, since upon this account it would be to say, that he who eats the body of Christ unworthily, is guilty of the body of Christ and doth not discern the body of Christ.  
Secondly, I say that that which they draw from this Text (besides it's not being the Question) cannot be concluded from thence. For he who receives the Baptism unworthily (as Simon the Magician did) doth wrong to Christ and is guilty of it; and nevertheless no body can conclude from thence that the Substance of Jesus Christ is really present in the Baptism. They who sin voluntarily after they have received the knowledge of the Truth, 
Heb. 10.26.  put the Son of God under their feet, and hold the blood of the Testament for a profane thing. And no body can conclude from hence that the Son of God or his blood is really present under the feet of these wicked wretches. 
Luke 10.12. John 13.20.  He who despiseth the Apostles despiseth him that sent them, and who receiveth him that he hath sent, receiveth the same that sent him; and nevertheless every one confesseth that the Substance of Jesus Christ was not really, because of this, present in the Apostles nor in those whom he sent. They who sin against their Brethren, 
Mat. 18.5.  and wound their weak Consciences, sin against Christ. 
1 Cor. 8.12.  And nevertheless every one avoweth that the Substance of Christ is not for all this really present in their Consciences or in their persons. And then why should one any more infer that the body and the blood of the Lord are really present in the Eucharist, because they who take it unworthily are guilty of his body, and do not discern it? who seethe not that this is an abusing of the Lord, to reject those who appertain to him, or to despise that which he hath instituted, and that which hath relation to himself: As 'tis an abuse to a Prince to despise his Ambassadors, his Seal, his Arms, or his Essigies? And it is not sufficient that the Eucharist be the Sacrament of Christ the communication of his body, and of his blood, & the memorial of his death (that which all confess) to render this Proposition true; whosoever receives it unworthily is guilty of the body of the Lord, and doth not discern it, without affirming (as our Adversaries do) that this body and this blood are really present there.  
5. Finally, They produce the meaning of the Lord, in the 6th of St. John, 
John 6.51 and so on.  I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, if any one eats of this bread, he shall live eternally; and the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world: and that which followeth to the 59 Verse, presupposing that the Lord spoke of the Eucharist; they conclude from thence that the Eucharist is not then bread and wine in Substance, but the body and blood of the Lord. But this Argument is so weak, that it hardly deserves to be considered. For it supposeth a dubious thing, and concludes wrong, which are the most irregular faults, that can be in reasoning. First then, he supposeth that the Lord speaks of the Eucharist in the 6th of St. John, which appears in no place in that Text, where the Evangelist makes no mention any where of the Holy Sacrament; it seemeth rather that one might induce the contrary from it. For the eating, upon which the Question is, is necessarily efficacious to Salvation; if any one eats of this bread he shall live eternally. 
Joh. 6.50.  He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day: He dwells in me, and I in him: 
Vers. 54. Vers. 56.  As the living Father hath sent me, so I live because of my Father, and he whr shall eat me, shall live also because of me. Now the eating of the Eucharist is not necessarily efficacious to Salvation, many eating it to their judgement and condemnation. 
Vers. 57 1 Cor. 11.29.  This is not that then about which the Question is in the 6th of St. John. Moreover the eating which the Lord means, was necessary to those to whom he spoke, for the obtaining Salvation; 
Joh. 6.53.  if you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, you have no life in you; now the eating of the Eucharist was not necessary to those to whom he spoke for the obtaining Salvation, it being clear, that according to the Doctrine, even of our Adversaries, Baptism, Faith, and good Works are sufficient for them for the obtaining Salvation. It is not then the eating of the Sacrament, which our Lord spoke of in the 6 of St. John, as many very famous Interpreters have considered both Ancient and Modern, and even amongst our 
* Aen. Syl. since Pius II. Epist. 130. Cusan. ep. 7. ad Boh. John de Ragus. Orat. cor. Concil. Bazil. Cajet. in Joh. part. 3. q. 80. art. 8. Gabriel. in Can. John Hesseltus l. de common. sub una specie Jansen. concord. Evang. c. 59 Ruard. Tapper. Art. 15. Vald. T. 2. de Sacram. c. 91. Armac. l. 9 c. 8.  Adversaries, and understand it a spiritual eating of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, which is done by Faith. And indeed the Lord shown evidently that by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he signified coming to him, believing in him, and meditating on him, since in his own discourse he ascribes the same effects to these actions, as to those of eating his flesh & drinking his blood. Who comes to me (saith he) shall not hunger, 
John 7.35.41, 47.  and who believes in me shall never thirst. Whosoever seethe the Son and believeth in him hath eternal life, and therefore I will raise him up at the last day. But although that which they presuppose, viz. that the Lord in the 6 of St. John spoke of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, were as clear and true, as it is obscure and doubtful, I always say, that they do not argue pertinently. First, they do not conclude that which is in Question. For the Question is not, whether the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist (which is that which they conclude) but, whether the bread and the wine lose their nature there, and are there changed into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord, which they cannot infer from it, although one should grant them what they could draw from it, it being clear (as we said before) that the body and blood of the Lord may be present in the Eucharist, and the bread and wine not change their Substance. But I say lastly, that this which they would conclude from it cannot lawfully be inferred. For if because we eat the body of the Lord and drink his blood in the Supper, it follows that the substance of his body and his blood is really present there; then in the same manner it will follow also, that it is present in the Souls of all those who believe in him: since that according to many Fathers, and the most part of the Doctors of Rome, to believe in Jesus Christ is to eat his flesh and drink his blood; 
Eph. 2.17.  and since according to St. Paul, it is by faith that Christ dwells in our hearts: it will follow that the Substance of Christ is really present in our Baptism, since that those who are baptised put on Jesus Christ, 
Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3.  and are buried with him in his death: it will follow that the Substance of his blood is really present in the Souls of all the truly faithful, chosen according to the Providence of God, since they are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ; 
1 Pet. 1.2. Apoc. 7.14  and in the Souls of those who are come from tribulation, since they have washed their long robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Now if one can eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in believing, and have him dwelling in his heart, and put him on, and be buried with him, and be sprinkled with his blood, and be washed and made white in his blood, and nevertheless not touch really the substance, why may not one in the like manner eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Eucharist, without his being there bodily? Who seethe not that these ways of speaking signify only virtue of the death of the Lord in them to whom he communicates himself by faith, and the Spirit giving them the same effects in respect of the spiritual life, which Meats, Vestments, Liquors and Water with which one is cleansed in respect of the temporal life gives us, sustaining and preserving us, making sin die in us, covering the nakedness of our Souls, fortifying our hearts, cleansing and purging us from all spiritual filthiness? let us conclude then that this famous Transubstantiation the principal piece of the Roman Religion, is neither expressed nor presupposed in Scripture, it being not less impossible to discover it there by the light of Reason, than by that of Sense.   

CHAP. V That the Adoration of the Consecrated Eucharist is not taught in the Scriptures.  
FRom whence it follows that the Adoration of the Host (the Sovereign Service of their Religion) cannot be proved by Scripture, since it hath no other ground than Transubstantiation, it being clear that they should not adore this Substance covered with the Accidents of Bread and Wine, if they believe it to be a true Substance of Bread and Wine, and not that of the body and blood of Christ Jesus.   

CHAP. VI That the Scripture doth not teach in any part of it the fire of Purgatory.  
1. LEt us come now to the fire of Purgatory, where they will have the Souls of the faithful satisfy for the temporal punishment of their sins, before they enter Heaven. 'Tis sad to see them sweat to find in the Scripture something wherewith to blow up light, and maintain this fire. For this Opinion impassions them in such a manner, that they that see it in all the places, where a Pit, a Lake, a Prison, a Goal, a Fire, purging, refining, a refining pot, etc. are spoken of. The Lord proposing to us the form of the true Sancitification required in his Church, in the 5th of St. Matthew, 
Matth. 5.25, 26.  Commands us amongst other things to have a heart clean from all hatred, malice, anger towards our neighbours, threatening them with grievous torments who shall never so little offend them; protesting that nothing ought to be in more commendation than to live in concord and good friendship with them, adding, Agree thou with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, for fear that thine adversary should deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be put into Prison; verily I say unto thee, that thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing. This Prison say they, is the Purgatory. But who seethe not that this is to suppose, & not to prove it? For why should we understand Purgatory by this Prison, rather than a true properly named Prison, where the wicked Paymasters and Cheaters are often put for their stubborness, with much loss and scandal, which they might escape in agreeing lovingly and betimes with their Adverse-party, 
Chrysost. Theophyl. Euthym. upon this passage. Barrad. Harmon. Evang. T. 2.1.7. c. 17.  as our Lord Commands in this place, and the Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians? St. Chrysostom and many others take it simply so, and even this Jesuit Barradius. But if one would take the passage Allegorically, as an Image of the Judgements of God against them who will not use charity towards their Brethren; why should not we understand by this Prison either the chastisements in which our Lord locks up sometimes men in this life for having neglected the duties of Charity towards their Neighbours, or even the pains of Hell, in which he will confine for ever after this life, all those who have not used mercy towards their Brethren, 
Maldon. Mat. 5.25. To let. in Luke 12. Annot. 86. & 89. Jansen. Concord, Evang. c. 40. Stella in Luc. T. 2. c. 12. See also Salmeron. T. 5. Tractat 37.  as the Jesuit Maldonat, Cardinal Tolett, Bishop Jansenius expound it, who confess ingeniously that this place cannot be urged for Purgatory, and the Cordelier Stella, confessing (that which is indeed most evident) that these words, Thou shalt pay the last farthing, simply signify, Thou shalt be punished to the rigour, they shall not pardon thee any thing; so that they do not infer by any means that the Criminal of whom this dispute is, aught at any time to go out of prison; but they suppose only that he shall go out if he pays the last farthing of his debt, and by consequence he shall never go out if he cannot pay it? And as as to that which is said, that he to whom we have not used Charity shall be our enemy, and shall deliver us to the Judge, 'tis the same manner of speaking, like that in the Proverbs, and repeated in the Epistle to the Romans, that he who doth good to his enemy, 
Prov. 15.21. Rom. 12.20. Luke 16.9.  heaps coals of fire on his head; and like that in the fixth of St. Luke, That those to whom we give alms receive us into eternal habitations; where the Scripture saith, that he doth a thing, which is the reason for which he doth it, although to speak properly and exactly he doth not do it.  
Secondly, They abuse also the words of the Lord, where he saith, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, 
Matt. 12.32.  neither in this age, nor in the other; that is to say (add they) neither in this life, nor in Purgatory. But why should not we rather say, that by the age to come, the Lord according to the Style of the Scriptures, understands the Age which shall follow after the Resurrection from the dead? and that it signifieth, that God will never pardon this crime to the men who are guilty of it, neither now, nor at the last Judgement? that he will never give them absolution for it, neither in this life by the voice of his Spirit in their hearts, nor in the other by the mouth of his Son? Or why do not we say, that he means that this sin shall be grievously and irresistably punished, as well in this Age with temporal pains, as in the other with eternal? For as remitting or pardoning a sin signifieth not to punish, so the not pardoning it signifieth to punish it; yea, to punish it grievously and certainly. In that great day the Lord will also remit the sins to the faithful, but not to impenitent sinners; and besides what the thing saith of its self, St. Paul testifieth it expressly, where he prays God to have mercy on the house of Onesiphorus in that day; 
2 Tim. 1.18. Acts 1.19, 20.  and St. Peter, where he exhorts the Jews to believe to the end, that their sins might be blotted out in the time of the refreshment of the Lord.  
Thirdly, 
1 Cor 3.15.  The most part of the Adversaries turn to the Service of their Purgatory, that which St. Paul writes in the first to the Corinthians, If the work of any one be burnt, he shall suffer loss: but he shall be saved, yet as amidst the fire, or rather by the fire, pretending that this fire is that of Purgatory. But first, this passage by the common consent of Ancients and Moderns, is reckoned amongst the obscure and Allegorical, and by Consequence not proper to ground an Article of Faith upon. Secondly, I say, that nothing can force us to take it for Purgatory. For to leave the Expositions of Chrysostom, of St. Augustin, and of many others which take it otherwise, why shall we not rather understand it of the Judgement, which God shall make at the last day, of the Doctrine of those Preachers, who having retained the foundation of the Gospel, have built upon it vain Beliefs, which shall be reprehended by the light of the Advent of Jesus Christ, but in such manner, 
Amos 4.11.  that losing the liking and praise of their own works, they themselves shall not perish? their works shall perish and not their persons, which shall be saved; but nevertheless as plucked out of the fire, that is to say, very hardly, 
Paraphrase upon the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinth. Gal. & Eph. Printed by Touss du Bray. An. 1632. with Privilege and Approbation.  as if they escaped from a fire; as a firebrand rescued from the burning, as Amos saith; and in such manner that they shall hold their Souls for a prey, being obliged only to the bounty and Divine mercy for not having been devoured together with their works by the heat of that consuming fire which shall try all men, as many Learned men expound it, and even the Author of the French Paraphrase upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, Published lately at Paris, and approved by three Doctors of Sorbonne.  
Fourthly, They have also-recourse to the Old Testament, and allege, that the Lord in Zechary promised, 
Zech. 9.11.  That he would draw his prisoners out of the lake in which there is no water. These are (say they) the Spirits which suffer in Purgatory. But this is to play and not to reason. For what is there in the Text of the Prophet which obligeth us to take this Lake for Purgatory? I leave the literal Interpretation, which understands it to be the Captivity and calamity of the Jews deprived of the refreshments of the Divine word, and of the exercises of their Religion: If we must Allegorise, why should not we rather bring this passage to the eternal redemption which the Lord Jesus hath acquired to us by his blood, drawing his mystical Israel (that is to say) his Church from the sad and pitiful condition, where it was naturally, being a prisoner of the Devil, a slave of sin, and guilty of the wrath of God, the true Lake where there is no water, since in that state there is no confolation; whereas the Souls which they shut up in their Purgatory, notwithstanding their griefs, have according to what they say, 
Bellar. of Purgl. 2. c. 4.  an incredible consolation, because of the certain hope of their Salvation.   

CHAP. VII. That Justification by Works is not taught in the Scriptures.  
FIrst, To the validity of the good works, which the regenerate do such (as they pretend) as merit the remission of sins and life eternal, it can no more be proved by the Scriptures than the precedent Doctrines. It is true, that the Lord said of the penitent sinner, 
Luke 7.47.  Many sins are forgiven her, for she hath loved much. But it is also clear, both by the precedent similitude, and by the opposition which the Lord adds in saying, 
Ver. 41, 42.  that to him to whom less is forgiven, loves less, that he showeth her love which she bore to him, not as the meritorious cause, but as the sign and argument of the Grace which he had done her. So we say very often, 
Ver. 47.  the Sun is risen, for it is high day, to signify that the clearness of the day is not the cause but the effect and sign of the rising of the Sun. And so it is that the Jesuit Villalpandus understands this passage in his Commentaries upon Ezech. 
Villalp. in Ezech. 19.10.  where having remarked that quoniam, because, is taken very often in the Scripture to signify therefore, and he allegeth this passage for an example of it; Many sins are forgiven her, for she hath loved much, that is to say, Behold, why she hath loved much (saith he) for the Argument of the Lord drawn from the Parable of the Creditor, required such an epiphonema, as is evident to the Reader. As to the rest, that faith was the cause of the remission of the sins of this woman, the Lord shows it clear enough, saying to her in the two Verses following, Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace; and that love to God, Charity to our Neighbours, and good works are the effects of the Grace which God doth us in pardoning us, all the Scriptures teacheth clearly, and namely Saint Paul, 
Eph. 2.10.  where he saith, That we are the work of God created in Jesus Christ to good works which God hath prepared, to the end we might walk in them.  
Secondly, I confess that St. James writes, 
James 2 21.  that Abraham was justified by his works, when he offered up his Son Isaac upon the Altar. But 'tis clear that he understands not by this word, that Abraham did receive from God the pardon of his sins by the merit of this his work, since the Scripture saith (as St. Paul reports it) that before the birth of Isaac, 
Gen. 15.6. Rom. ●. 23.  the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness. St. James disputes in this place not of the manner or condition by which man is absolved from his sin before God, but of the quality of the faith by which he is received into Grace, viz. that it is efficacious in good works, and not barren and unfruitful, as that of which the Hypocrites boast. And to prove it, he alleges amongst other reasons the example of Abraham, who indeed was absolved and received into Grace by faith; but 'twas by a lively faith, and effectual in good works, as he is justified by the admirable obedience which he rendered to God in offering his only Son to him in Sacrifice. Then was clearly accomplished the Scripture which giveth him the praise of having believed in God; it appears then that what is said of him is most true, 
James 2.22.  Abraham believed in God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. His saith was finished or accomplished, saith the Apostle, that is to say, 
2 Cor. 12.9.  it shown its perfection and accomplishment by works in the same manner as St. Paul saith, That the strength of the Lord is made perfect, or accomplished, in weakness, that is to say, that it showeth his valour and perfection in our infirmities and afflictions. 
1 Tim. 3.16.  This is that than which St. James means, when he saith, that Abraham was justified by works, that is to say, he proved and demonstrated by his works that which was real; as when St. Paul saith, That the Lord Jesus was justified in Spirit, that is, that he proved and demonstrated by his great and admirable works, that he is true God blessed for ever. And it is in the same sense that we ought to understand that which St. James concludes, 
Vers. 24.  You see then that a man is justified by works, and not only by faith, that is to say, the man showeth and proveth what he is, not only in believing, but also in well-doing; if we confess voluntarily that we do detest from our hearts this phantasm of faith which vaunts of believing without producing any good fruit, and confess that it is unuseful; it is exactly that which Saint James lays down at the beginning, 
Vers. 4.  as the subject of all his design, What will it profit him, if any one sayeth that he hath faith and hath not works? faith (or rather this faith) can it save him?   

CHAP. VIII. That the Holy Scriptures doth not teach us that works merit eternal life.  
1. THat if the good works of the faithful merit not the remission of their sins, much less can they merit eternal life. To prove it is so, they heap up divers places of the Scripture which show that God will give eternal life to those who have lived holily, as the following, and other-like places, 
Rom. 1.6, 7.10.  God shall render to every one according to his works, viz. to those who with patience and well doing seek for glory, honour, and immortality, eternal life: But to those who are given to contentions, and agree not to the truth, but give themselves to iniquity shall be indignation and wrath. Whosoever shall give to drink a Cup of eold water only to one of these little ones in the name of a Disciple, 
Mat. 10.42.  verily I say unto you, that he shall not lose his reward. 
Mat. 25.34.  Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, possess the Kingdom which hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was an hungered and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, etc. But neither these passages nor any like to them, 
* As Mat. 5.12. & 16.27. 2 Cor. 5.10. Heb. 6.10. & 10 25. & 1.26. 2 Tim. 4.8. Apoc. 21.7. & 22 12. Prov. 11.10. Esa. 3.10.  which are found in many places in the Holy Scriptures can prove that is in Question, viz. that the dignity and the excellency of the works of the faithful are such as are worth eternal life, and that there is a certain proportion and equality between them and the Glory to come, which precisely requireth that it should be given to them for reward, God being there obliged even by the justice of the same thing, and consequently cannot fail of it without violating the Justice which is between him and man. This is that which the merit of works signify, which we deny and our Adversaries maintain. 
Bell. de Justif. l. 5. c. 17 & 18.  All that one can lawfully infer from these passages, is, that God hath promised to give eternal life to those who live well and holily; that one day he will accomplish perfectly this his promise; on this condition eternal life is a consequent, an acknowledgement and a reward of holiness and good works, which the faithful who labour and persevere in their vocation may and aught to expect from God. But who doubts of any of these truths? all that we say is, that we must expect this reward only from the Grace of God, who hath promised and will give it, because he is most good, and not for the value and excellency of our works, which (how good soever they be) are but our duty, with which we acquit ourselves to God; incapable by consequence of meriting any thing, it being clear that he who doth that which he ought, and to whom he is obliged, acquits himself only, and doth not merit.  
Secondly, They allege that the Lord speaking of the happy, 
Luke 20.35.  saith, That they who shall be made worthy to obtain that life and the resurrection from the dead; 
Rev. 3.4.  and elsewhere, that the faithful of Sardis should walk with him in white clothing, because they are worthy of it; and that St. Paul saith, speaking of the Thessalonians, that they were afflicted to be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God. 
2 Thes. 1.5  But I answer, that this word worthy, signifieth the disposition and convenience of a thing, and not its merit. As when St. John exhorts the Jews to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, 
Mat. 3.8.  that is to say, convenient for the repentance, which it answereth, and not which it merits (for this would be ridicule) it is then in this excuse that the truly faithful who live holily and persevere constantly in piety are worthy of the Kingdom and white Vestments of the Lord, that is to say, they have the qualities and conditions which are convenient for them, since it is to them who are such, 
2 Thes. 1.6, 7.  that God promiseth these things in his Grace.  
Thirdly, Moreover they say, that this retribution of God is a work of his Justice; 'tis a just thing before God (saith the Apostle) That he giveth affliction to those who afflict you, 
Heb. 6.10.  and to you who are afflicted deliverance with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with the Angels of his power: and elsewhere, God is not unjust to forget your work and charity which you have showed towards his Name, in as much as you have ministered to the Saints, and do minister: 
2 Tim. 4.8. Psal. 112.9. 2 Cor. 9.9. Mat. 6.1. Dan. 4.24. & 9.16. Ezech. 18.19, 21. in the Version of the 70. Deut. 24.3 Eccles. 44.10.  and again in another place, The Crown of Justice is kept for me, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but also to all those who love his coming. But I say first, that this word Justice according to the phrase of the Hebrew Language signifieth very often benignity and liberality, and just likewise, benign and gracious, as in the 112 Psalms alleged by St. Paul, He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor, his righteousness endureth for ever; from whence it comes that Alms which is an act of gratuity and beneficence is called Justice in the 6th of St. Matthew. In this sense who seethe not that retribution of life eternal to the faithful, is truly an act of the Divine Justice, that is to say, of his Grace and benignity; that 'tis an Alms which he giveth us. Secondly, I say, that it is just that God should give life eternal to those who have believed and obeyed, not that they have merited, but because hehath promlsed it. As 'tis also a justice to keep one's word in accomplishing that which one hath promised, 
Nohem 9  although one hath promised it but upon mere gratuity, without being obliged to it by the merits of him to whom one promiseth it. In fine, in comparing the cause and case of the faithful with that of the wicked who afflict them, the one having manifestly the right on their side, and the other the wrong; it is yet in this respect for the Justice of God to maintain the one and condemn and punish the other. But this is not to say, that considering throughly the persons and works of the faithful in themselves; and without this comparison, there is nothing in them, which to speak properly merits the Heavenly Glory, with which the Father will one day Crown them gratis, according to the saying of the Apostle, 
Rom. 6.23.  that life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord, is a Grace of God. But there is no need to insist much upon this Article, since that amongst our Adversaries themselves there are found great and celebrated Authors, who openly reject this Doctrine, being far from pretending that it is in the Scriptures, some disputing that the good works of the faithful are not meritorious, by reason of the works themselves, but only by reason of the Promise and Divine acceptance, as Scotus and Vaga: Others, that supposing the Promise of God, yet they are not such that the hire is due to them by Justice, 
See Bellar. of Justif. l. 5. c, 16.  but only by the liberality of God; as Durandus, so Cardinal Bellarmin reports it.   

CHAP. IX. That praying to Saints departed, is not taught in the Scriptures.  
1. LEt us now consider of praying to the Saints departed, for which there is found neither Command nor Example in all the Writings of the Old and New Testaments; and they allege for its foundation nothing but passages very far fetched; as for example, that which Jacob said being upon his deathbed, Let my name be called upon these Children, 
Gen. 48.16.  that is, upon Ephraim and Manasseh, which is not a Command to invoke him after his death, but a declaration by which he adopts them, willing that they might be called by his name as if they had been his proper Children, as all the Learned party of our Adversaries confess, Nic. d'Lyra, Pintus, Eman. Sa, Pagnin, Arias Montaws, and 'tis the same manner of speaking which is found in Esai. in the fourth Chapter, where he brings in women which say to a man, 
Isai. 4.1.  only let thy name be called upon us.  
Secondly, But say they, the faithful under the Old Testament, make mention of the Saints departed in the prayers which they put up to God, Have remembrance of Abraham, 
Exod. 32.13.  Isaac, and Israel thy servants, to whom thou hast sworn by thyself, saying, I will multiply your seed as the Stars in Heaven. We do not deny that it was permitted them to produce to the Lord the Promises which he made to their Fathers, as it is lawful for us to put him in mind of that which he hath done for us in Jesus Christ, of which these first were the figures. But the question is, whether we may, and aught to address these prayers to deceased Saints, which cannot be drawn from this allegation by any good reason.  
Thirdly, Moreover, 
Mat. 22.30.  they discourse thus: Our Lord teacheth us that the Saints departed are as the Angels of God in Heaven; 
Gen. 48.15.  now Jacob invoked an Angel: It is then permitted us to invoke the Saints. A feeble, a pitiful reasoning. For first, the Lord speaks of the state of Saints after the Resurrection; and the Question is of the condition they are in now before the Resurrection. Secondly, The Lord compares them to Angels, not generally and in respect of all the conditions of their beings (for upon this account they must conclude they will have no bodies after the Resurrection, since the Angels have none) but only in respect of these things, viz that they will not marry, 
Maldon. upon this passage.  as St. Jerom, and after him the Jesuit Maldonat remarks; in the Resurrection (saith the Lord) they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven. And as to the Angel which Jacob invoked, who knows not that 'tis the Angel of the Covenant, 
Mal. 3.1. Gen. 48. 15, 16.  the eternal Son of God. The God (saith he) before whom my father's Abraham and Isaac have walked, the God who fed me from my youth to this day, 
Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. l. 3.  the Angel who hath defended me from evil bless these Children: St. Cyril of Alexandria hath so amply defended this truth against the Arians, who would (as our Adversaries at this time) bend these words to a created Angel, which we have no need to insist upon any longer to clear.  
Fourthly, They argue again thus; We pray the faithful living here below with us to pray to God for us, as St. Paul commanded the Romans, 
Rom. 15.30. Coll. 4.3.1. Eph. 6.9. 1 Thes. 5.25. 2 Thes. 3.1 1. Heb. 13.18.  the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, and the Hebrews; and therefore why should not we demand the same office of the Saints departed? But first, who seethe not that although this reason should be pertinent, it always concludes much less than that they would have it: for it hints only, that it behoveth to pray to the departed Saints, as S. Paul prayed the Romans, & the other faithful whilst they lived. Now he prayed them only to pray to God for him. He did not kneel down before them although absent, to make this request to them, he erected no Statues to them, he constituted no Images to them, he did not prostrate himself before their Representations; nor did he offer them lighted Tapers, or make Vows to them; nor did he pray them to command our Redeemer to defend him against the Enemy, to receive him at the hour of his death, and to heal the inaladies of his nature, nor is there any wise Christian that will do or demand such things of a living man; upon this account it will follow that all the Prayers where our Adversaries demand these things of the Saints departed are unlawful, their own Reasons (as much esteemed as they are) permits them only to require the Saints to pray to God for them. But in the second place who seethe not the extreme impertinence of this discourse? We pray the living Saints to pray to God for us, we may then use the same towards them that are dead? I pray you what is it that gives them ground to argue so? What! is there not a difference between these two? we see the one, we speak to them, and hear the answers they make to our requests; whereas the other are separated from us by a great and almost infinite distance, without being able to know for certain whether they hear any of our words, without having any mutual and reciprocal commerce with them. We do not doubt, that as we thank God for their happiness, they pray for ours, wishing the triumph of the Church which they know fights yet, upon the earth under the Ensign of their Christ. But 'tis to mock the world to conclude from hence, that we may and aught to speak to them as we do to persons here below which are of our acquaintance. That which Elisha knew by the revelation of God concerning what his Servant Gehazi had done being absent, 
2 King. 5.16.  and Daniel that which Nabuchadnezzar had dreamt. 
Dan. 2.19. Acts 12.34.  And St. Peter what Ananias and Saphira had contrived, showeth, that the Lord can if he pleaseth, discover the thoughts of our hearts, and the words of our mouths to the Saints who live in heaven (that which we have called in Question) but not that he will, and doth it in effect, which is the point of this Question, whereof we ought to be assured, to be able to address our prayers to them. It cannot be proved by the knowledge which the Angels have of the repentance of sinners. 
Luke 15.10. Heb. 1.14.  For the Angels being ministering Spirits, which God sends to serve because of those who shall receive the inheritance of Salvation, 'tis not strange that they should know that which happens to us; whereas we read not any thing like this of the Souls of the faithful that are deceased; 
Apoc. 14.  but only that they rest from their labours. And after all, although we should be assured that the Saints should understand us, there would always be indiscretion in these prayers, since there is neither Command nor Example in the Scriptures for them. Join to this the evident peril we should be put into by this practice, of giving to the Creature that which appertains to the Creator. For Nature hath herself imprinted this Opinion in our hearts, that 'tis a divine thing to penetrate into the secrets of men, and to know what the absent do and say, it is not possible for us to converse with the Saints, whom we do not see, without allowing them a kind of Divinity, as it appears but too much in the practice of the Adversaries, the most part of whom, and above all those of the minute people, praying to the Saints, have towards them incitements to devotion, and a respect altogether like that which they have to God, when they pray to him, But 'tis sufficiently seen that this praying to deceased Saints cannot be proved by the Scriptures.   

CHAP. X. That Veneration of Images is not Commanded in Scripture, nor any way taught there.  
1. AS for their Images and those of Jesus Christ and the holy Virgin, it is still much less possible to establish the Veneration of them by Scripture, 
Exod. 25.18, 19, 20.  since instead of Commanding it, they disprove and forbid the service of all Images and Representations in general.  
Nevertheless let us see what Rome allegeth for this design.  
She than allegeth the Cherubims which Moses made to cover the forepart of the propitiatory, 
Numb. 21.8. 1 King. 6.32, 35. & 7.25, 29, 36.  and the brazen Serpent which he lifted up in the Desert, and the Cherubims, the Palm-trees, and the Buds of Flowers spread, which Solomon caused to be carved upon the Doors of the Temple, and the Molten Oxen upon which he set the Laver of Brass, and the Figures of Lions and other Creatures with which he enriched its Basis. Tertull. striking at Idolatry, 
Tertul. de Idolol. c. 5.  in a Book which he hath expressly made, objects the same thing in favour of them, who defended it, & resolves the Question learnedly according to his ordinary custom. But to keep myself to my business, what doth all this make for the veneration of Images? First, they were not the Representators of God, nor of any person whom he had employed in any eminent Service of his Church. Secondly, These Images were made, some for Types and sacred Symbols, as the Cherubims of the Ark and the brazen Serpent, the others for the ornament and enriching of the Temple only, as the Palms, the Oxen, and the Lions of Solomon, none to be honoured and worshipped, which was so contrary to the intention of these Divine men, that the people offering Incense to the brazen Serpent Hezekiah to stop the abuse, 
2 Kings 18, 4.  made no scruple to break it in pieces. So all that one can lawfully conclude from the last part of this allegation is, not that it is permitted or allowed to kiss the Images by devotion, to be uncovered and prostrate before them, and to render them worship in honour to Christ and his Saints (which our Adversaries think and practise) but that one may carve Pictures of Creatures and Flowers upon the Doors and other parts of the Temples to adorn and enrich them, 
Council of Trent D●utri. 2  for which we never contested with any one. But for the Cherubims and the brazen Serpent, the instance they bring of it is quite out of our purpose. First, because that these Types have no place (any longer) in the Church, Jesus Christ having caused the shadow to vanish by the true body which he hath publicly showed. Secondly, because God expressly commanded Moses that he should do them; whereas he never ordained suchlike Images in the Roman Church. All that one can conclude from it, is, that since the Serpent made by the Command of God, was nevertheless broken by Hezekiah, when the people rendered to it a religious honour; it would be very convenient also that Christian Princes and Bishops should take from Churches and public places the Images of he and she Saints, when men begin to worship them, though they were nested there, not only (as every one knows) by humane Authority, but Divine Institution. But this Consequence doth not favour their Veneration.   

CHAP. XI. That the Scripture teacheth not that the Bishop of Rome is the Pontifical Spouse, and Monarch of the Universal Church, nor Authorises any thing which is founded only upon the Authorities of the Pope.  
1. THe great and principal Article follows, which they esteem alone capable and needful to maintain all the rest, viz. the Monarchy and infallibility of the Pope of Rome. They endeavour to prove by Scripture, that he is the Head, Spouse, and Monarch of the Universal Church, but by reasons so strange and far from all appearance, that 'tis very easy to find that 'tis their Passion and not their Judgement which hath conceived them.  
For first, they assert the Sovereign Pontifex which precided over all the Church of Israel, during the time of the Old Testament; and that this Type may have its accomplishment under the new Covenant, they conclude that there is a Sovereign Pontifex in the Christian Church, 
Heb. 3.2. & 4.14. & 5.5, 6. & 7.26, 27. & 8.1, 2. & 9, to the 11.  and add that the Pope of Rome is the Monarch of it, as if St. Paul the Apostle had not taught us that Jesus Christ is the Sovereign High Priest of his Church; or as if this his Priesthood alone had not body and truth enough to accomplish all the figure of the Ancient; and as if on the contrary the Unity of the Ancient Pontifex did not evidently exclude the pretensions of Rome, it being clear that if they have place, there will be two High-Priests in the Christian Church against that which was figured in the Judaical, where they had but one; and finally, as if this High-Priesthood ought to belong to the Bishop of Rome rather than to any other, supposing that there was one in the Christian Church besides that of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
They have also recourse to that which the Lord promised St. Peter, 
Matth. 16.18.19.  to build his Church upon him, and to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and unbinding; and that which he commanded him three times after his Resurrection, 
John 21.15, 16, 17.  to feed his sheep, and to some advantages which he seemeth to have had above the other Apostles, 
Matth. 10.2. Matth. 17.24.  as, that he is called the first, and that the Lord paid Tribute-Money for him; and from all this conclude, that the Bishop of Reme is the Prince and Sovereign Monarch of the Catholic Church: an ill and impertinent reasoning, which supposeth falsities, and concludes ill. For to begin with the last, that St. Peter was the Foundation and Monarch of the Church, the Prince and King of the Apostles; and in sum, what you will; what is this in common to the Pope at present, or with any of his Bredecessours, to conclude from one to the other, Peter was the Head of the Church, the Pope sitting now at Rome is therefore so? How many Seas and Abysses must be filled before these two can join? for they must first prove that St. Peter was at Rome. Secondly, that he was Bishop of the Roman Church. Thirdly, that he left the Bishop of Rome all the dignities that he had. Now 'tis evident that they cannot prove any one of these three Articles by the Holy Scriptures; not so much as the first of these, which is the important. For let Rome be this Babylon from whence St. Peter dated his first Epistle, 
1 Pet. 5.13.  there is no necessity obligeth us to believe it; so that to be able to prove a Thesis by Scripture, one must not (according to them) enter into any Proposition in the proof of it, which is not in the Scripture; it is perfectly clear that the power of the Pope cannot be found in the Scriptures. And as for the other two Propositions, one that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome: the other, that he left all his Dignity to the Bishop of Rome, they are infinitely far from all appearance of truth and reason. But it sufficeth us for the design of this Treatise, that it cannot be founded upon the Scriptures. So than although it saith, Thou art Peter, and feed my sheep, one cannot draw from thence the Monarchy of the Pope. But I say moreover, that what they presuppose in their discourse, viz. that St. Peter was the Master and Prince of the other Apostles is false, and cannot be proved by any of those passages which they allege. The Lord said to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this stone will I build my Church. But in what Logic doth that signify that he should be the Monarch of the Church, and the Prince of the Apostles? I shall pass by the belief which the most part of the Ancient Fathers, and some of our Adversaries have of taking this Stone upon which our Lord promised to build his Church; for the Lord himself, the Rock or Stone of Ages confessed by St. Peter, 
a August. de verbis Dom. See Mat. Serm. 13. Tract. 124. in John.  for his Faith and Confession, 
b. Tract. 13. in Epist. John. D. T. 9 Serm. 22. ex 40. Serm. edit a Serm. p 248. primals. l. 2. in Apoc. p. 13.84. c. & l. 5. p. 1456. C. Bibi. pp. T. 1. Anselm. in eum loc. Gloss. interlin. Lyran. Joan. Arbor. Theosophia l. 5. c. 5. Alliac concord. l. 2. c. 13. c. Hilar. l. 6. de Trin fol. 30. b. col. 2. Ambros. 6. de Incar. Dom. Sacram. c. 5. in it. Aug. tract. 10. in ep. John. l. tom. 9 Auctor.  and not for the person of St. Peter. I will suppose that these words, and upon this stone I will build my Church, be applied to St. Peter. What is it that gives him so much advantage about the foundation of it, and upon the Prophets themselves which God raised up at the beginning of Christianity, following that which St. Paul saith, That we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; and what other thing doth it signify, except that in preaching the Gospel they have abolished the Synagogue and founded the Christian Church, the new Republic of the Lord his Celestial Kingdom: All the advantage which St. Peter had over the other in this respect was, that he preached the first of them all, and was the first that laid the foundation of the Church, as well among the Jews as Gentiles? for it was by his preaching that the three thousand Jews at Jerusalem, and the family of the Centurion Cornelius in Caesarea believed, the one being the first-fruits of Israel, and the other the first fruits of the Gentiles? who knoweth not but that is an advantage purely personal proper to St. Peter, and incommunicable to any other, consisting only in this, that he had the honour to preach first the Gospel of Christ, and to put his hand first to the building of this Celestial house? That which he adds, that he would give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that what he should bind on earth should be bound in Heaven, and what he should unbind on earth should be unbound in Heaven, is but reason, 
Serm. in Pentic. inter opera Chrysost. T. 6. p. 233. a. Chrysost. Hom. 54. in Mat. p. 483. e. & Hom. 21. (lat. 20.) in Joh. p. 106. d. & in Gal. 1. p. 961. f. Bazil. Seleuc. Orat. 25. p. 142. 6. Vict. Atioch. in Mark. c. 3. p. 417. c. Bibl. PP. T. 1. John. Aurel. l 3. contr. Claud. Taurin. Bibl. t. 4. PP. part. 1. p. 586. à Carthusan. Ferus. Titleman. Gorran. in eum locum. Apoc. 21.14.  because he promised him For the honour of building the Church of Christ was founded upon the Apostleship, which is writ in these words, the which (in my judgement) signifieth only, that he will eestablish Teachers in the Christian Church, 
Eph. 2.20. Acts 2.14.41. Acts 10.5. 34, 47.  to teach men what is truly lawful or unlawful, commanded, permitted, or denied. For the Key was the mark of Doctorship amongst the Jews; and the Lord makes allusions to it, where he saith, 
Luke 11.52.  That the Doctors of the Law entertained the Key of Knowledge, and the Kingdom of Heaven, signifieth every where in the Evangelists the Church of the Messiah, which is also the sense, where this word is used by the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Hebrews both Ancient and Modern: So that these words, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, promiseth to St. Peter the Charge and Dignity of Doctor or Master (as the Jews speak) not in the Synagogue, but in the Church; not in the earthly and carnal Israel, but in the Spiritual and Heavenly. This binding and unbinding, which he adds, are the functions of this new and heavenly Doctorship which he promised him. For the style in which the Judaical Language runs (in which our Saviour then spoke) to bind, signifieth to forbid something, and to unbind, on the contrary to permit and declare that it is lawful; from whence it comes, that to say a thing is to defend, or permit it; the Masters of the Jews saying only, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that is bound, and, that is unbound; the Lord promised then (in sum) to St. Peter, that he should have in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is to say in his Church, the Dignity of Doctor, to proclaim and declare to the Nations what is truly lawful or unlawful, holy or profane, unbinding many things which Moses, or the Priests of the Gentiles had bound, and binding many other things which the vices and follies of men had unbound; and all with a wisdom and Authority so ample, that Heaven approved all his Doctrines, and was the Protector of it. Now this dignity is not the Power and Authority of a Monarch, nor is it particular to St. Peter, the other Apostles having had share with him, as it appears clearly both by their Acts and Epistles; and namely by the 18th of St. Matthew, where the Lord said to them all that which he here said to St. Peter, 
Mat. 18.19.  Verily I say unto you, all that you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and all things that you shall unbind on earth shall be unbound in Heaven. Neither can they pretend any particular for St. Peter, in that which was commanded him of feeding the sheep of the Lord. For had not the other Apostles also as well as he the charge of feeding, common by his testimony to all the Ministers of the word, and the commission of all the sheep of the Lord? 
1 Pet. 5.2. Mark 16.15. 2 Cor. 11.28.  Preach the Gospel to all Creatures, and the care of all the Churches comes upon me from day to day: 'tis true, that the Lord made towards him and repeated this command three times, 
Cyril upon St. John l. 12 64.  but (as some of the Fathers have very well observed) to abolish the failing of his three denials, very far from thinking by this means to establish the Monarchy of others.  
Secondly, As to this, that the Lord being at Capernaum paid the Tribute-money for St. Peter and not for the other of the Apostles; that doth not infer any Authority of St. Peter's above them. For it may be that it proceeded from some other consideration, as, that the others had already paid it, or that they were not present when the Tribute money was demanded of our Saviour, or that they were not Inhabitants of Capernaum, as St. Peter was, who had his family there. In brief, whatever it be, 'tis a wonderful Consequence to say, Christ hath paid the Tribute-money for St. Peter, therefore St Peter was the Monarch of the Universal Church, and the Prince and Lord of the Apostles.  
Thirdly, Neither can this be inferred out of that place, where Saint Matthew numbering the Apostles, saith, The first is Simon, who is called Peter. For a Precedent is the first in his Chamber, and a Dean the first in his Assembly, nevertheless none can conclude that the Precedent is Lord of the Counsellors in his Chambers, or the Dean the Prince of his Brethren. I grant that St. Peter, either for his age, his capacity, his zeal, or some other consideration hath had the like advantage in the Company of the Apostles. he might have been the first of them, but yet not the Master, much less the Monarch of them.  
Fourthly, And that sufficeth to show, that they cannot prove by the Scriptures this marvellous quality which they attribute to the Pope, of not being able to err in matters of faith. For since all the things which they allege are grounded upon those things which regard St. Peter, who seethe not that they infer nothing for the advantage of the Pope, except they prove by the Scriptures that all the right of St. Peter belongs to the Pope, that which I think they dare not so much as attempt to show by the Scriptures?  
Fifthly, I say as much of the Opinion of those amongst them, who attribute the Infallibility and Sovereignity, not to the Pope (as at this time the greatest part of their Doctors do) but to the Roman Church assembled in the Universal Council. For all which they can draw from the Scriptures in favour of their Opinion, speaks of the true Church of Jesus Christ, without amusing ourselves than to consider the just value of that which is attributed to the Church in these places, whether that this Infallibility and Sovereignty be pretended or real, it is enough to resolve their Reasons, to say, that they can conclude nothing for themselves, until they have proved that the Christians of Rome are the true Church of Jesus Christ, which they can never prove by the Scriptures.  
6ly, Now this Sovereign Authority which they give to the Pope and to the Church which acknowledgeth him being impossible to be proved by the Scriptures, it followeth that all the things which depend on it are not grounded there. Such for Example is that distinction which they make between meats at certain days, permitting the Christians to eat fish and not flesh in Lent and other-like times; the establishing of Feasts, the single life of the Ministers of their Religion, the retrenchment of the Sacred Cup to all those who communicate, except to him who hath consecrated the Eucharist, and other-like things, for which they allege, for the most part no other soundation than the Authority of the Pope, and of the Church, which depends upon him. At least it is clear that they cannot prove by the Scriptures, all that which any one of them affirm. eth or useth for this purpose, it being so slight and so far from their purpose, that I do not think it worthy the relating.   

CHAP. XII. That the Scripture doth no where assert the five pretended Sacraments which Rome adds to Baptism and the Lords-Supper.  
I Come now to the Sacraments, the number of which they have increased, adding five to the two which we allow of.  
The first is the Ceremony of the Confirmation, where the Bishop anoints the person baptised with Oil and Balm consecrated after a certain manner, giving him a light box on the ear, and making the sign of the Cross, sayeth, I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Oil or Chrysm of Salvation, In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: All this to strengthen him, that he may be the better able to resist temptations. Where is it that the Scriptures orders or commands us this Ceremony? Certainly it so little agreeth with the Scripture that Alexandre and Bonaventure, two of the first and most famous Authors of their School held that it was instituted neither by Jesus Christ, 
Biel in 4. Sent. dist. 7.  nor by his Apostles, as Gabriel Biel witnesnesseth writing upon these Sentences. Others, seeing that it cannot be a Sacrament of the Christian Church unless it had been ordained by the Lord, they wrack the Scriptures to find it there. 
Dominic. a Sot. in 4. dist. 7. art. 1.  They produce some Testimonies, such according to their own confession, which without the Authority of their Church, who were not capable of showing and concluding their Opinion. And first they remark that which is written in the Acts, 
Acts 8.17.  that the Apostles laid their hands on those who had been baptised in Samaria. But what hath this in common with the Roman Confirmation? Where is it there spoken of the Oil which is the matter of it? From these words, I sign thee, etc. which are the form of it? of the increase of Justifying Grace, which is the end of it? for it doth not appear that the Apostles anointed with Oil, or consecrated with the Sign of the Cross those upon whom they laid their hands. And as to the end for which they laid their hands upon them, 
Acts 19.6  it appears from the nineteenth Chapter, which was to communicate to them the extraordinary Grace of the Holy Ghost, as the gift of Tongues, and other the like things, which are very different from justifying Grace.  
Secondly, The Imposition of hands, 
Heb. 6.2.  of which there is mention made in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not being accompanied with any anointing or visible Consecration, can serve for nothing to establish the pretended Sacrament of the Roman confirmation, of which these things are the two essential parts.  
Thirdly, Concerning Repentance, we agree that it is necessary, and that the Pastors have Authority to forgive sins to those who repent, and to retain them to the impenitent according to that which the Lord said to his Apostles, 
John 29.23.  To all those to whom you remit their sins, they are remitted (or rather, shall be) and to whomsoever you retain them, they are retained. Only we deny, that such an action is a Sacrament, and there appears nothing in the Scriptures which obligeth us to believe it.  
Fourthly, For the Confession, which they make part of this wonderful Sacrament, we believe that every faithful one is obliged to prove himself before he approacheth the Table of the Lord: 
1 Cor. 11.28.  For St. Paul order it expressly. But none of the Divine Authors prescribes to any Christian to go and reveal to a Priest all his sins, yea, even his most secret ones, before he communicates at the Table of the Lord. 'Tis true, they allege the words of St. James, 
James 5.16.  Confess your faults one to another. But how far is this from their Auricular Confession. 
Cajetan upon this passage.  The Cardinal Cajetan, one of their most subtle and most famous Writers, and a great Adversary of Luther's, being sent Legate against him into Germany, answereth there for us: I speak not here (said he, commenting upon this passage in the City of Rome when he was above threescore years of age) of the Sacramental Confession (as it appears in that which he sayeth, Confess you one to the other. For the Sacramental Confession is not done mutually from one to the other, but to the Priests only.) But of the Confession by which we discover ourselves mutually one to another that we are sinners, to the end they may pray for us, and of the confession of faults committed of the one part and the other to appease and reconcile us one to another.  
5ly, This same Cardinal confesseth ingeniously also, 
Eph. 5.32. Cajetan upon this passage.  That that passage which he allegeth in the 5 Chap. of the Epistle to the Ephes. to demonstrate that Marriage is a Sacrament, is nothing to the purpose. Wary Reader (saith Cajetan upon these words) St. Paul doth not furnish you with any thing in this place to prove that Marriage is a Sacrament. For he saith not, this Sacrament, but this Mystery is great, viz. of the words which St. Paul in the preceding Verse alleged of Moses. For this a man shall leave his father and his mother, & shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  
Sixthly, 
1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. and 2 Tim. 1.6.  As to the Orders we confess that the Apostles laid their hands upon those whom they established in charge, and that this Ceremony is holy and praiseworthy, and practised carefully amongst us in ordaining our Pastors. But that this action is one of the common and properly-named Sacraments of the New Testament, neither Scripture nor reason teacheth us.  
Seventhly. There remains now the Extreme Unction, which with a visible Oil, accompanied with certain words, pronounced by the mouth of the Priest in form of Prayer, remits sins to a sick person, who is in extremity. And it is here that the Disciples of the Methodists commonly triumph, alleging a passage of St. James upon this Subject, very express (as they pretend) and they begin the most part of their Disputes by this last piece of their Devotion, 
Jam. 5.14  Is there any amongst you that is sick? (saith St. James) let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, & the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall heal him; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.  
But let Cardinal Cajet. 
Cajetan upon this passage.  answer once more for us. It appears (saith he) by these words of the Apostles, and by the effects, that these words were not spoken of the Sacramental Unction, nor of the Extreme Unction, but rather of the Unction which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel for the use of the diseased. For the Text sayeth not, Is any one sick unto death? but plainly, Is any one sick? and sayeth that the healing of the sick is an effect of it, and speaks not of forgiveness of sins, but conditionally; whereas this Extreme Unction is not given but at the point of death, and tends directly (as its form signifieth) to the remission of sins. And besides St. James ordains, that for one sick body they should call many Priests, as well to pray for, as to anoint them, which is different from the Extreme Unction.   

CHAP. XIII. The Scriptures doth not teach that Ministers should be exempted from the Subjection of Civil Powers, nor that the Bishop of Rome hath any right over them in respect of Tempoporals.  
I Do not see that they can reasonably draw from the Scriptures the exemption of their Clergy, nor the Temporal Power of their Pope over the estates of Christians.  
First, That which they allege, the Lord said to St. Peter, 
Mat. 17.25, 26.  Of whom do the Kings of the earth take Tribute and Imposts? is it of their Children or of Strangers? and St. Peter having answered of Strangers: Jesus saith, then are their Children free. This I say, doth not prove that the Clerks are of divine right exempted from paying Tribute to the Magistrates. For first, 'tis not evident that the Tribute of the Drachmas, of which the Question is, was paid to the Magistrate, and there is much more likelihood that it was the half Shekel which every Israelite at above twenty years of Age paid to God for the use of the Sanctuary according to the Ordinance of Moses in the 30th of Exodus, 
Exod. 30.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.  which is nothing like these Tributes which the Magistrates raised. But although the same Question should be of a Civil Tribute 'tis clear that the Lord exempted none from it, not so much as himself. Now since the Son of God, even as he was Man was not of right subject to any Magistrate, this is not to say, that the Ministers of the Church have the same right, seeing the great and infinite difference which is between their persons and his. In a word, although the Apostles ought to rejoice in this liberty by the beneficence of their Master, so long as he was on the earth; it doth not follow that they since his Ascension into Heaven, nor those who succeeded them in the Ministry of the Word ought always to enjoy the same exemption. For so long as he was upon the earth they were his Family according to Civil Law, following and serving him, and as Domestiques had part in this his privilege. But since he is retired from the earth as to his humanity, neither they nor we are any more of his Family according to Civil Law. For as we are his Spiritual and Mystical Family in respect of Religion, he gives us not this Privilege. For than one might say that all Christians must enjoy it since every one in this sense is of the Family of the Lord.  
Secondly, As to this power, let it be direct or indirect which those of the Court of Rome attribute to the Pope over the Estates of Christians, even in respect of Temporals, I think it not necessary to consider that which they allege from the Scriptures, to ground it upon; since they are things so weak, and so far from their purpose, that the greatest and best part of our Adversaries themselves have rejected their Consequences, and reject with us this pretended Authority of the Roman Seat, namely in this Kingdom, 
France.  where thanks be to God, it hath not yet been established.   

CHAP. XIV. Resolution of that which the Adversaries pretend, that the  Articles have been taught by the Apostles, although they are not contained in the Scriptures.  
SO evident is it, that none of the Articles of the Belief of Rome, which we reject from ours can be shown by Scripture.  
First, To which they will answer, it may be, that although it be so, they have nevertheless been revealed by the Lord, and taught by word of mouth by his Apostles, the Scriptures not containing all the Articles of the Christian Doctrines; of which many have been (as they say) given and preserved from hand to hand by a Tradition not written. But I say, first, that to consider the thing exactly, it seemeth to me that the silence of the Scriptures upon these Articles is sufficient to prove that they have been revealed, neither by Jesus Christ, nor received and believed by his Apostles, nor by them given and commanded to their Disciples for Doctrines necessary to faith and Salvation. For if at that time they had been kept in the list which Rome at this time gives them, if they had been esteemed the principal Fundamentals of Religion, and the most exquisite and important parts of the service of God; why should not these holy men have made some mention of them, in the many Books which they have purposely writ upon Divine things, and which by the Providence of the Lord are come to us? Why did the four Evangelists conceal them? the Acts make no mention of them? How comes it that St. Peter, St. John, St. James, St. Judas, and above all St. Paul in his fourteen admirable Epistles, so full and so abounding every where in Christian Doctrine, have not said one word of them? I do not now urge that these Books are the Cannon of Faith that they have been set down in writing to the end the Doctrine of Religion should be preserved entirely there. Let us suppose (since Rome will have it so) that they were written by chance, and without the design of giving to us the whole body of faith. Yet one cannot deny but they have been written the most part of them upon matters of faith. Now who will believe that so many excellent persons writing so many Books upon such a Subject should forget the principal, as by a consort and common conspiration? how happened it that in some place they did not speak to us of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the pretended Soul of all Religion? Of Transubstantiation, which is the ground of it; of the worshipping of the Host, the heart of Devotion; of the Veneration of Images; of private Confession; of the Invocation of departed Saints; all exercises of Piety so exquisite and saving? If you believe those of Rome. Why have they not in some places commanded obedience to the Pope, magnified his Authority, the only hinge upon which their faith turns, the life and Salvavation of humane kind, according to the Mximes of our Adversaries? Now and some Ages puft there hath not been written any Book of Religion how little soever it hath been, where these Doctrines have not always been met withal; and indeed if they were of that importance which they make them, it were to betray men to speak to them of piety without touching upon these. Let then the Scriptures of the New Testament be, if they please a Letter only of Credence, an imperfect Rule, and in sum, what they will; yet it consisteth of many Books of considerable bigness, and it is no way credible but in some part or other there would have been some mention made of these Doctrines, if these divine Authors had believed and taught them.  
Secondly, Above all, if you consider that the particular design of their Tracts and Disputes would evidently oblige them to speak of them in divers places, where they say nothing of them. For Example, St. Paul making a long comparison between Christ and Melchisedec in the seventh Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, and treating almost of no other thing in all that Divine Epistle, but of the Priesthood, was not he evidently obliged to speak of the Sacrifice of the Altar, and of the Species under which he was offered, and so mysteriously figured so many Ages before by the bread and wine of Melchisedec? and nevertheless he saith not a word of it. What do I say, that he said not a word of it? he hath done more. For instead of saying these things so necessary to his Subject according to the Hypothesis of Rome, he sayeth others of it, which shakes it so rudely, that the Devoto's of his Sacrifice were all scandalized at it, their Doctors sweeting unprofitably to make these agree with their belief.  
Thirdly, In the eleventh of the first to the Corinthians, the Apostle chastiseth the irreverence of the Corinthians in the celebrating of the Sacrament who mixed their meals with the Communion of the Lord, could he allege to them upon this Subject any thing more to the purpose than the Transubstantiation and Adoration of the Sacrament, showing them, that it is not bread which we receive in the Eucharist, that it is the Lord of Glory, the very body which was crucified for us upon the Cross? What Romish Doctor is there who being to treat of this Subject doth not use this reason at the beginning, middle, and end of his Dispute? But the Apostle saith nothing of it, and (that which is altogether strange) very far from speaking so, in speaking of the Sacrament, he calls it Bread three times.  
Fourthly, in divers places of his Epistles, as namely in the 12 Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in the fourth of the Epistle to the Ephesians, in the third of the Epistle to the Colossians, and elsewhere, he infers all along the duties of the faithful, as well for their piety towards God, as for their charity towards their Neighbours. But he saith not a word of their secret Confession, nor of their Invocation of Saints, nor of their worshipping of Images, nor of any suchlike things.  
Fifthly, 
1 Thes. 4.13.  In the first to the Thessalonians, he speaks of our duties in the mourning which we use for departed friends; but without speaking to us to pray for them, which was the fittest place for it.  
Sixthly, In the first to the Corinthians he reprehends their divisions at the beginning, but 'tis without saying any thing to them of the Chair of St. Peter, the only line of the Union of Christians, as those of Rome say.  
Sevently, 
1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11.  In the twelfth of the same Epistle, and in the fourth of the Epistle to the Ephesians, he makes a Catalogue of the Charges which the Lord instituted in his Church, he having given Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Doctors. How in such a place should he have forgotten the Pope if he had known him? 
1 Tim. 3.1 2, 3, 8, 9   
Eightly, In the first to Timothy, and in the Epistle to Titus he writes at large the conditions requisite to to the Bishops and Deacons. 
Tit. 1.6.  How upon this point, did he not speak of their not marrying, if it were esteemed necessary in such charges?  
Ninthly, 
1 Pet. 1.1. & 5.1.  St. Peter in the beginning of his Epistle is qualified with the Title of the Apostle of Jesus Christ; and in the last Chapter recommends to the Priests the duty of their charge, and to make them value his admonition, he alleges to them only that he is an Elder amongst them. Why did he not take in such an occasion the name of Monarch of the Church, or, Of Servant of the Servants of God, that is to say, the first and highest of all the Officers of God, which are in the world: no body can be ignorant, but that it would have been an imprudence near to stupidity of these holy Authors to have forgotten these things in such considerable places if they had believed them? But their Writings (although we knew no other things of them) doth enough justify to us their wisdom and dexterity in judiciously using every thing that might serve for their purpose. Read St. Paul, and the first Epistle of St. Peter, and you will not demand other proofs for this. It remains then that we say that their silence about these Doctrines of Rome so constant and so universal, and even in places where it had been to the purpose to allege them, prove clearly that they did not know them.  
10. After all, If it be not possible to show by the Scriptures that these Doctrines have been revealed by the Lord, and taught by his Apostles, I do not see by what other means one can prove it. For as for the Books of the Ancient Doctors, which they commonly call the Fathers, their Authority is not great enough, nor the testimonies which they render of these Doctrines evident enough to ground them upon, and to oblige us necessarily to put them amongst the Articles of our Faith, as we have (in my Opinion) sufficiently showed in a Treatise which we have published upon this Subject. And as to the Authority of the Roman Church which now is, it is as doubtful and incredible as all the other Articles which they assert, so that this cannot serve to prove that they are Divine and Apostolic. Since than that the Articles of our faith are in the Scriptures, and those of Rome are not there, it is clear that our Religion is certain and assured, as founded upon the most authentic Instructions of Christianity, and that it cannot be rejected without denying Christianity itself; and that of Rome on the contrary in that wherein it differs from ours, is doubtful and uncertain, and cannot be embraced with a full and entire faith.  
11. But I say in the second place, that all this Dispute is out of our way: For my design is only to show that our Beliefs are in the Scriptures, and that those of Rome which we reject, are not there; to destroy the accusations of the Methodists who pretend that to establish our faith, we are obliged to have recourse to other Principles than Scripture. Whether the Beliefs of Rome be found in other Documents of Christianity, as in Books of the Fathers, or no, 'tis another Question. 'Tis sufficient at present for me that they are not found in Scripture. Now this being so, it is clear that I have had reason to reject them from my Confession, since I receive nothing into it but what is taught in Scripture. And this is sufficient (as all may see) to justify our Faith by the Scriptures.   

CHAP. XV. That the Articles of the Belief of Rome which we receive not into ours are contrary to the Scriptures, and very far from being taught there.  
BUt to fill up the measure of our proofs, I will add in the last place, that the Doctrines believed by the Church of Rome, and rejected by ours; besides their not being found in any part of the Scripture, shake it divers ways, destroying certain things which the Scripture lays down, and laying down other things which it destroys: This is so clear, that whoever will consider the whole without passion and prejudice will incontinently perceive it.  

1. Upon the Point of Sacrifice.  
1. Room saith, that Jesus Christ is, and will be every day crucified in an infinite of places, even to the end of the world. The Scripture saith, 
Heb. 9 ●5, 26, 27, 28, & 7.27.  That he hath not offered himself more than once, and that he hath been once offered to take away the sins of many: So as 'tis ordained for men once to die.  
Secondly, Rome saith, That Christ is now offered for our sins without suffering. The Scripture saith, 
Heb. 9.26.  that if he hath been offered many times he must have suffered more than once.  
Thirdly, Rome saith, That the remission of sins is obtained in his pretended Sacrifice, 
Heb. 9.22. John 19.30. Heb. 1.3. & 9 26.  without the effusion of blood. The Scripture saith, that without shedding of blood there is no remission.  
Fourthly, The Scripture saith, that Christ dying on the Cross all was accomplished, and before his Ascension into Heaven, he himself hath purged away our sins and abolished them. How then ought he still, as Rome saith, to be every day sacrificed for the same thing.  
Fifthly, The Scripture saith, That none takes the honour of High Priest, 
Heb. 5.4.  and possesseth it, but he who is called of God as was Aaron. How is it then that the Priests of the Roman Church pretend this Dignity, since they cannot make appear that God hath called them to it?  
Sixthly The Scripture saith, that Jesus Christ is eternal High Priest, 
Psal. 110.4. Heb. 5.6. & 7.3.24, 25, 28.  that he lives eternally, that he hath a perpetual Priesthood, that he is consecrated for ever, that he always lives a High Priest according to the Order of Melchisedec, who remains a Priest for ever. Why then doth Rome give Successors to him in this Office?  
Seventhly Rome holds, That the Priests bless and consecrate the body of the Son of God. How doth this agree with that which the Scripture layeth down, 
Heb. 7.7.  That without all contradiction that which is least is blessed by that which is greater? Are then the Priests of the Church of Rome greater than the Lord?   

2. Upon the Transubstantiation and the real Presence.  
1. Room sayeth that, that which the faithful eat in the Eucharist is not bread. The Scripture saith that it is bread. 
1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28.  Every time that you eat this bread and drink this Chalice, you show forth the Lords death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat of this bread, etc. unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man then examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of this Cup. 
1 Cor. 10.16.  The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of the Lord?  
2. Rome saith that, that which the Lord made his Disciples drink in the consecrated Chalice was not wine. The Scripture saith that it was the fruit of the Vine. 
Mat. 26.27, 28, 29.  Taking the Cup he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink all of this. For this is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. And I say unto you, that from this time I will not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom.  
3. The Scripture saith, that we shall not have the Lord always with us here on the earth, 
Mat. 26.11. John 12.9. Acts 3.21.  and that the Heaven must receive him until the time of restitution of all things. How so, if that which Rome holds is true, that his body is yet perpetually kept here below upon their Altars, and in their Pixes?  
Fourthly, The Scripture saith, that the Lord is above, sitting at the right hand of God his Father in a Sovereign Glory. Rome saith that his holy Body is under the Species of a mean Creature, inanimate and insensible, that it enters into the Stomaches of mortal men, yea, sometimes of the most wicked, and is subject to many other indignities, which we hardly dare think on. Is this to be in a state of Glory?  
Fifthly, Rome believes that the body of the Lord is entire under every crumb of bread and in every drop of the wine of the Eucharist, and that his head, his feet, and all the parts of his body are in one and the same place, and that his body is altogether above in Heaven, and here below in a thousand and a thousand places of the earth; above visible, here invisible. Is this that which the Scripture saith, that except in sin, 
Heb. 2.17.  he is like his brethren in all things; that is to say, to the faithful, as every one confesseth? is there ever a Believer whose body is capable of such accidents? the flesh of the Believers is a true body, and hath all the properties of it. Now there was never seen a body of this nature, which is held in a place much lesser than its proper quantity.   

3. Upon the Adoration of the Eucharist.  
THere is no need to add any thing to what I have been speaking concerning the precedent Article. For since the Eucharist is truly bread in substance, every one seethe enough how much this Sovereign service, which they give it in the Roman Church, is contrary to all Scripture, which from the beginning to the end forbids us nothing, more expressly, oftener, and under more grievous threaten than the adoration of any Creature of what nature and dignity soever. 
Ex●d. 20.3. Mat. 4.10.  Thou shalt have no other God before me. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.   

4. Upon Purgatory.  
Room saith, that it often happens that those who die in the faith of Jesus Christ are burnt in a fire as hot as that of Hell. The Scriptures saith, 
Apoc. 14.13. Rom. 8.1. 2 Cor. 5.6, 8.  That they are happy, that they rest from their labours; that there is no condemnation for them; that their earthly habitaion of this house being dissolved, they have a building of God, an eternal house not made with hands in the Heavens. That so long as they are in this body they are strangers to the Lord: and when they are strangers to the body (which is when they quit it) they shall be with the Lord; 
Luke 23.23.  and tells us, that the repenting Thief was with the Lord in Paradise the same day he died.  
2. Rome sayeth, that this subterranean fire purgeth us from some of our sins. 
1 John 1.7.  The Scripture saith, that the blood of Jesus Christ purgeth us from all sin.   

5. Upon Justification.  
Room teacheth that we are justified partly by faith, and partly by good works. How agreeth this with that Scripture, which saith, 
Gal. 2.16. Tit. 3.5.  that man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; and that God hath saved us, not for the righteous works which we have done, but according to his mercy, & with that which is asserted in so many places, 
Rom. 11.6  that we are saved and justified by Grace, since that if it be by Grace, 'tis not by works, otherwise Grace would be no more Grace; 
Rom. 4.4.  and that to him that worketh, the hire is not reckoned of Grace but of debt; and with that which is said, that we have not whereof to glory, 
Eph. 2.9. Rom. 4.2.  since that he who is justified by his works hath (according to the same) whereof to glory.   

6. Upon the Merit of Works.  
Room teacheth, that we do by our good works so much merit eternal life; that if God should not give it to us, he would do unjustly. How can this agree with the Language which the Scriptures teacheth us, 
Luke 17.10.  when you have done all the things which are commanded you to do, say, we are unprofitable Servants, we have done that which we ought to have done.  
2. Rome holds that eternal life is, to speak properly, a reward due to the value of our works. 
Rom. 6.23. 2 Tim 1.18.  The Scripture saith, that it is a gift, or a grace of God, and a mercy, and that although we should have kept his Commandments (that which we fail much in) yet he useth gratuity and mercy towards us in well-doing. 
Exo. 20.6.   
3. Rome holds, that between the virtue of the faithful and eternal life there is a proportion; and the Scripture saith, 
Rom. 8.18  That the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come which shall be revealed in us.  
4. Rome holds, that the Lord oweth him who hath lived well and holily, eternal life. The Scripture Scripture teacheth us, that God oweth no body any thing: Who is he that hath given him first, and it shall be rendered to him again? 
Rom. 11.35.    

7. Upon the Worshipping of Saints.  
1. The Scripture condems those men who worship (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) those which by nature are no Gods. 
Gal. 4.8.  Rome worshippeth (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Saints which are no Gods by nature.  
2. The Scripture saith, 
1 King. 8.39.  that God only knows the hearts of all men, & that the dead know no more any thing; that they understand not whether their Sons are noble or ignoble, 
Eccls 9.5, 6 Job 14.20, 21. 2 Kin. 22.20.  that their eyes do not see the evils which God brings upon the places where they have lived. Rome teacheth, that deceased Saints know all that is done upon the earth, and that they know the most secret thoughts of our hearts.   

8. Upon the Worshipping of Images.  
Rome fills her Temples and Streets with the Images of God, Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and of the most Blessed Virgin, and of all the Saints, represented, as well by flat painting, as in all sorts of Sculpture. She will have one render to them an adoration and veneration analogical; prostrate before them, kiss them, offer them Bougies or Tapers, go a Pilgrimage to the places which are consecrated to them. How agreeth this with what the Scripture saith, 
Deut. 4.12, 15, 16.  You saw no similitude in the day that the Lord your God spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived, you should make you any graven Image in the likeness of male or female. Thou shalt make thee not graven Image, 
Exod. 20.  nor the likeness of any that is in Heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them (The Hebrew saith, thou shalt not prostrate before them) and serve them. 
Leu. 26.1.  You shall make you no Idol nor graven Image, nor rear up any Image, nor set up any Image of stone in your Land to adore it. (It is also in the Hebrew to prostrate before it.)   

9 Upon the Monarchy of the Pope of Rome.  
1. Rome teacheth, that the Pope is the Sovereign Judge of the world, a Monarch assisted by the Princes of his Court, who governs Kings, who makes the greatest of the earth kiss his slippers, who wears three Crowns upon his head, who can chastise the States of Christianity with pains not only spiritual but temporal. How agreeth this pretended Power and the manner with which he hath exercised it many years since before the face of Heaven and earth, with that which the Lord commanded his Apostles, The Kings of the earth exercise Lordship over them, 
Luke 25.22.  and those who use authority over them are called Benefactors. But it is not so with you, but he that is greatest amongst you let him be the least, and he that governs as he that serveth. And with that which St. Peter commands, 
1 Pet. 5.3.  Feed the flock of God which is committed to you, etc. not as having Lordship over the Clergy and people of God, but as being examples to the flock by your charity.  
2. Rome holds, that the Pope is above the Church. The Scripture sends back him and every Believer having quarrelled with his Brother to the Tribunal of the Church, and obligeth him to submit to her Judgement. 
Mat. 18.15, 6, 17.  If thy brother hath sinned against thee, etc. tell it to the Church, and if he disdain to hear the Church, let him be to to thee as a Heathan man and a Publican. And elsewhere, all it saith, 
1 Cor. 31.21, 22.  that all things belong to the Church; and namely, Paul, Apollo's, and Cephas; and in another place speaking of the Apostles in general, it calls the Servants of the Church for the love of Jesus.  
3. Rome esteemeth St. Peter the Master and Sovereign Lord over the other Apostles. How comes it then that the Scripture speaking of him, doth not [name in the first place or rank, 
2 Cor. 4.5.  but in the second only, James, Cephas, and John having known the Grace which was given to me? How comes it that the other Apostles sent him to preach in Samaria? 
Gal. 2.9.  How comes it that St. Paul preached three years without communicating any thing of his design to him? How comes it that even Paul himself said boldly, 
Acts 8.14. Gal. 1.17, 18.  that those who were in esteem added nothing to him? and recounts very freely, that he resisted St. Peter in Antioch to his face, 
Gal. 2.6. Gal. 2.11.  because he was to be blamed? Are these the terms of a Subject to his Prince? And would they suffer now adays that the Bishop of Hostia should treat so with the Pope, or from him.   

10. Upon the distinction of Meats.  
Rome teacheth that the use of flesh is wicked and unlawful two or three days in a week, and during all Lent. 
1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4.  The Scripture saith, that every Creature of God is good; that nothing is to be rejected when it is taken with thanksgivin; and that God hath created food for the faithful, and for those who have known the truth to use it with thanksgiving; and calls the Commandment of abstaining from it, a Doctrine of Devils; and qualifies them who assert it with the terms of teachers of Lies, and deserters of the faith, abusing themselves with lying Spirits; telling us particularly that such will come in the last days.   

11. Of the unmarried state of the Ministers of the Religion.  
Rome teacheth, that for the Ministers of the Christian Religion to marry is an impure and unlawful thing. The Scripture testifieth that some of the Aopstles were married, as amongst the rest St. Peter; 
Mat. 8.14.  and where it propounds conditions necessary for a Bishop, 
1 Tim. 3.2  it requireth not that he be not married at all, but only that he be the husband of one wife.   

12. Upon the retrenching of the Holy Cup.  
Rome suffers none but him only who hath consecrated the Eucharist to drink of the Cup of the Lord, denying the Communion of it to all others. The Scripture saith to those who Communicate, 
Mat. 26.27. 1 Cor. 11.28.  Drink all of it: and St. Paul, Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this Cup.   

13. Upon the Exemption of the Ministers of Religion.  
The Scripture saith in general, 
Rom. 13.1  Let every man be subject to the Higher Powers, etc. For the Prince is a Servant of God for thy good; but if thou dost evil, fear; for he weareth not the Sword in vain. 
1. Pet. 2.13, 14.  Be subject to every order of man for the love of God, be it to the King as Supreme, be it to Governors as to them who are sent by him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for praise to those who do well. The Apostle Paul knowing this order submitted himself to it, 
Acts 25.10.11.  appearing before the Officers of the Emperorour, and appealing to him. Rome holds that all her Clerks even the least of them are exempted from this Subjection.    

CHAP. XVI. A Refutation of that which the Adversaries pretend to elude the passages of the Scripture, contrary to their Beliefs by certain distinctions of their Invention.  
WHosoever will diligently read the Scriptures, will find many other things there incompatible with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. But this little proof is sufficient for our design. I know our Adversaries endeavour to shun these blows, and to that purpose use many distictions. But for the most part so strange, that 'tis not possible to comprehend them; they wrap up things in inexplicaple contradictions; as 'tis easy to be seen particularly upon the Subject of Transubstantiaon, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of the service to Saints and their Images. Secondly, All of them presuppose their Opinion, and live by the passion which they have for it. For example, before ever they had established Transubstantiation, the world never heard speak of a body which hath its quantity, and not the manner of its quantity; which should be in many places at a time, which penetrates the dimensions of another body, which hath all its parts confounded under one point, and not distinctly extended the one out of the place of the other; neither of Accidents which subsist without subject, a roundness without any thing of a Circle, a whiteness without any thing of white; neither a changing of Substances; where the terms in which they were confined was in its full and entire being fifteen or sixteen years before the change arrived. So before they had established the Service and Prayers to the Saints, humankind had never heard that the Religious Services of God were distinguished into Latria, Doulia, and Hyperdoulia; from whence it follows, that before they employ these distinctions, they are necessarily obliged first, to ground the Opinion which they have produced, and out of which they cannot find for them neither in Nature, nor in Scripture any stay where they may be able to subsist. I show that the Eucharist is not a humane body, because it hath not the quantity of it; that it is not the body of the Lord, because the body of the Lord is in Heaven. To that these Gentlemen answer, that the Eucharist hath the quantity of a humane body, but it hath not the manner of it, that is to say, it is five or 6 foot long, although all its length is not extended more than two fingers; that the body of Christ is in Heaven indeed, but according to its manner of natural existence, and that it is in the same time substantially elsewhere in a certain manner of existence, the which though it can hardly be expressed by words, is nevertheless possible to God. Now what light doth these distinctions carry to the Subjects where they are employed? Do not they confound all our thoughts? Do not they redouble the darkness instead of dissipating it? And indeed what other things do they, except to repeat the same thing that is in Question? for when a body hath its quantity and not the manner of it, and that he should subsist in one place in one manner, and in the same moment should be in an infinite other places in another manner, this I say, is not grounded but upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation without which never any of them would have thought to affirm things so inconsistent. One ought then to begin by the proof of this pretended Doctrine. For till they have grounded this well, their distinctions are unuseful, and our proofs clear and solid. Now we have showed here above, that they cannot prove by the Scriptures any of the places which they use to this end, nor infer any thing like it. There is then no need to examine their distinctions. Since 'tis thus, 'tis an injustice in them to make use of them; and it would be lost time to me to stay to consider & confute them. In a word, we have employed this second means for the abundance of proofs, and not by any necessity that obligeth us to it. For although the Doctrines of Rome should not oppose (as they do visibly) so many truths of the Holy Scriptures, it should be always enough for us not to receive them, since they cannot be proved by Scripture.  
Thus have we sufficiently, in my Opinion, justified our faith by the Scriptures, having showed that they teach clearly the Articles which we believe, and that they assert neither directly nor indirectly, but rather shake and destroy those of the Doctrine of Rome which we reject. From whence it appears that it is against all reason and truth which some of our adversaries reproach us with, that we cannot prove by the Scriptures, no not one Article of our controversed faith, instead of acknowledging, that it is upon them that the blame falls. Being evident that of all the Beliefs which they press us to believe with them, they have not been able hitherto, nor will they ever be able to ground any of them upon the Scriptures. Pray God enlighten them, and confirm us in the knowledge of his truth, and give to both of us the spirit of Peace and Charity, to treat our Differences with sweetness convenient to the Profession which we make of being Christians.   
FINIS.