Figuratively as clearly so spoken in Scripture some other place of Scripture must be brought or some other Infallible Authority telling me this in express words otherwise I cannot have that certainty of it which is required in Divine Faith 3. Amongst all the clear places in Scripture to pick out the Fundamental ones how hard is it for every one Not to say Morally impossible M. Menzeis himself granting he cannot do it more then make a Coat to the Moon For by this means all should be obliged to know all Texts of Scripture and then to examine diligently each one first whether it be evident or obscure least it should appear upon examination to be evident which at the first sight did not seem so And secondly Whether it be generally commanded and have a Character of necessity to be believed by all for then according to M. Menzeis Rule I know it to be a Fundamental but Chillingworth his learned Divine tells him a little above to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary is an intricate piece of business S. Paul to the Heb. 2. C. 6. V. requires no more as necessary as would seem then that he who cometh to God believe he is and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him S. John 3. Ch. 6. says he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life the Prophet Royal that all who fear the Lord are blessed and many other such passages there be in Scripture which might make a â—â—n think one thing or two at most were necessary to Salvation as sometimes the believing of one Point sometimes the doing of one good action Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place full Remission of sins to Alms deeds in another c. and yet who will say either of these two is sufficient for working a mans Salvation Add to all this I find in Scripture If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments S. Matth. 19. Yet Protestants teach that to be impossible and consequenly this Fundamental must lead all to despair as that other make all to presume it being a Fundamental again amongst Protestants that every man should believe he is one of the Elect which being an Article of his Faith may reasonably secure him and yet all not being of this number some from this Fundamental must or should at least presumptuously believe a lye Further the eating of blood and strangled meat is generally forbidden by the Apostles to all the Gentiles converted to the Christian Faith as it was before to the Jews whence I infer what is generally commanded to all should generally be believed by all and so if M. Menzeis Rule be good this must come in amongst the Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion which if it be so in the Pulpit I know not but at Table I am sure it is not A hundred such absurdities follow upon seeking Fundamentals in Scripture by these deceiving signes and uncertain marks M. Menzeis gives us without any Infallible Guide 2. It is to be remarked that Protestants neither agree in setting down Fundamentals nor cannot give a precise Catalogue of Points of Faith they think to be Fundamental as was required of M. Menzies but that also they mistake the very Notion and name A Fundamental verity in the Christian Religion being either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and belief whereof none can be saved Now the Question amongst us is not about this but whether a Man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things then these when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the former For then say Catholicks he is equally obliged to believe them by reason of the formâ—â— Object which is Divine Revelation can in nothing deceive or should in any thing be called in question though in respect of the Material Object or thing revealed we be not so obliged to know it For there is nothing less or more certain when God speaks he being the first verity yea verity it self who delivers all he says with one and the same Infinite Certainty where no degrees of more or less certitude can have place Protestants it would seem as they take Fundamentals will not be tyed to this whence they receive in communion with them and as the true Members of their Church some who hold most contrary Tenets as M. Menzeis the Waldenses Wickliffians Hussists who in his seventh Paper grants the whole body of the Church collectively taken cannot err in Essentials or Fundamentals yet so as that in some whole ages the Integrals may be vitiated But if he understand by Integrals lesser Points of Faith as to their Object and Matter yet equally revealed by God and propounded by his Church to us with chief Mysteries wherein the Protestants mistake and Errour in their Distinction of Fundamentals and Integrals consists his Assertion is both Erroneous Heretical because an Act of Faith grounded on the Motive of Gods Infinite and infallible Veracity in revealing is a Vertual and Implicite Belief of all he has revealed so that the true Belief of one Article implyes a belief of all Wherefore S. Athanasius says in his Creed whosoever doth not hold the Catholick Faith whole and inviolate he shall perish for ever And S. Hierome l. 3. contr Ruff. for one word or two contrary to the Faith many Hereticks have been cast out of the Church Yea S. Gregory Naz. tract de fide says nothing can be more dangerous then those Hereticks who when they run through all things uprightly yet with one word as with a drop of poyson corrupts the true and sincere Faith of our Lord and of Apostolical Tradition S. Basil as Theodoret reports l. 4. Hist c. 6. being desired to relent a little to the time Answered That such as were instructed in the Divine Doctrine do not suffer any Syllable to be corrupt but for its defence if need require willingly imbrace any kind of death And the Church in her Publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one Point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily believed when known to be decided by her So doth the Church of England Excommunicate all who hold any thing contrary to the 39. Articles though they judg them not all Fundamental As the Athenians punished without remission the least word against the received opinion of their Gods and the Jews says Joseph contra Appion the least transgression of the Law So God threatneth that he shall be blotted out of the Book of Life who ever shall deminish any word of the Revelation Apoc. 22. v. 19. Yet Luther rejecting whole Epistles of Scripture in M. Menzeis Book is called a holy man but so speaketh not Luther of him denying the Real Presence
have it believed no more For who can prudently believe things not clear in themselves or at least not so to us without some infallible Propunder evidencing by Supernatural Motives as Miracles that such a Doctrine is from God Neither can a Protestant standing to his Principles say any more whence no conversion of Infidels amongst them But no end of their cavelling with us They here urge 1. Suppose the true Church were infallible in her Pastors assembled in a Council yet all we bring in proof of this may be retorted against our private Teachers who are not infallible in propounding But to this it is easily answered that as God most infallibly both by his general Providence and particular Promise directs rules and governs his Church so she by vertue of his special assistance oversees infallibly her private persons in order to our certainty in Faith For in the holy Hierarchy of the Church God hath placed Watchmen most vigilant over their flocks who suffer them not to be misled they have discovered the very least Errors sowen in Corners and branded their Authors as false Teachers Wherefore as unity in belief is the Form and Soul of that great body of the Catholick or Universal Church so whatever Doctrine is commonly taught and received in her without any contradiction from her Pastors is sufficiently known to be infallible 2. They object there is no infallible Propounder of this Article of our Faith The Church is Infallible Answer Yes 1. God shows himself the Propounder of this in the Markes of the Church which we shall presently see 2. As our Saviour Christ calling himself the Son of God and working Miracles did sufficiently yea infallibly evidence to the Jews that it was true what he said So the Church calling her self infallible and working the like Miracles in all Ages doth infallibly evidence to the world that it is true what she says otherwise it would follow that God did employ his Omnipotency and Power to work Miracles in favour of an Impostor thus cheating the world with a lye 3. Therefore I say the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church in which the Doctrine of Christ is infallibly propounded and certainty in Faith and Salvation to be found This Point is of highest concern according to the Fathers For it is only the Catholick Church says Lactantius l. 4. that hath the true Worship and Service of God That is the Well-spring of Truth the dwelling place of Faith the Temple of God into which whosoever entereth not and from which whosoever departeth is without all hope of Life and Salvation Whosoever is divided from her says S. Augustine in his Epistle 152. how laudable soever he seems to himself to live for this only crime that he is separated from the unity of Christ he shall be excluded from life and the wrath of God shall remain upon him And again in his 50. Epistle as a Member cut off wants the spirit of life so a man separated from the body of Christ cannot have the spirit of Justice c. They have not the Holy Ghost who are out of the Church S. Cyprian de Unitat. Eccl. The Spouse of Christ cannot be defiled with adultery whosoever divided from this Church cleaveth to the Adulteress he is separated from the Promises of the Church he cannot have God for his Father who hath not the Church to his Mother S. Irenaeus l. 3. C. 40. in the Church God hath constituted Apostles Prophets Doctors and all the rest of the Operation of the Spirit whereof those are not partakers who repare not unto the Church where the Church is there is the Spirit of God Vincentius Lyrinensis contr haeres C. 1. 2. says That he having very often most diligently inquired of many Holy and Learned men how he might certainly distinguish the true Catholick Faith from all Heresies it was ever answered him by the Law of God and the Tradition of the Church Divinae legis authoritate Catholicae ecclesiae traditione Then making to himself the common Objection of Protestants seeing the Rule of Scripture is perfect what necessity of joyning to it the Tradition of the Church He presently Answers because all take not Scripture one way and in the same sense because of its deepness All the Fathers run upon this out of the Catholick Church no true Religion no Divine Faith no infallible Guide no sure way to Salvation no hope of Heaven no means to attain Eternal Happiness and Life Wherefore God by his Divine Appointment Order and Decree having tyed us and that under no less pain then the damnarion of our Souls to live in the Unity and Communion of this Church in which only he has placed the Chair of his Doctrine and Channels of his Graces I presuppose 1. This Church may be easily known and that by clear Marks in all Ages and by all she being so amply great and Eminently high that the Prophet Isa Ch. 2. calls her The Mountain of the Lords house established in the top of Mountains and exalted above the Hills to which all Nations should flow 2. Tat those Marks be the same now which did evidence her in Christs and in the Apostles time for all things are best conserved by the same means by which they received their being says the Phylosophers Conservatio continuata productio 3. That whatever Church is found to have these Marks should be undoubtedly acknowledged for the true one otherwise they could not have proved her the true Church at first This presupposed that the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church I most evidently prove in short for this hath been often done in large volumns and that by a very few undoubted Signes and as it were most legible Characters of the Primitive Church in the time of the Apostles paralelling the one with the other Three things are chiefly remarkable in the Apostles and Church under them 1. Their Sanctity and Holiness of Life 2. The great conversion of Infidels wrought by them 3. Their manifold and wonderful Miracles These be the Marks of their mission by which they show themselves to be the servants of God to be sent by God and that God by his Vertue and Power concurreth and cooperateth with them Their Holy Humble Poor and Austere Life makes them like to their Master Christ and fit Instruments for the great Employment they are going about Miracles make their Credential Letters and witness the fulness of their power Conversions are the end of their Embassy which as it was to last till all the Nations of the earth were brought to the Unity of Faith and bosome of the Church according to that Promise of Christ There shall be one shepherd and one Fold so their true Successors are constantly known by the same Signs in all Ages as the undoubted Marks and Badge of the Apostles I begin at Miracles which I call the Apostles Credentials and make the chief infallible Mark of the true Church and all
in the Kingdom then Out-laws and Rebels pretending to adhere immediately to them as they themselves read Think them clear or expound SECT V. Scripture however clear in Fundamentals clearly mistaken by Protestants and clearly making against them LEt us come at last to the Fundamental Points of the Protestant Religion which Mr. Menzeis holds out to be clear in Scripture Whereupon his Adversary demands what things he esteems Fundamental He Answers to ask a Catalogue of Fundamentals is to ask how to make a Coat to the Moon in all her changes And this his quick Reply he borrows from a learned Divine as he calls him Mr. Chillingworth is the man as I conceive for he has the same words a meer Sceptick in Religion and who takes away all certainty in Faith and to say true the Protestant Religion is so Obnoxious to Reformations Alterations Innovations that it is most fitly compared by him to the Moon in all her changes Yea Protestants are of so different Opinions even in what they call Fundamentals that scarce two set down the same Perkins in Cath. Reform p. 407. and in his Exposition of the Creed p. 503. will have all Fundamentals included in the Apostles Creed Duplessis in his Treatise of the Church C. 5. in the Decalogue Du Moulin after Melancton in C. 4. Matt. the Creed and Decalogue Luther Tom. 7. in Enchir. f. 118. in the Creed Decalogue and Lords Prayer Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 4. p. 340. in the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments Sadeel Praef. Resp ad Turr. to believe Christ crucified and the Pope to be Antichrist Chillingworth in his Treatise Intituled the Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation p. 408. n. 35. says plainly Protestants do not agree touching what Points are Fundamental and page 166 we know not precisely just how much is Funtamental Again page 23. he that will go about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate business of it and almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it when he hath done it Wherefore he says in the same page n. 27. that Protestants give not a Catalogue of Fundamentals it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdom and Necessity and when they had done it it had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamental as those that are And yet other Protestants with M. Menzeis harp upon nothing more then the Distinction of Fundamentals from not Fundamentals as if those were necessarily believed these not I know in other places of the same Treatise this Author contradicts himself which shews not only Protestants disagree in Fundamentals one from another but even the same man from himself so well grounded they are in these their Fundamentals and Grounds wherein notwithstanding their monstrous Divisions they vainly bragg to agree But how can it be discerned whether all Protestants or a few agree in Fundamentals unless it be precisely known what and how many Fundamentals there be Potter in fine extends the number of Fundamentals beyond all his Brethren have said his words are page 24. it is Fundamental to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he believe all revealed Truths of God whereof he may be convinced they are of God And doth not this diversity of Opinions equal the changes of the Moon Or is not all this a most clear and manifest Demonstration however Scripture be clear in Fundamentals which now I do not dispute at least it is not so even to the Learnedst and most sharp sighted Protestants who so little agree in that Point that scarce two are of the same Judgment and Mind If others did thus mistake what is perspicuous in Scripture Mr. Menzeis would presently tell us no wonder they do so by reason of their evil disposed intellect But that Protestants and these not of the Vulgar sort but even the Pillars of their Religion and Defenders of their Faith by Volumes in Print should not see what in Scripture is most clear but so vary and divide in such a multiplicity of Opinions and yet maintain Scripture in these same things wehrein they so vary is clear what a wonderful thing is this Or who I pray you can trust men both at once saying Scripture is clear in Fundamentals and yet setting down the same Fundamentals diversly By this plainly confessing either their own blindness and so that they are not good Guides nor to be believed when they speak of what in Scripture is clear or else that their Doctrine in this is false What M. Menzeis holds Fundamental so great a secret it is that neither will he tell us himself nor can any other know it he having so often changed House and built upon diverse Grounds Yet that he should not seem to say nothing a mark he gives us to know what in Scripture is Fundamental to wit if we find it commanded to be believed by all or a Character of necessity to be put upon it Whereupon I reflect first M. Menzeis Doctrine is here very Incoherent for both he teaches it is commanded in Scripture all men believe Fundamentals as things absolutely necessary to salvation and nevertheless the Catalogue of these same things he will have impossible as a Coat to the Moon Would not this argue he is ignorant himself of what all should know and believe Otherwise surely he should never have judged this Catalogue impossible it being easie to a man to call to memory what he knows yea we know no more then we can call to memory says the Roman Orator Tantum scimus quantum memoriâ tenemus Secondly I reflect that rejecting the Infallible Authority of the Church teaching every particular person what is Fundamental and what we must necessarily know and explicitely believe to attain salvation pretending all this is clear and may be found by the marks he has given in Scripture he remaines obliged to a very hard task 1. To prove in General from evident and clear Scripture that all things necessary to be believed are clear and evident in Scripture Let him answer then First where he reads this and to the Fathers teaching the contrary as we shall see below 2. To prove every Fundamental Point in particular immediately and clearly from Scripture And this so that the words cannot be taken obviously and literally in any other sense For if they can be so taken then I have no Infallible Evidence but they should be so taken without some Infallible Guide telling me they should not be so taken in the place alledged As for example these words This is my Body undoubtedly may at least signifie and that most Obviously and Litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament as when I say this is a piece of Gold this a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Wherefore if I will take the words
Auricular confession on the 5. Ch. of James seven Sacraments in his Postscript on the first Ep. and 1. Ch. to the Corinths Wherefore Melancton Ep. ad Micon thus censures him I have read Wickliff and found in him many Errors he never held nor understood Justice of Faith which is the Protestants main Fundamental With the same confidence M. Menzeis calls the Waldenses Protestants who held the Real Presence that the Apostles were but Lay-men that all Magistrates fall from their Dignity by mortal sin that it is not lawful to swear in any case c. as witnesseth Illyricus in Catal. Wald. Confess Bohem. c. And with these the Grecians upon a private Letter sent as he pretends by a Patriarch to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury though all who ever conversed with Grecians know they say daily Mass hold Transubstantiation seven Sacraments Prayer to the Saints and for the dead c. as all may see in the censure of the Oriental or Grecian Church and deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and consequently make no distinction betwixt these two Persons in the Godhead But it is enough to M. Menzeis it seems that they disown the Pope to be called Protestants and so Turks and Tartars may come in with them Whence I leave to judg how constant a Protestant M. Menzeis is owning such Doctors and Doctrine and what Credit again he deserves after so many clear Testimonies and that even of learned Protestants and the very writings of the persons in question convincing him of most notorious falshood and Errour The most antient and holy Fathers as S. Ireneus Tertullian Philastrius S. Epiphanius S. Augustine Theodoret S. John Damascen and others who have written a Catalogue of Heresies did not certainly distinguish Fundamentals and Integrals amongst Divine Truths sufficiently propounded as Protestants do when they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently damnable Errours then what they think to have no repugnancy with Fundamentals and essentials in the Doctrine of the true Church as in the Pelagians Novatians Donatists Monothelits who all embraced the Trinity Incarnation Passion of Christ c. S. Epiphanius Heres 75. and S. Augustine l. de heres C. 33. condemn the Arians for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church the first remarking they were accustomed to eat flesh on Fridays and in the Lent yea chiefly in the holy Week wherein Christ died S. Hierome in his 2. book against Jovinian condemneth him for saying Fastings and all other Exercises of good works were not meritorious S. Augustine in his Book of Heresies c. 54. condemns the Eunomians for teaching no sin could hurt a man if so he had but only Faith S. Epiphanius haeres 64. all who denied free will S. Hierome Vigilantius in his Book against him for affirming the Relicks of the Saints ought not to be reverenced the same S. Hierome against Jovinian with S. Augustine in his Book of Heresies C. 82. condemn him for holding Wedlock equal in dignity and merit to virginity S. Augustine again l. Contr. Julian C. 2. the Pelagians for teaching the Children of the Faithful Parents did not need Baptism but were born holy and in his 1. Book 2. C. and last against Maximus the Arians for not receiving Traditions Now let M. Menzeis choose either to acknowledge all these and many such like condemned Heresies by the Fathers to be no Fundamentals and consequently that many other things then these which Protestants call Fundamentals are necessary to be believed under the danger of incurring Heresie and Eâ—ternal damnation or owning them as such let him confess Protestants Err even in Fundamentals with them seeing all here condemned is Protestant Doctrine borrowed from those more ancient Hereticks and condemned by the Fathers even then 4. As to that he says all Fundamentals are clear in Scripture and that according to S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Irenaeus S. Thomas of Aquine and Sixtus Senensis holding what ever is obscure in one place to be clear in some other I answer very easily with a manifold distinction 1. To such eminent Doctors of the Church as he cites most Scriptures are clear I grant to all indifferently I deny 2. To such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast the Traditions of the Apostles conserved in her as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest I grant to others I deny 3. With Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 2. to such as level the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick sense I grant to others I deny 4. With Doctor Field a Protestant in his 4. Book C. 14. to such as be first setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their delivery of Scriptures I grant to others I deny Neither are these my Distinctions any wise to shift the Argument which maketh nothing either against us or for him But to clear the Fathers words in the very genuine sense they speak them See S. Chrysostome his meaning in his 14. Hom. on S. John S. Augustines contra Cresconium C. 33. where he says if any one fear to be deceived in this question through its obscurity let him ask Councel of the Church which the holy Scriptures do demonsrate without any ambiguity That of S. Irenaeus in his 2. Book Ch. 47. and more expresly in his 1. Book Ch. 49. S. Thomas his words That what ever is necessary to be believed under the Spiritual Sense that some where is manifestly declared by the Letter as they do not specifie to whom this manifest declaration is made so we grant it to the Church and her Doctors for to her all things are known says St. Irenaeus in which is perfect Faith as to the Apostles it was given by our Saviour Christ to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven 5. But I would ask M. Menzeis did ever any of these Fathers receive the Scriptures as the undoubted Word of God otherwise then on the Churches Authority S. Augustine saying I would not believe the Scriptures if the Authority of the Church did not move me to it is no less clear for this then Scripture it self in Fundamentals Or did ever any of them fancy to himself a place of Scripture as clear for any thing the whole Church standing in a contrary Judgment For this is the only Point we debate with Protestants and clearly prove both by the Scriptures and Fathers against them 6. However Scripture be clear in Fundamentals in the sense I have given that is particularly and in as many words or generally and as commanding us to hear the Church yet surely it doth not set down all that is Fundamental in express terms if we trust the Fathers whom M. Menzeis appeals to as holding Scripture clear in Fundamentals or can all be so evidently deduced from scripture but by the Authority of the Church that Hereticks be silenced and Unity preserved in Faith S. Chrysostome on
2 Thes 2. says it is evident that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Writing but many things without and those be as worthy of credit as others Which he could not have said if Fundamentals were only the infallible Truths and they clearly revealed in Scripture S. Epiphanius Heres 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all things yet no necessity of using Traditions if all Fundamentals were in Scripture they only being necessary according to Protestants S. Augustine l. 5. de Bapt. Contr. Donat Ch. 23. the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants is neither to be contemned or any wise thought superfluous yet not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition If this was not in his Judgment a Fundamental hear himself again l. 3. de Orig. Anim. C 9. if thou will be a Catholick believe not teach not say not that Infants prevented by death before they are baptized can come to the pardon of their Original sin Is it not a Fundamental to believe Scripture to be the Word of God which S. Augustine takes on Tradition What if a man should receive the New Testament as sufficiently containing Fundamentals and reject the Old with the Manichees admit of some of the Evangels but not others with the Ebionits What if one should deny the word Person the name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday because not clear in Scripture and consequently no Fundamentals according to M. Menzeis Rule Marcion and with him the Anabaptists teach Baptism should be conferred more then once The Donatists that Baptisme of Hereticks at least should be reiterated Sabellius one only Person in the Godhead Nestorius two Persons in Christ and for this are accounted Hereticks yet no clear Scripture is brought condemning their Errours S. Augustine l. de unitate Eccl. says expresly of the Donatists Errour this neither you nor I read in express words 7. How many Scriptures are clear against Protestants in all controverted Tenets So that however it be clear in Fundamentals it clearly speaketh against them See for this the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel with the Manual of Controversie and after you have pondered the places quoted in them judge whether the Protestant Religion be rightly defined by M. Menzeis The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture and their protestancy only their protesting against Popish Errours Which Definition if good having its Genus proximum differentiam ultimam should distinguish Protestants from all other Sectaries but this it doth not it being common to them with most Hereticks who have ever been all of them professing with you Sir to adhere to the written Word they received and as understood by themselves as the Arians Nestorians Pelagians Photinians c. and all protesting against the Churches Errours and Popes Authority For as the sole Roman Church did ever oppose all Hereticks as the only zealous Defender of the true Faith and Doctrine which S. Paul calls the Depositum entrusted to her So all generally how soon they turn Hereticks Protest prattle Preach chieflly against her turn over all the Writings of Authours who have made mention of Heresies and you shall find that all from the first to the last have opposed themselves to that company of Christians which was in communion with the Pope and Bishop of Rome for the time and that this company hath opposed it self to them all neither did they oppose themselves all to any other company whatsoever Yea this was ever the distinctive mark of Hereticks not to communicate with the Pope and Sea of Rome as may be seen in the Writings of the Fathers St. Irenaeus l. 3. C. 3. S. Hierome Ep. 57. S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius S. Augustine in Ps Contr. part Don. and generally in all ages and by all so that you protesting with them against the Church and Pope take their very Badg and Livery and shamefully declare by this Charactaristick Mark of your Defection from the ever acknowledged true Church and high Bishop thereof by all the Fathers your Apostacy Heresie and Schism It is very plausible I must confess to poor Ignorants when Preachers make them believe they teach nothing save only the pure Scripture and written Word protesting against all unwritten Traditions as Popish Errours But if any man consider a little with himself your Tenets in particular he shall presently find it is openly against God and his written Word ye protest in all points of Controversie under the false pretence of protesting against Popery and that not so much as one Tenet peculiar to you is contained in Scripture This I evidence in most Articles of Popish Doctrine you protest against where all may see and judge how well your Religion is contained in Scripture Is it not to protest against the goodness of God to say with you he created some for Hell independently of their works and likewise against his Word 1 Tim. 2. where it is said he will have all to be saved and in the 2. Ep. of St. Peter 3. where he is declared not willing any should perish Is it not to protest against his Mercy and express word again to say he died not for all The Apostle S. Paul assuring he did die for all and as that in Adam all died so in Christ all be restored to life 1 Cor. 13. Is it not to protest against his Justice and Word to teach that he punisheth us for what we cannot do as for the want of good Works which Protestants will have not to be in our power Yet the Apostle says Heb. 6.10 God is not unjust that he should forget our work Is it not to protest against the Wisdom and Word of God to say he obliges us to perform things impossible as Protestants call the Commandements where as Saint John in 1 Ep. C. 5. says they are not so much as heavy Is it not to protest against his Veracity and Word to affirm that the Church can teach Errours and stand in need of Reformation Christ having commanded us to hear it in S. Matt. 18. and the Apostle S. Paul 1 Tim. 3. calling it the Pillar and Ground of Truth Is it not to protest against his Providence and Word to assert that he has given us the dead Letter of the Law without an Infallible Visible Judge leaving to every poor Ignorant to Interpret Scripture according to his fancy S. Peter having said no Scripture is of private interpretation and Christ having commanded us to hear his Church Is it not to protest against the Efficacy of Christs Mediation Sufferings Death and also his Word to hold that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin S. Joh. 1. Rev. 5. Saying he washed us from our sins in his own blood And S. Paul 1 Cor. 6. we are Washed justified Sanctified Is it not to protest against his Divine Order to tye our Sanctification to Faith only and his express word in S. James