Ep. 37.64 A Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost S. Epiphanius haeres 77. A Decision not to be questioned S. Athanasius Ep. ad Episc Afric The Word of God which endureth for ever S. Basil Ep. 10. The Touch-stone to discern Hereticks Vincensius Lyrinensis in his Book against Heresies c. 4. says all who will not be accounted Hereticks must conform themselves to the Decrees of Oecumenical or General Councils S. Augustine Ep. 162. Calls them the last Sentence can be expected in matters of Faith S. Gregory the great l. 1. Ep. 24. Reverences the first four General Councils as the four Evangills And Constantine the great the first Christian Emperour Ep. ad eccle Alex. as witness Sozomenus l. 1. c. 24. and Socrates l. 1. c. 6. holds the Decrees of the Council of Nice against Arius a Divine Sentence flowing from the mouths of so many and great Bishops inspired by the Holy Ghost Wherefore S. Augustine de bapt contra donat l. 1. c. 7. concludes That no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree establisht in a Council Neither is Mr. Menzeis Objection from him of any force for when he speaks l. 2. de bapt c. 3. of mending Councils by Councils upon further experience his words are Cum aliquo rerum experimento aperitur quod clausum est cognoscitur quod latebat clearly shewing he means not any Decision of Faith can be mended which no experience can learn us but Divine Revelation alone can teach Thus to shun prolixity in Citations do not all the Fathers who were ever present at Councils Subscribe their Canons and Decrees annexing Anathemas and Excommunications against all who oppose them in the least I hear Mr. Menzeis Reply to all this first but where is that Infallible Church the Scriptures and Fathers speak of Answer That is not here the question but that there is one which is contradictory to his great Principle That there is no Infallible visible Judge Only I add the Protestant Church cannot be this they speak of she not being Infallible as themselves confess and consequently cannot be the Church and House of God which the Apostle calls the Ground and Pillar of Truth Secondly How many Questions may be moved touching the lawfulness of Councils now the Fathers speak not of the Council of Trent but only of lawful ones Answer a contentious spirit will question any thing but St. Augustine above cited tells you of what is by full Decree establisht in a Council no doubt or question ought to be made Whatever Protestants object against the Council of Trent did not the Arians against the Nicene Council Nolo verba quae non sunt Scripta that is I will believe nothing but the written Word which is but the eccho repeating now what was at first cryed out then Thirdly God has obliged no man to hear Church or Council against his express and clear Word Answer This is true but is not the Church the most faithful Depositary of Gods Word best Judge of what is clear and best Interpreter of what is Obscure For no Scripture says St. Peter Is of private Interpretation and doth not Christ in his written Word most clearly and expresly command us to hear his Church if we will not be holden as Publicans and Heathens Fourthly No Council can be general where all are not called and sit with a decisive voice Answer Should even Hereticks be called to and have in Councils their decisive voices What agreement could this make in Points controverted why not Socinians Anabaptists Quakers as well as Protestants should Presbyterians sit with Bishops Prelaticks in Protestant Assemblies what a pitiful shift is this If so let the Covenant be renewed Bishops again thrust out and Mr. Menzeis set high for yielding obedience to them only through compulsion and fear of loosing his place Fifthly The Church her self when fallen in errour cannot be Judge being Criminal and Impeached of most hainous crimes she cannot be both Party and Judge Answer This Objection is all Utopian and Chymerical if we hear the Scripture and Fathers assuring us she cannot err But giving and not granting she did who then her Judge When Subjects rise against their Soveraign Citizens against their Magistrates Children against their Parents leave they to be their Judges because arraigned by them Even Hereticks must submit to the Sentence and Censures of the Church when they fall at variance with her though they turn Unnatural she cannot become a Stepmother to them Sixthly Infallibility in judging is proper to God Answer yes none but God has it Essentially and by Nature but none I hope will deny he may make the Pastors of his Church as well Infallible in teaching points of Faith as his Prophets and Evangelists in penning the Scripture Books or at least as any Protestant in reading and understanding them Seventhly The Church of Rome is but a particular Church Answer we take it not so when we say the Catholick Roman Church but for all Churches in Communion with the Roman as all Countries under the Roman Emperour are called the Roman Empire and all people under the Law of Moses the Jewish Church though that name taken strictly belonged to the Tribe of Juda because the chief City appertained to that Tribe where the High Bishop resided So the Universal Church is called the Roman Catholick Church by reason of St. Peter and his Successors her high Bishops residing there whence Rome is the Centre of Ecclesiastical Communion infusing unity in the whole dispersed body as the Form of Universality or Catholickship Wherefore St. Cyprian Ep. ad Cornel. Calls her Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est That is the Principal and chief Church the Source and Centre of Unity amongst the Priests of all other Churches and consequently the people Eighthly But whereon Grounded this Infallible Authority of the Church Answer On the clear places of Scripture and Fathers above cited It is the Ground and Pillar of truth therefore cannot err It hath the promise of Gods Spirit to lead it into all truth therefore cannot err It is said to be built on the Rock against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail therefore cannot err Christ hath placed in it Apostles Doctors Pastors and Bishops to the consummation and perfection of the whole body that we be not carried away with every blast of new Doctrines therefore it cannot err It is the House the Spouse the Mystick body of Christ his Lot Kingdom and Inheritance in this world therefore cannot err On the Authority of the Church the Fathers have received the Originals Translations and Sense of Scripture Books yea some chief Points of Faith not mentioned in Scripture as persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church keeping holy the Sunday c. therefore cannot err Christ has commanded and that under pain of Damnation to hear the Church in matters of Faith and Religion therefore it cannot err All are obliged to live in
every one Point of our Religion and Faith Now to prove what I have set down to be the only true solid and infallible Grounds of the true Christian and Catholick Faith 1. That Scripture is this Ground is granted by M. Menzeis and all Protestants so needs no proof as to them 2. That sole Scripture without the Declaration and Exposition of the Church as an infallible Propounder Expounder and Judge cannot be this Ground is proved at length in my fourth Section and presently you shall see it again 3 That Apostolical Traditions are necessarily joyned with Scripture Is 1. proved from clear Scriptures most expresly commanding us to receive them 2 Thes 2.13 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or by Epistle 2 Thess 3.6 Now I command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the Traditions which he received 1 Corinth 11.2 Remember me in all things and keep the Traditions as I delivered them to you 2. By the Authority of the Fathers of the first three ages quoted in my sixth Section with that of S. Chysostome S. Augustine and others above mentioned 3. From manifest and Demonstrative reason in some chief Points which all Christians believe without any express Scripture as I have instanced in persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the keeping of Sunday c. and in many Heresies condemned by the Church Councils Fathers yea and Protestants themselves without any clear Scripture can be brought against them as S. Augustine avoucheth of the Errour of Donatists c. Rests then only to prove that the Church's Authority as an infallible Propounder is necessary to make all these Divine and infallible Truths in themselves contained either in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible Grounds to us For this I presuppose 1. From the Apostle S. Paul Hebrews 11. That without Faith it is impossible to please God 2. From the same Apostle Ephes 4.5 That there is but one Faith one Baptism one Lord JESUS Christ 3. From him again Hebr. 10.23 That we must hold fast the profession of our Faith without wavering From which Texts importing the Necessity of Faith the Unity of Faith and the steadiness in believing required in Divine Faith it doth follow that some infallible means which all may make use of must be appointed by God to attain to this Faith so absolutely necessary to all For to say God hath commanded us and that under the pain of Eternal Damnation to believe undoubtedly and not furnished infallible means to attain to such belief were to accuse his Goodness Providence and Wisdom And this no Christian or rational man will deny so that all the Question that can be moved is about the infallible means to attain without doubt or wavering to Divine Faith which may perswade infallibly all sort of persons that such things are revealed by God removing all reasonable doubts that can arise either concerning Gods Revelation which is the formal object of Faith or the things he hath revealed which makes its material Object and this means I say again must not only be solid and infallible objectively and in it self as M. Menzeis will have the Protestant Religion and Grounds of it but also subjectively and to us it being the same thing as to make a perswasive motive not to appear and not to be according to that Maxime Idem est non esse non apparere Wherefore a ground however infallible in it self yet not appearing so to us and known to be such availeth nothing as to our belief The Mathematicians Demonstrate the Sun to be many times greater then the Earth and their Demonstration no doubt is both certain and evident in it self yet never shall perswade a Country clown that it is greater then his Cap for that no Demonstration of this is clear and certain to him Even so is it in the Ground of Faith it must be both solid and and infallible in it self and it must be known to be such by all who prudently rely upon it This presupposed to conclude all that has been said and fully prove both the Ground of Faith in the Catholick Roman Church solid as the Rock it is built on and the means for conveying it to us infallible I first show against M. Menzeis or rather for him and his conversion the necessity of an infallible Propounder of what â—e must undoubtedly believe for if this can be made good he engageth again to turn Papist 2. That the true Church is this infallible Propounder â— That the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church 1. Then as to the necessity of an infallible Propounder If no men no Church be infallible in propounding then holy Scripture and consequently all that is contained in it is only delivered to us by fallible means and so no infallible certainty in Faith The consequence is clear for most infallible Truths may be changed altered corrupted and both fallibly and falsly propounded to us as the first and chief Mysteries of the Christian Religion by Hereticks have been 2. Faith comes of hearing says the Apostle then as there be infallible believers and hearers so must there be infallible Teachers for Hearing and Teaching are Correlatives 3. No other infallible means is or can be assigned by Protestants to Ignorants yea to all who understand not the Original Languages for what is contained in Scripture save only the Authority of their Pastors and Church but this Authority in propounding is not acknowledged infallible by them then no infallible means is left 4. There is no less necessity the Church be infallible in propounding then the Evangelists in penning and the Apostles in Preaching no disparity can be given Gods Word being equally infallible in it self before both as iâ— is now 5. Our Saviour Christ most expresly owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting the Jews had not sinned in refusing to believe him if by his Works and Wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God and consequently infallible in his Doctrine 6. For this the gift of Miracles is given to the Apostles and left in the Church to show their infallible assistance in propounding If you answer that was necessary at first but not now because it is the same Doctrine you teach which the Apostles did propound infallibly You say nothing for that it is we doubt of or rather undoubtedly we deny that your Doctrine is the same You presently appeal to Scripture but in vain till first you answer to all that is objected in my fourth Section how ye know infallibly what ye call Scripture to be Gods Word then the Letter you read to be uncorrupted the sense you give to the genuine c. and to all the clear places of Scripture I have brought against most of your particular Tenets I do not here ask
Advertisement of corruptions to the Protestant Bishops saith that their publick Translation of Scriptures is such as it perverteth the Text of the Old Testament in four hundred forty eight places and that it causeth millions of millions to reject the New Testament and run to Eternal flames How many divers and different Translations in Queen Elizabeths and King James times how often what was first at the Margent hath been put in the Text Now if Translators of the Scripture in English men furnished with so many helps endued with so many gifts so well versed in the Hebrew and Greek tongues so guided by all the Rules Mr. Menzeis gives to attain the right meaning and sense of Holy Writ have fallen into so many and so gross errours and Mistakes as to have depraved detorted wrested obscured the Scripture and Word of God so that it as Translated by them decieveth the Ignorant supplanteth the simple perverteth the Text in so many places as that it carrieth milions to Eternal Flames What hope can any one have of meaner Talents with fewer helps and less learning and knowledge to attain by his own private reading of Scripture the undoubted Truth Steadiness in faith and Religion a full and satisfactory solution of all doubts or security of Salvation and yet these very same so corrupt Translations as their own Ghospellers testifie are read in Churches expounded in Pulpits and put in the hand of every one who understands neither Latine Greek nor Hebrew as his sole ground of Faith and Judg of controversie whereby he is made able to Judge not only of Popish Errors the Writings of the Fathers and Decrees of Councils but even of his own Pastors Doctrine his Churches Faith and his Countries Religion Secondly to come to the Originals Shall they then onely be the Protestants Ground of Faith If so I ask Mr. Menzeis where we shall find them Yea we are so far from having all the Originals that it is doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written The purity of Originals is sometimes called in Question and Calvin Inst l. 1. C. 13. Doth imagine even these the Fountains run not always clear Luther Enar. in Is Cryes out on the Jews for crucifying the Text as well as Christ and upon Gen. C. 24. Says again he has often told many words there be in the Hebrew Text which the Hebrews themselves do not understand And to say true amongst the Jews the least of their three Massoreshe's so they call the Book which contains the many corruptions and divers Lections in the Hebrew Text counts eight hundred places disagreeing ambiguous or corrupt neither do the most learned Rabbies agree in the Letter of Scripture In Hebrew it self some reading according to the Points or Vowels put in by Rabbi Jacob and some by these of Rabbi Aron most different one from another all the points being added to the Text Five hundred years after Christ and that by his professed Enemies the Jews long after the Vulgar Latine Translation which was made before the Text and Letter of Scripture was corrupt But Protestants take in also with these the corruptions of the Greek Text remarked in part by St. Ireneus Tertullian Origen and others says Eusebius when the ancient Hereticks the Arians Macedonians Nestorians c. had corrupted and adulterated the Word of God to support their Errours as Protestants at present in all their Translations do I know M. Menzeis will tell me perhaps he hath seen both the Hebrew and the Greek Texts well but who assures him they are not corrupt Yes but the Protestants have corrected them and that according to the Authenticks which never any Protestant did see The most Learned amongst Protestants have never seen the Original Scriptures which were first penned by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists Copies are no less subject to faults in the Letter then Translations to mistakes in the sense Yea the Authors of that great famous Bible that is Printing at London if not yet ended in so many Languages witnesseth in the Preface they have set out not so much as one Copy could be found they can assure to agree in all things with the Original their labour may be great in this vast Volume to correct the Copies they find deficient but their Authority is not Infallible In a word no Infallible Authority is admitted by Protestants to judge either of the Letter or Sense For that savours rankly says M. Menzeis of that Erroneous Popish Tenet of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversie And I Answer to deny one in all these and such like cases savours rankly of a tottering wavering groundless Faith most like to that of M. Menzeis I say yet further if no Translations of Scripture can be a ground of Faith as most learned Protestants grant so neither any Original it would seem without some Infallible Judg for I must ever be sure they are unccorrupted and again all the defect in Translations coming from the misunderstanding of Originals I ask who dare say he understands them better then they who have Translated and upon this as he himself reads and conceives ground his Religion and Faith Thirdly before all this if M. Menzeis will prove it a solid Ground to rely on sole Scripture as the onely ground of Faith without any Infallible visible Judge or assurance that he who tells me this is the uncorrupted Letter this the true and genuine Sense has the peculiar assistance of the Holy Ghost I demand what Infallible Motive can prudently perswade Protestants that the Word of God they rely on was ever set down in Writing or is extant at this day Is it the testimony of Scripture calling it self Gods Word or the Innate Light of the same Scripture showing it self to be such to a well disposed Intellect and mind If the first do not Nicodemus and S. Thomas Gospels carry the same titles with these of St. Matthew and St. Mark If the second then the Fathers of the first three ages whom M. Menzeis most owns were not well disposed persons who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authority of a Council at Carthage had declared them Canonical and much less Luther that holy man who rejecteth St. James Epistle with some others As Protestants ground their Faith say they on Gods word so Quakers on the Spirit and we deny not but both be equally Infallible if once known Infallibly to be the Spirit or Word of God But we demand of each Sect what Infallible External Rule or Motive they give us to know either Gods Word speaking in Scripture or Spirit in them Both answer with M. Menzeis they both show themselves to all who are well disposed But this clears not us the well disposed heart being only known to God let all then be objectively true as M. Menzeis sayes his Religion is which they both teach as certainly is what ever by Gods Word or Spirit is revealed we only insist to know Infallibly that
God did reveal such Doctrine as theirs either by his Word or Spirit For we receive now no Immediate Revelations as the Prophets and Apostles did in old times nor have we Evidentiam in attestante as the Divines call it that is any Evidence that it is God who speaks points of faith being only propounded to us by men who either put the Scriptures in our hands to read or teach us by word of mouth The Protestants great Principle let 's own no man or Church as an Infallible Judge yea M. Menzeis in his sixth paper offers upon this to turn Papist if the Infallible assistance of the Propounder can be proved necessary but never clears what other way we can be Infallibly assured that all which the Protestants do teach was revealed by God Unless it be in his third paper where speaking of the True and Genuine Sense of Scripture he tells us we may have it as from a Jurist the Explication of a Municipal Law or from a Mathematitian a demonstration of Euclides But what a weak Answer is this Do any receive Demonstrations on Authority as Points of Faith Or is the assent I give to the Law so explained by a Jurist Infallible If Christ himself had not shown his Divinity by his Works and Wonders he grants the Jews had committed no sin in refusing to belive him The Apostles Credentials were their Miracles both did thus evidence the Infallible assistance they had of Gods Spirit to the World and shall any man trust M. Menzeis boldly asserting there is no necessity of any was it not for this the power of Miracles was left in the Church as the marks of her assistance and seals of her Doctrine with other Motives of credibility Notwithstanding Protestants with M. Menzeis will propound to us the Catalogue of Canonical Scripture Books assure us of the uncorrupt Copies and Letter enforce upon our Consciences the sense they give whil'st so confidently obtruding all this they neither dare or do say nor can evidence by any external mark or sign they have the particular assistance of Gods Spirit As if all this were clear in it self with Mathematical Demonstrations But doth Scripture in our Bibles show it self better to be the Word of God now then when Christ was speaking in person Then an external Evidence God did speak by his Son is acknowledged as necessary by him and now shall any man reasonably say there is no necessity of any when he speaks by his servants and Church however this prove efficacious and strong for M. Menzeis conversion it would seem to me more then sufficient for his or any mans conviction Fourthly to claim to Scripture yet so as they can no wise evidence they take it aright is common to Protestants with all Hereticks so no peculiar Ground When Sectaries clash with Sectaries is not all their babling out of Scripture You shall see says Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 35. Hereticks so abound with Scripture as they fly through all the Volumes of the holy Law through Moses the Books of Kings the Psalmes and Prophets c. read the works of Paulus Sam satenus Priscillian Eunomius c. you shall not find ae page which is not Coloured and painted out with the sentences of Old and New Testament Nestorius to support his Heresie gloried as Gennadius reporteth in his Catalogue in the evidence of threescore Testimonies which he produced as the Covenant in three hundred whereof scarce three any wise to the purpose The Valentinians Marcionists Arians will submit to none but Scripture as St. Augustine witnesseth of Maximinus the Arian Bishop in his first Bok against him Neither doth it avail M. Menzeis to say Scriptures are clear in terminis or made clear by conferring of places or show themselves clearly to a well disposed mind First for that though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind So that it wanteth not difficulty to determine always what is absolutely clear there being many clear places as would seem not to be taken in the clear and obvious sense as the passages Hereticks did most build on will presently shew As when Marcion despiseth Moses and the Prophets upon Christs own clear words in S. John the 10. How many soever have come before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees affirmed Christ to be the Sun upon a like Scripture in St. John the 8. I am the light of the world The Waldenses taught no man could be put to death no not by the lawful Authority of a Judge upon clear Scripture again Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill c. The Devil citeth clear Scripture to Christ and the Jews against his death we have heard in the Law the Messias abideth for ever Moreover many seeming Contradictions in Scripture you shall find in Becan and others one might think clear And many things are believed even by Protestants which be not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church and the Command of keeping holy the Sunday the Scripture neither naming persons or telling what a person is defining Sacraments as M. Menzeis doth or setting down their number abrogating the keeping of the Sabbath or having for the Sunday any command Many places of Scripture again are flatly against Protestants and clear for us as for the Real Presence This is my Body this is my Blood S. Matth. 26. For Justification not by Faith only but also good works Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only S. James 2.24 For Traditions from the Apostles besides the written Word Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by Word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.13 And such like places cited in most Books of Controversie for all Controverted Tenets Protestants never being able to bring any one clear place of Scripture against any of our Tenets not evidently mistaken or confessedly corrupted as when they make S. Paul say a man is justified by faith only Luther above cited granting he has put in the word only which Saint Paul hath not or Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image in place of Idol as is clearly the word Pesel in the Hebrew Text. Secondly as to conferring of places and explaining the more obscure by these which are clear did not Arius boast of this against the Fathers of the Council of Nice proving the unity in Nature of the Father and Son out of these words in S. John the 10. I and my Father are one No says the Arian this place as obscure to us and passing the reach of Humane capacity must be explained by this other more clear in St. John 17. where Christ prayes his Apostles May be one with him as he and his Father are one that is in will and affection and surely the second place is clearer to us and
Religion from Prelaticks to Presbyterians from Presbyterians to Independants from Independants to I know not whom again is more like the Weathercock on the Steeple turning at every wind then the Member of any one Church His Exclamations wherewith he concludes his two long Epistles are both ludibrious and childish in misapplying so many Scripture Phrases to the Catholick Roman Church whose Faith is so highly commended by the Apostle St. Paul and holy Fathers in all Ages who ever amongst them did tax her of Errour flie her Communion renounce her Faith decline her Censures question her Authority disapprove her Doctrine or chalenge the Supreme power and Headship of her Bishop In the second age St. Irenaeus extols her Authority All Churches says he l. 3. c. 3. round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerful Principality In the third St. Cyprian Ep. 55. calls her St. Peters Chair and the principal Church to which Infidelity or false Doctrine cannot have access In the fourth St. Athanasius has his recourse both to her Bishop and her against all his Adversary Hereticks In the fifth St. Augustine thinks her Sentence an end of Controversie Scripsimus Romam Roma rescriptum est quaestio finita est c. And in following ages do not St. Gregory St. German St. John Damascene Venerable Bede St. Bernard St. Thomas of Aquine and generally all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church the same So that I answer his places of Scripture as St. Augustine Petilian's the Donatist Heretick l. 2. c. 5. He brings the words of the Law but takes not heed against whom as the Devil speaks Scripture to Christ not discerning to whom Verba legis dicitis sed in quos dicitis non attenditis sicut Diabolus verba legis dicebat sed cui diceret non agnoscebat And with the same St. Augustine I answer to all Mr. Menzeis pretended victory and triumph over Mr. Dempster Facile est ut quisque Augustinum vincat quanto magis ut vicisse videatur aut si non videatur vicisse dicatur facile est St. Aug. Ep. 174. SECT II. Wherein the Question is stated as propounded by Mr. Dempster and Mr. Menzeis great Principle and Grounds set down as cleared by him with the Design of the Author thereon THe sole Argument that I find Mr. Dempster urges in all his papers in substance runs thus in this one Syllogism That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no peculiar principle or ground to prove that it is a true Religion and conform to the true sense of the word of God But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self the true Religion c. Then the Protestant Religion cannot be true Mr. Menzeis cavils at this Syllogism as not being in form both the premises being Negatives as well as the Conclusion Mr. Dempster Answers the second is Affirmative and only objectively Negative As if one should say in Latin wherein the form of Syllogisms best appears Sed omnis Religio Protestantium est talis ut nullum habeat peculiare fundamentum quo se probet veram or else Est habens nullum peculiare fundamentum c. which the least Logician in the Colledge presently sees to be an Affirmative Proposition And yet what Clamours hath not Mr. Menzeis made for this as if at the first bout he had disarmed his Adversary So well this great Professor of Divinity is versed in Logick that he cannot resolve and answer a proposition if not set down as to a Bajan Like to that young man who lately come from the Fencing-School and hardly put to it mistaking the thrust is put off his Guard and so both wounded and mocked So the Syllogism standing in good Form the first Proposition in it suffers no debate The second is denyed by Protestants whereupon they are required to produce this peculiar Ground which proves their Religion to be true Master Menzeis after many Wheelings Turnings and Windings in his Scoldings Digressions Retorsions at the end brings two grounds for the Protestant Religion The first Scripture and that clear in Fundamentals or things necessary to Salvation The second its agreement in Essentials with the Faith of the purest and most ancient Primitive Church in the first three Centuries or Ages To clear his first Ground which in his sixth paper he storms to have called his Achilles or strength seeing he had given another which it seems he holds no less strong then it he sets down That all Scriptures are not clear Secondly that Protestants do not exclude means of Interpretation Thirdly by perspicuity he understands in Terms or by firm and clear consequence Fourthly that by this perspicuity again he means an External and objective Evidence which is nothing impeached by the misunderstanding of Hereticks or others Fifthly that by things necessary is here understood whither necessary as means or as commands What he cites in his eight paper as Maximes taken out of George Scholarius a Grecian is but to the same purpose with what he hath formerly said One onely thing I add which he urges most in all his Book that though Protestants do not exclude means of Interpretation in explaining of Scripture and in deducing consequences from it yet no necessity there is that we should know that he who gives the true Interpretation and Sense have the assistance of the Holy Ghost because forsooth this savours rankly says he of that Erroneous Popish Tenet concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judg of Controversie whereof he proves in his third paper there is none for that a Jurist without any such Infallible assistance may be known to explain aright a Municipal Law and a Mathematician to demonstrate a Proposition of Euclydes This is the state of the Question as propounded by Mr. Dempster and this in substance is Mr. Menzeis Answer to it their debate is long Mr. Dempster constantly putting Mr. Menzeis to it that he would prove these Grounds to be peculiar to Protestants and support their Controverted Tenets with us but this he still declines to bring any Positive proof for either desiring his adversary should rather Positively prove the contrary No says Mr. Dempster make good your Assertion as he who affirms should prove I will not be so put off of my medium I have taken against you Let us see the Grounds you build on in the sence you take them and without any Infallible visible Judg of Controversie assuring you either of the uncorrupt Writings and sincere Doctrine of the Fathers in the first three ages or of the uncorrupt Letter and genuine sense of Scripture first to be solid and Infallible and then to agree peculiarly to you and the business is done You confidently assert both but what Sectary sayes not the same their claim to the foresaid Grounds say ye is meerly pretended rests to see how your own is proved as just Many Digressions and Retorsions against Popery are made Many
Protestant Writers spoken of who have done this but nothing as either borrowed from them or as laid out by himself is brought in Many passages of the Fathers are misapplyed Many Cavils Criminations and Calumnies are objected Many strong words as Logomachies Vertigo's and Needle-headed Nicities with Prophecies from Poets are used a great part of Erasmus Chilias spent in Proverbs Much paper blotted but what concluded I shall not here interpose my judgment as Mr. Menzeis publishes his victory as Trumpet in the Triumph himself leaving to each one to read and judge of the papers adding only of him what was said of a Prolix and tedious Orator who on little matter spent much time in many flourishes of words and frequent Digressions Nullum vidi qui magis operosè nihil diceret Multa sed non multum Magni passus sed extra viam Seneca That is I have seen none take greater pains to say nothing he sayes many things but not much he walks at a great pace but out of the way For me as I mind not here actum agere so neither do I presume to add any thing to what Mr. Dempster has said in his way of Disputing which I acknowledge both the shortest and best to make Mr. Menzeis prove his Grounds but he ever declining this and urging we should shew in them any weakness or defect this I here undertake for Mr. Menzeis further conviction and happily some Protestants conversion by the goodness and mercy of God My design being to prove positively the falshood and nullity as well of his great Principle of no Infallible visible Judg as of both his Grounds and that very succinctly in a few Sections without Digressing in the least or medling with what hath been said SECT III. Wherein Mr. Menzeis great Principle That there is no Infallible visible Judge of Controversie in the true Church is Positively refuted as the main Ground of all Divisions Schisms and Heresies and contrary to the Scriptures Fathers and Reason AS all Rebellion in Kingdoms and Common-wealths has its rise from contempt of the lawful Authority of Princes and Magistrates upon the specious pretence of abuse of Power against the Laws of the Kingdom and Liberties of the Subjects So all Heresies in the Church begin with appeals from the Pastors of the Church the only Judges establisht by Christ to his Written Word which is to all Christians as their Law Book LEX REX cry out Rebels with their Calipha Buchanan LEX JUDEX or nolo verba quae non sunt scripta Answers the Heretick with an Arian in the Councel of Nice They will believe what they read and not what they hear though the Apostle teach us that Faith comes of hearing and the reason is because with Mr. Menzeis they acknowledge none speaking in matters of Faith and Religion Infallible No Infallible Visible Judge This is indeed that great Principle Protestants did broach to themselves in the beginning of Reformation and at their very first leaping out from the Church they would admit of no Infallible visible Judge stand to no Sentence or Decree of Church Councils Fathers Now this Principle being supposed by them to be solid and an unquestionable truth nothing can follow thereon but what is true Ex vero nil nisi verum and consequently any private Protestant reading Scripture with a sincere intention may yea ought to adhere to what he thinks to be in Scripture should all the Protestant Church with all her Assemblies Synods Preachers be of a contrary mind Upon this Luther and Calvin leave the Catholick Roman Church and all visible Congregations in the Christian World at that time because sayes Chamiers Ep. 49. though Mr. Menzeis deny it was so Then Apostacy averted the whole body from Christ. They made all the Kings and people drunk from the first to the last says Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 18. and Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 5. c. 3. No Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church Duditius apud Bezam Ep. 1. sayes more if that be true which the Fathers have professed with mutual consent it is altogether on the Papists side Upon this same Principle innumerable other Sects and Sectaries have left again Protestants and the Protestant Church upon this and this only Principle every particular man reading Scripture and taking it as he thinks both words and sense clear is made his own Judge and so as many heads almost as many sentences and diverse Opinions in Religion some thinking Scripture clear for this some for that Sect some admitting or rejecting whole Books of Scripture at their pleasure Yea some and that too too many seeing most clear Scripture tossed and wrested by contrary Sects suspend their Judgment renounce their Faith and quit all Religion not knowing with what party to side Others in fine who think themselves deeper wits as they are more speculative and searching brains having run through all can be said to ascertain any point of Faith save only the Divine Oracle in the Church have turned Scepticks in Religion grounding themselves on meer probability Which Seed of Infidelity sayes the Author of a Treatise Intituled Faith vindicated from possibility of Falshood Sowen when the Infallible Authority of the Church as the rule of Faith was renounced dared first appear publickly above ground in the Writings of Mr. Chillingworth and the L. Falkland dressed up in a plausible Rhetorick and set out under a yet more pleasant Title to Protestants as being against Popery was most graciously received by many Yea when it appeared in Mr. Tilletson his Eloquent and Famous Sermon did begin to get credit as an Evangelical truth and all this upon the foresaid great principle Upon it the holy work of Reformation by private men opposing the Law and Gospel to the judicial Sentence and Decrees of the whole Catholick Church Upon it the glorious work of the Covenant by some factious Zelots against Prince and Pastors in the Protestant Church Upon it Preachers and Pulpits clash at randome Sects and Sectaries multiply the Christian world is put in confusion with endless Jars and Debates in Religion And all this because there is no Infallible Judge of Controversie to give Sentence in favour of any one party silencing all others In a word for that according to Protestants God hath given us a Law without a Judg however inconsistent this may seem with Order Providence and wisdom This one Principle I say once more with the great St. Augustine Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. Ruines the very Grounds of Religion In aliis quaestionibus non diligenter digestis non plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis ferendus est disputator errans ibi ferendus error non tamen progredi debet ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur According to the same St. Augustine ib. whosoever run their heads were they never so great with Mr. Menzeis against this Inexpugnable wall of the Church Authority are crusht Hoc habet Authoritas matris Eccelsiae
hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon contra hoc robur contra hunc Inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur Is it not on the Church her Infallible Authority St. Augustine admits the Scriptures contr Ep. fund c. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas Doth he not stick so close to the same Authority of the Church that he sayes Ep. fund c. 4. If any clear testimony were brought out of Scripture against it he would neither believe Scripture nor Church for that on the Church her Authority he believed the Scripture Quod si forâ—e in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei apostolatu invenire potueris infirmabis mihi Catholicorum Authoritatem qui jubent ut tibi non credam quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Was not the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written Was not again the Church of the Jews the same Judge after the Law was given till Christ his time and this by the express Order of God in Scripture Deut. 17. v. 8. would God there direct them unto a Judge and punish them with death for not obeying in matters of the Law and Religion an Authority which might any wise deceive them Or in the Law of Grace it self has Christ in St. Matth. 18. v. 17. commanded us to hear a Church not Infallible or subject to errour Is not the Church of God built on a Rock so that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her S. Matth. 16.19 Has not the Church this promise from Christ S. Matth. 28.20 And loe I am with you even to the end of the world Is not the Church called by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Tim. 3.13 The Ground and Pillar of Truth However Mr. Menzeis will have this ground sole Scripture In fine if these and such like Texts we should hear the Church receive her Decisions obey her commands be not clear what is clear in all the Scripture or if they be subject to diverse Interpretations who can better judge of their true sense then the same Church Will you say Natural Reason with the Socinians or the private spirit with Anabaptists and Quakers or conferring of places and passages with Protestants Is there any one more rational then the whole Church of God any spirit to be trusted rather then the Spirit of Truth promised to her or any one better versed in all the places of Scripture then all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church composing her Supreme Judicatory in a general Council Let us hear I pray you the Fathers upon this I mean the Authority both of Church and Councils as an Infallible Visible Judge the better to silence Mr. Menzeis vain glorious bragging S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 49. We must believe those Priests that are in the Church those that have a succession from the Apostles who together with Episcopal Power have according to the good pleasure of the Father received the certain gift of truth And again the same S. Irenaeus c. 62. the Church shall be under no mans judgment he excepts not Mr. Menzeis yea nor Luther nor Calvin to reform her for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect Faith of the Father and of the dispensation of Christ and firm knowledge of the Holy Ghost who teacheth all truth Origen praef in lib. periarch That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church and in understanding Scripture we must not believe otherwise then as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us S. Cyprian de unit eccl That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresy S. Chrysostom in c. 2. is That all the Hereticks in the World cannot pervert her Doctrine S Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Myst 18. That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 5. in Is c. 54. That she is founded by Christ in truth for 〈◊〉 S. Ambrose l. 4. Hexam c. 2. That she cannot fail Eusebius Caesariensis de praeparat Evang. l. 1. c. 3. That her Faith is invincible to the very Powers of Hell S. Augustine l. 4. de bapt c. 4. I know by Divine Revelations that the Spirit of Truth teacheth the Church all truth S. Augustine again l. de Utilit cred c. 16. Fear not to run to the bosom of the Church which by succession of Bishops descending from the Apostolical Sea manifestly even to the acknowledgment of all mankind hath obtained the height of Authority Hereticks who on every side barked against her being partly by the consent of Nations partly by the Authority of Councils partly by the Majesty of Miracles condemned to which Church not to yield primacy is a point either of highest Impiety or headlong Arrogancy In fine the same S. Augustine Ep. 118. To think not right what the Catholick Church practises is most insolent madness I leave to the Physicians judgment what foot of this Distemper and Madness had the first Reformers of the Church not only thinking and calling what she practised Idolatry and Superstition but even judging and condemning her of Apostacy Schism and Heresy as Mr. Menzeis here of Arrogancy and Pride Odi Ecclesiae illius fastum I hate says he that Churches Pride speaking of the Catholick Roman Church for calling her self Infallible but let me answer him as Plato Diogen Calcas Ecclesiae fastum majore fastu he most persumptuously accuses her of Pride no lawful establisht Judicatory being proud in censuring private Delinquents as they deserve but Rebels to their lawful Judges in censuring them both Presumptuous and Proud with him But least any with Mr. Menzeis should apply all these Testimonies of the Fathers to the diffusive body of the Church and not to the Representative in a general Council as if the one were Infallible in Believing and not the other in Teaching according to that promise of Christ in S. Matth. 28.20 Go teach all Nations and lo I am with you all days to the end of the world We must remark that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words and promises in future ages no less then in the Apostles time then we are to take them for all ages except there be some express limitation made as to Preach Baptise remit Sins feed his Flock lead men in all Truth c. Yet because each Apostle had a power over all the Church this is said to every one of them but to their Successors who have not each one this power together in a Council which for this all the Fathers in all ages have acknowledged as a Soveraign and Infallible Judicatory what ever Mr. Menzeis standing to his Great Principle say to the contrary Thus S. Cyril l. 10. de trin averres Decrees of General Councils to be most Holy and Divine Oracles S. Leo
a Copy conform to the Original such a Translation Authentick such a place clear such a sense genuine 2. The Judge of Controversie ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand and as the Law sayes the Apostle is not for the just but the unjust so the Judg of Controversie is not only for the well disposed but more in some manner for others and especially the unlearned and unstable who according to St. Peter Wrest the Scriptures to their own damnation Yea the most learned amongst the Fathers as S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen after much pains in the study of Scripture as testifieth Ruffinus l. 11. Hist C. 9. refuse to interpret them but according to the Rule and Uniform consent of their Fore-fathers not relying on all the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis prescribes and they had reason the Scripture being the Book S. John describeth to be clasped with seven Seals Apoc. 5. v. 16. which Ezekiel termeth the enrolled volume written within and without S. Ambrose Ep. 44. A Sea containing most profound Senses of Prophetical Riddles S. Augustine l. 2. de doctrina Christ C. 6. hard in the Stile Discourse Places as well as in the Subject and Matter which makes him cry out l. 12. Confess c. 14. O the wonderful depth of thy speeches O the wonderful depth S. Hierome Ep. 13. C. 4. Says the Text of Scripture has a Shell to be broken before that we can tast the sweetness of the Kernel and Vincentius Lyrinensis C. 2. That all take not holy Scripture by reason of its deepness in one and the same sense but some interpret one way some another so that there may seem to be picked out as many senses as men for Novatus doth Expound one way and Sabellius another otherwise Donatus otherwise Arius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Photinus Apollinaris and other Hereticks with them therefore very necessary it is for the manifold turnings and by-wayes of Errors that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation be levelled according to the Square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick sense whereof Tertullian de Praescript gives this reason for that the sense adulterated is alike perillous as the Stile corrupted But what danger of this says M. Menzeis if Scripture be clear men cannot mistake if not wilfully blinded what is so Could not the Law-maker speak as clear as the Judg Answer we have seen there is nothing almost in Scripture but has been and so may be mistaken Therefore the necessity of a Judge however the Law speak clear has been acknowledged by the greatest men and best wits in the world Aristotle in the first Book of his Morals and fourth of his Politicks And Plato in his Republick prefers good Judges even to best Laws Judges have been ever establisht by the Laws in all Nations as by Scripture in the Church of God and the necessity of one to keep concord and unity is partly grounded on the nature of most clear Words and Sentences which may be taken according to the Letter or Sense Properly or Figuratively Morally or Mystically and so forth Partly on the diversity of Opinions men commonly judging as they are affected and diversly of one and the same thing as their understandings inclinations or interests leads them His Majesties Secretary of State may write no doubt as clear as the Lords of Council and Session speak yet his Letters are directed to them in most businesses of weight least others should take them otherwise then written or wrest them to their own ends even so is it of Scripture written by the Prophets and Evangelists and delivered to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church Whence Catholick Romans build their Belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but Explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the General Definition and Decision of the present Catholick Church Protestants as M. Menzeis holds out ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well disposed mind that is a Prejudicate Opinion that their own Tenets are right Now let any man judg which of these two is most conform to Scripture it self in both Testaments to the practice of the Church in all ages to the consent of Fathers above cited and Reason For first This the Protestant way would seem vain arrogant and presumptuous in so far as that a man who followeth it must be so confident of himself that if he fancy Scripture to be clear for such a Tenet were all the Christian World in a contrary judgment yea had all Christians been so from the time of the Apostles yet must he stand to his fancy grounded upon clear Scripture as he thinks So that no perswasion can remove him from it for that it is a point of his Faith but for a man to be so peremptorily resolute in the sense he hath found in Scripture by his private reading is very presumptuous I say for wherein can he ground prudently such a strong assent as is required in Divine Faith which ought to be above all can be said against it Shall it be on the clearness of the words conference of places on his skill in Tongues on his weighing the precedent and consequent places or on the assistance of the Spirit given to him If so is it not intollerable pride and presumption in any one man to think that no other was ever so clear sighted or quick witted to see and understand in Scripture what is clear no other in such a multitude of Doctors and Fathers so well versed in the Original Languages so circumspect to confer places so exact to weigh Circumstances so acute to draw Consequences in fine so well disposed to find the Truth so fervent in Prayer so particularly enlightned directed and assisted by the Spirit of God What is whymsical Phanatick and Foolish if this be not wherefore Doctor Field ashamed any should think this to be Protestant Doctrine says None of their Divines teach the Scriptures to be so clear that they may be certainly understood by reading and conferring of places For the Rule of Faith says he in his Appendix 2. p. p. 12. is Doctrine descending by Tradition from the Apostles according to which the Scriptures are to be Expounded And in his fourth Book C. 14. The Rule of Faith is the consenting judgment of them that went before us the Rule without which we cannot know the meaning of the things that are in Scriptures for who shall be able to understand them but he that is setled in these things which the Apostles presupposed in their delivery of Scripture Afterward in the 15. Chap. having said There is no question but there be many obscurities in Scripture And in the 18. Ch. having set down many senses of Scriptures in
the 19. he writes thus We confess that neither conference of places nor consideration of what followeth or goes before nor looking into Originals are of any force unless we find the things which we conceive to be understood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the Rule of Faith that is Tradition conserved in the Church neither is there any of our Divines that ever taught otherwise Where you see by Doctor Field M. Menzeis is discarded from being a Protestant Divine the Scripture however clear is declared to be no Rule or Ground of Faith but according to the sense of them that went before us as all other means besides Tradition in his 16. Ch. are propounded to be but probable Conjectures and not infallible grounds And this most rationally for what private man as I have said can assure himself that either the finding out the true sense of Scripture as to him is tyed to the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis sets down or that he makes a right use of all these means For as the same Dr. Field judiciously remarks and ingenuously grants with S. Augustine contra Ep. Fundam and de Util. cred few men have leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine the particular Controversies so many and so intricate in these our dayes and that the way to satisfie their Consciences in this most important affair is to find out the true Church and rest in her judgment Ad sapientiam says S. Augustine in Ecclesia Spirituales pauci perveniunt caeteram vero turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit that is few even Spiritual ones in the Church attain to perfect knowledge the rest being made most sure not by their quickness in understanding but by their simplicity in believing 2. This the Protestants way is but a trifling loosing of time never having been found able to settle debates amongst themselves as witness 60. Synods holden in 60. years time says Rescius l. de Atheismo in which all taking Scripture for their ground without any Infallible Judge did so little agree that they parted not so much as good friends Neque dantes dextras fraternitatis aut humanitatis How many Examples of this amongst Lutherans and Calvinists Prelaticks and Presbyterians and even in our confessions of Faith and Covenant among our selves I know M. Menzeis Answer will be their Dissentions are not in Fundamentals of these I shall speak presently in the next Section only here I ask why then so great cruelty so much bloud so many Excommunications and Curses If they did not think them so who moved such troubles they were either most cruel or mad as Tertullian l. de praescr most truly says in Disputing out of Texts of Scripture that is as every man reads and understands there is no other good got but either to make a man sick or mad It is not so in the Catholick Church what ever M. Menzeis says of Jesuits and Dominicans neither party having ever contested in any thing that was once decided by the Church 3. The Protestants way is Preposterous Religion being Established before the Scriptures and they only written to true believers whence Tertullian prescribing against all Hereticks says We do not admit them to dispute from Scripture till first they can show who their Ancestors were from whom by whom when and to whom the form of Christian Religion was delivered Whereupon to conclude all this I ask at M. Menzeis is every particular man amongst Protestants infallibly assured by Scripture of what he believes If so why not then Catholicks and all the Catholick Church they receive the Scriptures with Protestants yea Protestants only from them their Churchmen read the Scriptures with as great diligence they be in a far greater number they have ten for one who have Expouded it they apply no less all the means for a right Interpretation they study the Originals confer Places pray many hours both day and night have no Wives Children or Family to divert them most of them have renounced all pretence to Riches Honours and all Temporal Interests wherewith they might be Byassed any wise in what they profess The extraordinary and unparallelled pains they take in the most Barren Savage and cruel nations of the Earth for their conversion to Christianity would seem sufficient to evidence both the good disposition of their minds and the sincere intention of their hearts beyond the Preachers of whatsoever Sect Their manifold Writings witness enough the solidity and quickness of their wits and even their Wonders and Mracles in latter ages in all most Authentick Records of History would make believe they want not the assistance of the the Spirit yea and of the power of God and yet that we should think that they are blinded Protestants see clear they mistake Scripture Protestants take it aright they are misled by the Spirit of Errour Protestants directed by the Spirit of Truth what Reason Proof or Probability for this But why do Protestants pretend it is so Forsooth chiefly because they acknowledge one high Bishop in the whole Church as Protestants a primate in each Kingdom with the Negative voice to silence all private sowers of Dissention and keep unity because they take the Canons and Rules of their Faith from Scripture explained in general Councils and the Unanimous consent of the Church and Fathers and not by private Reading because in a word they reverence Publick Authority establisht by God in his Church above particular Opinions and Conceits Why then should Scripture be called a Ground to Protestants who neither did receive it from Christ and his Apostles as all Historians and Chronologues marking the rise of Protestancy in Luther his dayes do evidence nor have it uncorrupt as their own Doctors and Ghospellers do acknowledge Nor take it in the true sense upon publick Authority but as they fancy upon private Reading and Interpretation against the Apostle And not rather to Catholicks who having received the Scriptures from Christ and his Apostles as the Word of God left to his Church which she is bound to have an Eye to in all her Decisions Statutes and Laws so that none of them be Repugnant to it in the least neither by adding or pairing in Words or Sense but all fully consonant and conform to both In acknowledgement whereof in all her General Councils she placeth it above Pope Prelates Pastors who in all the search they make into former Councels Fathers Schoolmen Tradition or practice of the Church intend nothing else generally speaking then to find out by all possible diligence the true sense and meaning of what is taught us in General and Particular Terms in the Written Word Yet Protestants with all Hereticks most vainly bragg of Scripture as their Ground and Catholicks be calumniated to abandon it as if Loyal Subjects did less rely on the Acts of Parliament and funâ—â—mental Laws who receive them their Sentence and meaning from the lawful Judges establisht
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
2.24 Ye see then how that by Works a man is justified and not by Faith only Is it not to protest against his Divine Appointment again and his Word to teach that good Works done in his Grace and by his Grace merit nothing when through all the Scripture Heaven is promised as a reward to our Works and in St. Matth. 10. It is said Christ shall render to every one according to his Works Is it not to protest against his Divine Authority and Word to deny the Real Presence All the Evangelists speaking so clearly This is my Body this is my Blood Is it not to protest against his express Command and Word to forbid Images as Idols He having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the Ark of the Covenant Exod. 25. Is it not to protest against his own Practice and Word to deny we should honour his Saints whom God himself Honours yea and glorifies Them that honour me I will honour 1 Reg. 2.30 Is it not to protest against his Dispensation and Word to deny the Power given to his Apostles and their Successours to forgive sins he having said in S. John 20.23 Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven Is it not to protest against the Satisfaction which his Justice requires for our sins even after the guilt is forgiven to deny Purgatory The Scripture witnessing that he did exact satisfaction of David and many holy penitent sinners after he had forgiven their sins And S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. If any ones work burn he shall suffer loss but himself shall be saved yet so as by fire where we have clearly a purging and punishing yet saving fire Is it not to protest against Christs Eternal Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech Ps 109. and S. Paul Hebr. 5. to reject the unbloody and unspotted Sacrifice of the Mass which the Prophet Malachy 1. C. 10. V. calls a clean Oblation to be offered amongst the Gentiles from the rising of the Sun even to the setting and that in every place Is it not to protest against all God commands us and his Word to take away free Will in obeying Deut. 30.19 I have set before you life and death chuse To conclude what Point is there in all the Catholick Faith which Protestants protest against which is not either Directly against Gods Divine Attributes Christs Mediation and Dispensation his Churches Authority his Saints and Servants honour some part of Christian duty belief or life or generally not against his express written Word as it is plain in it self or expounded by the unanimous consent of the Fathers And yet so impudently bold is this spirit of Heresie as to dare say that that is contained in Scripture which Scripture most evidently contradicts that is only in opposition to Popish Errours which impugnes the very Fundamental and most substantial Verities of the Gospel and Christian Faith that by the pure and uncorrupted word it will reform the Church when corrupting the Word and correcting the Church as subject to failings and Errours in Religion it ruinateth both Church and Word What has been said in this and the former Section further instanced in two Particular Controverted Points The Real Presence and two Sacraments THE Protestant Religion is The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture Sole Scripture is their Ground and in it all Fundamentals are clear Says M. Menzeis How false all this is in general doth evidently I hope appear by what I have said above Here I instance only further two particular Points he handles at length the better to make see the falshood of his strong and bold Assertions in the weakness and nullity of his Proofs And this first in his refuting one of our chief Tenets viz. The Real Presence then in maintaining one of his own to wit That there are two Sacraments and no more 1. Then to prove Christs body is not really in the Sacrament these most clear words This is my body must not says he be taken in the literal sense but Figuratively why so doth the Scripture say this no no Scripture is brought What then a Philosophical Demonstration as he pretends The word this in the literal sense is inexplicable and the Proposition implyeth a contradiction ergo c. But why the Pronoun this inexplicable because let Romanists strain their wits Answers M. Menzeis and squeeze their Authors they cannot tell what it can signifie whether the Bread Body or something indeterminately Who would not laugh here to see Mr. Menzeis a professor of Divinity take such a weak Argument for a Demonstration most like in this to a certain Romantick Knight Errand call'd Don Quicsot who imagining to himself a Windmil to be a Gyant and then fighting with it as with a Hector he did both blunt his Sword and batter his Reputation For what I pray you doth the Pronone this signifie in any proportion but Indeterminately till it be determined to some particular thing by the following words So that let a man say a hundred times this he determines nothing but by the ensuing words as here This is my Body makes a determinated sense the last words determinating the first which alone and of it self signifies nothing determinately and so to seek what it signifies determinately alone and before the other words be pronounced is to quibble and speak non-sense by seeking a determinate Object under a word which of its nature hath none And this is the first part of his Demonstration for establishing by a Logick Sophism without any clear Scripture a main Point of Religion The second part of this Demonstration is That it implyes a manifest contradiction a true Affirmative Proposition de praesenti should produce its Object Why this because in the instant of Nature wherein the Proposition is conceiv'd before its Object as the cause before its Effect the Proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the Object in that instant is not The same Argument he urgeth in the instant of time wherein the Copula is pronounced or Particle is before the two last words And for that Catholick Authours give many and diverse Solutions of this Argument as the Custome is in the School he will be satisfied with none But because Mr. Menzeis is good at Retortions I retort his Argument thus Is not this a true Affirmative Proposition de praesenti which produces its Object in St. John 15. This is my command that ye love one another Now what difficulty in the former Proposition either in the word this or in the Instants of Nature and Time or that a true affirmative Proposition make its own Object which is not here do not these words make a new Command says Christ as the former his body what if M. Menzeis could have brought an Axiome of Philosophy against the Real Presence as that Maxime so commonly propounded and answered in the School quae sunt eadem cum uno tertio sunt eadem inter se proving as would seem that
the three persons being Identified and the same thing with the Godhead and Divine Nature cannot be really distinguished one from another Should a Christian bely Christ who is the first Verity upon pretence he speaketh against natural reason who will so reason with God let him hear S. Bernards most Excellent saying Ep. 109. What is more against Reason then that one should strive to go beyond Reason by force of Reason But true it is no Mystery of our Faith is against Reason though some there be above the reach of Humane Weakness Wherefore as the former Maxime though much stronger then what M. Menzeis here objects is shown to have no repugnancy with the distinction of persons by our Divines So I easily answer him the Proposition is true in the instant of Nature the Object being only extant in the instant of Time wherein the Proposition is compleatly ended because it affirmeth only its Object to be extant in that instant of time and not before In that instant of Nature wherein the Proposition precedes its Object it affirms indeed the Object to be but not for that instant as I say truly this day what will be to morrow In instanti naturae vera est propositio sed non pro instanti naturae say they in the School But M. Menzeis Argument if solid would prove against all Phylosophy there could be no Practick Knowledge which hath no real Object but what it makes to it self for that in such conceptions of the mind the act of the understanding is ever prior to the Object as its cause and so in that instant of priority if his Objection have place we shall have a knowledge of nothing because in it the Object is not Yea it should prove in all these places of Scripture Let the Light be made let the Firmament be made young man I say unto thee rise I will be thou healed and in such like the Omnipotent Word of God not to be effectual if the words did not produce what they signifie as these other words This is my body So that M. Menzeis here taking this his trifling whimsical Sophism for an unanswerable Argument shews not only his weakness both in Phylosophy and Grammar but also manifestly that Hereticks contradict Christs most clear words and the Authority of his Church upon most insignificant and frivolous objections And upon such trifling Sophisms shall any Christian refuse to believe what Christ hath taught in so express terms what the Evangelists have so accurately set down in holy Writ what the Fathers have confirmed in so many Volumes what the Martyrs have subscribed with their blood what the Church doth testifie by her Pastors and practise what God hath sealed with so many Miracles and Wonders sometime appearing in the Consecrate Host in form of a man sometimes when it has been stabbed by Jews and Hereticks making it gush out in blood sometimes by its vertue casting out Devils or quenching fire as so many Authentick Records both of History and Fathers do witness O boldness and impudence of Heresie so to cavil at Christs own words and yet proudly pretend pure Scripture is its only Ground 2. To instance how M. Menzeis again from Scripture clear in Fundamentals proves that Fundamental Tenet of Protestants yea their proper and only Tenet all the rest being borrowed from old condemed Heresies as we have seen There be two Sacraments and no more After a huge work in his last Paper and a whole year spent before the answer to this Query did appear instead of clear Scripture which he was only desired to bring he gives the following discourse 1. To clear the state of the Question he says know we do not affirm that the word Sacrament is to be found in Scripture 2. We understand by a Sacrament of the New Testament a Substantial Visible Sign instituted by God recorded in the Gospel to Seal up the Promises of Salvation which is to endure in the Church to the end of the world 3. We do affirm in this sense there be only two proper Sacraments in the New Testament Baptisme and the Lords Supper 4. Then coming to prove there be two Sacraments and two only that there be two he proves it thus to Baptism and the Lords Supper agree all the parts of the foresaid Description for you have says he the Divine Institution of Baptizing with water Mat. 28.19 and of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. That they are Seals of the promises of Salvation is no less clear And first of Baptism Act. 2.38 39. and also of the Lords Supper in so much that the Cup is called the New Testament which you must acknowledge to be no proper speech but it is only so called because it is sigillum foederis hence also in the Institution mention is made of the remission of sins and of the giving of the Body of Christ and sheding of his blood for us holding forth that forgiveness of sins and all other blessings purchased by the Death of Christ and promised in the new Covenant are by this Ordinance sealed to the people of God And that these Ordinances are to continue to the end of the word is no less manifest from Matt. 28.20 and 1 Cor. 11.26 In fine he proves there be only two Sacraments by this Argument more cannot be produced out of Scripture as shall be proved solutione objectionum ergo c. Now to reflect how judiciously and learnedly M. Menzeis here proves from Scripture there be two Sacraments and two only 1. He doth not affirm the Word Sacrament to be in Scripture 2. Of all the Definition or Description he brings not so much as one Particle is affirmed in Scripture to be Essential to a Sacrament I do not dispute at present how much of it is true in it self or granted by us I only desire it may be made clear from Scripture as clearly containing all Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion which is the only thing in question But nothing is proved by him save only that Baptism and the Lords Supper are of Divine Institution as many other things be which are not Sacraments To prove they are Seals of the promises of Salvation he cites for Baptism Act. 2.28 29. The words omitted by him I hear set down But Peter said to them do pennance and be every one of you Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are far off whomsoever the Lord our God shall call No word here Baptism is a Seal of the promises of Salvation It is said indeed to be given for the Remission of sins and that to whom it is given they receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost which both Protestants deny maintaining there is no virtue in Baptism to confer either of these Effects It is said further that to the Jews and their children yea to
all that God shall call promise is made but that Baptism is a Seal of the promise of Salvation neither the Text nor any consequence he draweth from it doth evince it The way he proves from Scripture the Lords Supper to be a Seal of the promises of Salvation is rare for that says he it is called the New Testament which we must acknowledge to be no proper Speech but to be only so called because it is Sigillum foederis This is his Commentary on the Text but what a necessary and clear consequence is this If ever such a consequence as clearly deduced from Scripture was heard of I leave it to the Reader to Judg So clearly are the Sacraments and main Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion contained in Scripture or clearly deduced from it But M. Menzeis thought it as it seems by his so long a digression in his last paper a more easie task to impugne our Sacraments though no part of the present work then to prove his own No Scripture Councils or Fathers hold out seven Sacraments Answer yes Sir both Scripture Councels Fathers do not as bare signs with you but as visible or sensible signs of the invisible grace they produce in the Soul as instituted by Christ our Lord for our Sanctification In this sense there be seven Sacraments set down in the Gospel Decreed by Councâ—ls approved by the Fathers And 1 That the Fathers did so understand a Sacrament is confessed by Protestants who even dare censure the Fathers for this As Musculus loc comm p. 299. did S. Augustine for affirming inconsiderately that the Sacraments of the New Testament give salvation Zwinglius Tom. 2. de Bapt. fol. 70. All the Antient Doctors for supposing the water of Baptism to purge sin The Century Writers Cent. 2. C. 4. Col. 47. In particular censures S. Clement Disciple of the Apostles and Justin Martyr for thinking Regeneration not only to be signified but wrought by Baptism and in the 3. Cent. C. 4. S. Cyprian for teaching that the person Baptizing doth give Sanctity and the Holy Ghost to the Baptized 2 That such a number of visible or sensible signs instituted by Christ for conferring grace and taking away sin is set down in Scripture is clear from the following Texts For Baptisme Acts 2.38 Be every one of you baptized for the Remission of Sins Ephes 5.25 Christ loved the Church cleansing it by the Laver of Water For Confirmation Acts 17. Then they did impose their hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost 2 Cor. 1.22 And he that confirmeth us with you in Christ and hath anoyled us God who also hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts For Pennance S. John 20.23 Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven c. Acts 16.18 And many of them that believed came confessing their deeds For the Eucharist S. Matt. 26. S. Mark 14. S. Luke 22. This is my body c. S. John 6. I am the living bread I am the bread of life he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever For extream Unction S. James 8.14 If any be sick let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anoyling him with Oyl in the name of our Lord c. And if he be in sins they shall be remitted him S. Mark 6.13 And they anointed with Oyl many that were sick and healed them For Holy Order 2 Tim. 1.6 I admonish thee that thou resuscitate the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands For Matrimony Ephes 5.32 This Sacrament is great In all which places of Scripture we have manifestly the External Sign either called a Sacrament or to it annexed the forgiving of sins or conferring of Life and Grace which makes it a Sacrament of the New Law So that there is no lurking here under ambiguity of words as M. Menzeis will have it However Hereticks vary in explaining Scripture the Word of God doth not vary nor his Church in understanding it 3. As for the Fathers and Councils See the Summary of Controversies of the efficacy and number of Sacraments where the places are marked and the Manual of Controversie Art 28. where both Scripture and Fathers are cited at length Luther himself de Captiv Babyl granteth S. Dennis Disciple of S. Paul to stand for seven Sacraments S. Augustine hath them all Baptism in his 28. Epistle to S. Hierom. Confirmation in his second Book against Petilian C. 104 Pennance in his 2. Sermon upon the Ps 101. Eucharist in his 26. Treatise of S. John and his Ep. 120. to Honoratus where he calls it both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament Extream Unction in his 5. Book of Baptism C. 5. Holy Orders in his 2. Book against Parmen C. 13. Matrimony in his Book of Faith and good Works C. 7. And de bono Conjug C. 24. So that when he speaks of two Sacraments of the Church Gemina Ecclesiae Sacramenta he understands there is two chief ones to wit Baptism by reason of its necessity to salvation And the Eucharist for its Excellency and necessity both in his opinion But to insist further on this here is neither to the present purpose or any part of what I did at first undertake M. Menzeis running here and there as in a Labyrinth to shew the fathers take not alwayes the word Sacrament in the strict and proper sense doth only involve himself in unextricable difficulties standing to his ground of Scripture clear in Fundamentals which no where defines what properly a Sacrament is or any where resolves and determinates what may be ambiguous and doubtful either in it self or the Fathers How then shall we be assured of this without an Infallible Visible Judge When some take even the clearest Scriptures and Writings of the Fathers in one sense some in another But the Catholick Church having received the Sacraments from Christ and his Apostles and constantly Administrated them in the sense and for the ends they were Instituted hath sufficiently declared both the Number and Nature of Sacraments according to the Tradition of the Apostles and constant practise of the same Church which is an infallible Ground to us whilest all Hereticks with M. Menzeis are so intricate in the present Question by the Diversity of Notions they either find in Authours or fancy to themselves some admitting not only seven sayes Mr. Menzeis but seventeen Sacraments some seven times seven some seventy seven yea and more that they lye still either in the Lurking Holes of Obscurity and Ambiguity the better to Palliate their Errours or wander up and down in their unsetled Belief following their Fallible Conjectures uncertain Opinions and Groundless Faith SECT VI. Mr. Menzeis second Ground of the Protestant Religion Viz. The Doctrine of the Church in the first three Centuries or Ages proved no Ground to them yea their very Ruine AS Historiographers remark the greatest Empires have begun to decay how soon they left
a General Council as infallible in their Decrees Here either acknowledgeth the Records of the Ecclesiastick History and Writings of the Fathers as witnessing infallibly to us the Doctrine of these ages or else must grant he hath no infallible assurance that this his second ground of Faith is solid and Infallible There being no other way left us without particular Revelation to know what Doctrine the Church did teach and believe in the first three Ages save only the Writings of the Fathers and Tradition of the present Church which consequently M. Menzeis must either here own as Infallible or avouch he builds his Faith upon a sandy and fallible ground The first Reformers standing better to their own Principles then he and of much greater sincerity and learning grant plainly the Fathers of the Primitive Church to hold many things in opposition to them Luther L. de servo arbitr C. 2. and in his Table Conferences C. de patrib Eccl. The Authority of the Fathers is not to be regarded in the Writings of Hierome there is not a word of true Faith in Christ sound Religion Tertullian is very Superstitious I have holden Origen long since accursed of Chrysostome I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk I weigh not him a hair Cyprian is a weak Divine affirming there yet further that the Apology of Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctors of the Church yea even Augustine himself Calvin L. 3. Inst C. 5. It was a custome 1300. years ago that is in the second age to pray for the dead but all of that time says he I confess were carried away with Errour And in the fourth Book of his Institutions Chapter 9. he will stand to no Decision of Councils Fathers Bishops but try all by Scripture alone granting generally all the Western Churches to have defended Popery Resp ad Versipell p. 134. Melancthon on the first Cor. 3. speaks plain presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscâ—â—ed the Doctrine of Justice by Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised new Worships In like manner Peter Martyr 1. devotis p. 477. that in the Church Errours did begin Immediately after the Apostles and therefore as long as we stand to Councils and Fathers we shall be alwayes in the same Errours Whitaker cont 2. q. 5. C. 7. it is true which Calvin and the Centurists have written that the antient Church did Err in many things as touching Limbo free Will merit of Works c. Chemnitius in Exam. conc trid pa. 200. most of the Fathers did not dispute but avouch that the souls of Martyrs heard the petitions of those who prayed to them they went to the Monuments of Martyrs and Invocated Martyrs by name D. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory grants Tertullian Cyprian Hierome Augustine do witness that Sacrifice for the Dead is a Tradition of the Apostles yea in his retentive says Prayer for the dead prevailed within the first 300. years And in his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick That Pope Victor in the second Age did practise Supremacy in the Church The Centurists do reprehend Cyprian Origen Tertullian in the third Century and S. Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters Primacy as they do also S. Cyprian in the third Century of Superstition for saying that the Priest at Mass holds the place of Christ and offers up Sacrifice to God the Father Sacerdotem Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi deo patri sacrificium offerre And generally confess the Fathers of the third Age do witness and that not in obscure terms invocation of Saints videas in doctorum hujus soeculi Scriptis non obscura vestigia invocationis Sanctorum They say further in the second Century S. Irenaeus admitteth free Will even in Spiritual actions and that S. Clement every where asserteth it so that the Doctors and Parstors of that Age were in this manner of blindness say they reckoning out in this number S. Cyprian Theophilus Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Justine Irenaeus Athenagoras Tatianus c. As doth also Abraham Scultetus with them Yea Doctor Humphrey in his Jesuitisms pa. 2. and else where Eccl. C. 15. says it cannot be denyed but that S. Irenaeus S. Clement and other Fathers of the first and second age called Apostolicks for that they were Disciples of the Apostles or immediately followed them have in their Writings the Opinion of free Will and Merit of Works The Cenâ—ury Writers and Scultetus Tax for the same Clement of Alexandria S. Cyprian Justin Martyr c. In the third Century they say Origen made good Works the cause of Justification and in the 5. accuse S. Chrysostome for handling the Doctrine of Justification impurely as attributing Merit to Works M. Whitaker saith that not only Cyprian but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that Errour as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin and to satisfie to Gods Justice in so far as Luther on the 4. ch to the Gallathians calls for this Hierome Ambrose Augustine and other Fathers Justice-workers of the old Papacy And M. Wotton in his defence of M. Perkins forbeareth not to censure for this very Point of Merit the undoubted and confessed Writings of Ignatius Disciple of S. John Chemnitius in his Examine par 4. p. 20. affirmeth the Antient Fathers Erred in making Pilgrimages to Relicks of Saints and Osiander with the Centurists Cent. 4. that S. Hierome did foolishly contend that the Relicks of Saints ought to be worshipped For owning Traditions Chemnitius in his Exam. Par. 1. p. 87.89.90 reproves Clement of Alexandria Origen Epiphanius Hierome Ambrose Basil Maximus Damacene and M. Whitaker de Sacr. Script S. Chrysostome as speaking inconsiderately when he admitteth them D. Reynolds in his Concla 1. p. 689. somewhat more moderate leaves the censuring of S. Epiphanius for this to the Church M. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwrights Reply grants Ignatius Disciple of the Apostles to have said of Hereticks They do not admit the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins And M. Beacon in his Treatise the Relicks of Rome says the Mass was begotten conceived and born anon after the Apostles time if it be true what Historiographers write Calvin L. 1. Inst C. 4. confesseth in the Primative Church Confession Pennance and Absolution by the Priests and the Century Writers that in the times of S. Cyprian and Tertullian there was used private confession even of thoughts and lesser sins then so commanded as necessary Where any judicious Reader may evidently see how by chief Protestant Authours both the Primitive Church and the Fathers are censured for many Errours Yea and for the very same which are most objected against the Romish Church a most invincible Argument from the confession of our Adversaries That the Church and Fathers of the three first Ages did teach the self same Doctrine with the present Roman Church and
with Pope Pius in his confession of Faith in all those Points quoted by them Free Will Merit of Works Invocation of Saints honouring of Relicks Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead S. Peters Primacy amongst the Apostles the Popes Supremacy in the Church Mass Traditions the Real Presence Confession Pennance Absolution c. So that if M. Menzeis will stand to his own word and trust the Writings of his brethren He is here again engaged to turn Papist Many more such Quotations could I produce from chief Protestant Writers acknowledging both the Church and Fathers of the first three Ages holding most controverted Tenets flatly against Protestants And yet so confident M. Menzeis is he dare take the Church Doctrine at that time for a Ground of the Protestant Religion and this no doubt to shew the deepness of his Learning and how well he is versed in Antiquity till presently we hear the Fathers themselves speaking the better to make both his Weakness and Igorance appear But before I enter upon this I remark M. Menzeis in his 8. paper says we agree with Protestants in all their Positive Tenets and only in their Negatives disagree How true this is I do not now dispute yet must here reflect that all chief Heresies for the most part with that of Protestants have ever consisted in Negations and in denying some Points of Faith generally received in the Church Sabellius denyed three persons in the God-head Eutiches two Natures in Christ Nestorius in Christ one Person The Monothelites two wills in Christ as two Natures The Arians Christ to be consubstantial with his Father The Macedonians the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost Marcion that Baptism in the Church should be conferred but once The Novatians that sinners after Baptism could be absolved upon Repentance and even such Heresies Protestants most claim to as the Grecians deny the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Waldenses deny Princes and Magistrates to conserve their Digities and Power when fallen in mortal sin The Hussits deny that the predestinate could sin the Albigenses Marriages to be lawful the Wickliffians Free Will and so forth Negatio est Malignantis naturae say the Philosophers Negations are of a Malignant Nature whence we see that as Atheism consists in denying God so Heresies are most in Negations as flowing from the Spirit of Pride contradiction Rebellion However it is time we shew what conformity there is betwixt Protestants Negative Tenets and the Doctrine of the Church in the first three Centuries or Ages M. Menzeis provoking so confidently his Adversary to bring any Essential difference from the Authentick writings of these Fathers and upon this engaging to turn Papist I do not here question further then I have done in my second reflection how he who admits of no Infallible Visible Judge can be sufficiently assured of their Authentick Writings for if he take this only upon their conformity with Scripture they can make no peculiar Ground to him rather then other mens Writings having the like conformity with it or can they be caled properly a distinct Ground from it But having seen how many chief Protestants disown the most antient Fathers chalenge them of manyfold Errours censure their Doctrine a most strong conviction against M. Menzeis that they take not their Writings for a Ground let us hear themselves deposing clearly in our favour against him and see if they who have confounded so many Atheists convinced so many Infidels converted so many Hereticks may even happily prevail with M. John I cite here only the Fathers in the first three Centuries after Christ as M. Menzeis makes only his appeal to them In which Ages the Church being still under persecution had not indeed so many Writers as in following times to witness her Doctrine against all Hereticks Yet you shall God willing see how clearly the chiefest of them dissent from Protestants in all controverted Tenets and most disgracefully bely him The Fathers of the first three ages clearly speaking against Protestants in all Chief Controverted Tenets I Begin even at what is most Principal to wit the Popes Supremacy this Potestants deny But in the first Age S. Denis de divinis nominibus C. 3. calls S. Peter first Bishop of Rome the Supreme and most antient top of Divines Where both Primacy and Supremacy is given to him S. Clement Disciple of S. Peter in his first Epistle declares him both the ground stone of the Church and the most powerful of the Apostles S. Ignatius Disciple of S. John in his Epistle to the Romans extolling their Church calls her The Church that presides at Rome In the second Age S. Irenaeus l. 3. contra Valent C. 3. says the Romish Church is the greatest and most antient And again l. 3. C. 3. all Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerful Principality In the third Age Zepherinus Pope in his Epistle to the Bishops of Sicily decreed That the greater causes of the Church were to be determined by the Apostolick Sea because so the Apostles and ther Successors had ordained In the third Age Origen on the 6. Ch. to the Rom. says The chief charge of feeding Christs Sheep was given to S. Peter and the Church founded upon him In the same Age S. Cyprian Ep. ad Jul. We hold Peter the Head and Root of the Church and again Ep. 55. he calls the Church of Rome S. Peters Chair Yea in the second Century Amandus Polonus M. Spark and M. Whitaker though Protestants confess that Victor then Bishop of Rome whom M. Whitgift calls a godly Bishop carried himself as Pope or Head of the Church So well has Protestant Doctrine in this Point a Ground in rhe Fathers of the first three Ages that Danaeus a Protestant in his Answer to Bellarmine acknowledgeth Soveraign Authority to have been practised by the Popes of the third Age the Centurists Cent. 3. that Tertullian did think the keys to be committed chiefly to S. Peter and the Church to be built on him and S. Cyprian to have taught that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother Church Now shall all this be called Protestant Doctrine that S. Peter was Head and Root of the Church that the Church was founded upon him that the chief charge of Christs Flock was given to him that he is the Supreme amongst Divines that the Church of Rome is his Chair which for this hath a more powerful Principality as greatest so that the greater causes in the Church ought to be decided by her where by parts all the Controversie of the Popes Supremacy is holden out against them Secondly Protestants deny we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church But in the first age S. Denis Eccl. Hierarch C. l. speaking of the Apostles says These our first Captains of Priestly Function did deliver to us the chiefest and most
Substantial Points partly in written partly unwritten Institutions In the same Age S. Ignatius apud Euseb l. 3. Hist C. 36. doth exhort all to stick to the Traditions of the Apostles In the second Age S. Irenaeus L. 3. C. 4. what if the Apostles had left no Scriptures at all ought we not to follow the Order of Tradition which they have delivered unto those to whom they did commit their Churches and to which assent many Barbarous Nations who believe in Christ without Character or Ink. In the same Age Origen Hom. 5. in lib. num there are many things in Ecclesiastical Traditions which all ought to do and on the 6. Ch. to the Romans he sayes to baptize Infants is one In the third Age Tertullian de praescr teacheth Hereticks are to be confuted rather by Tradition then Scripture and L. de Cor. mil. speaking of the Ceremonies of Baptism the Sign of the Cross Sacrifice for the Dead c. he addeth of these and such like things if thou require a ground in Scripture thou shalt find none Tradition did begin them Custome has confirmed their Practice and Faith doth observe them In the same Age S. Cyprian l. 1. Ep. 12. says he that is Baptized ought to be anointed but of this Unction there is no mention in Scripture and in his second B. Ep. 3. he admonisheth Water should be mixed with Wine in the Chalice at Mass upon a like Tradition from the Apostles See in what I have cited heretofore how the Fathers have received the Scriptures upon Tradition and many most substantial Points with it and upon due consideration of all this let any one judg whether the Fathers of the first three Ages in these their most Authentick Writings I know do make a ground for Protestant or Catholick Doctrine speaking so plainly the chiefest most Substantial Points of our Faith were delivered partly in Written and partly in Unwritten Institutions exhorting us to stick to Traditions conserved in the Church which serve for conversion of Infidels conviction of Hereticks and generally ought to be kept by all 3. Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Yet in the first Age the very Liturgies of the Apostles are extant and in that of S. James we offer unto thee O Lord the unbloody Sacrifice for our sins And S. Andrew in the Book of his Passion written by his Disciples sayes unto the Tyrant I sacrifice daily the Immaculate Lamb to Almighty God And in the same Age S. Clement Ep. 3. It is not lawful to celebrate Masses in other places but in these wherein the proper Bishop shall appoint these things the Apostles receieved from our Lord and delivered to you S. Ignatius Ep. ad Smyrnens It is not lawful without a Bishop to offer or Sacrifice or Celebrate Mass In the second Age S. Irenaeus l. 4. ad u. heres C. 32. calls the Body and Blood of Christ the Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offereth to God through the whole world And Tertullian l. de Veland virg it is not permitted that women should teach or speak in the Church nor Baptize nor Offer Origen hom 13. in Exod. you think your selves guilty and unworthy if any part of the Consecrated Host be lost through your negligence S. Hippolitus Orat. de Antichr bringeth in Christ speaking thus Come you Bishops and Priests who have daily offered my precious Body and Blood How clear are the following Fathers S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Athanasius S. Basil c. with S. Augustine for this as even in the third Age S. Cyprian Serm. de coena dom the Eucharist is a Holocaust to purge our sins and in his Epistle ad Cyrill he calls it a Sacrifice seven times 4. Protestants deny the Real Presence and Transubstantion But in the first age S. Ignatius in his Epistle ad Smyrnenses often cited by Eusebius Athanasius S. Jerome Theodoret and other antients speaking of the Saturnian Hereticks says They admit not of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours flesh which suffered for our sins and in his Epistle to the Romans I do not delight in any corruptible food nor in the pleasures of this life I desire the bread of God the heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ the Son of God S. Denis Areop l. de Eccl. Hierarch C. 3. O most Divine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe mercifully to open the Veils of those signifying Signs wherein thou hidest thy self and appear plainly unto us In the second Age S. Irenaeus l. 4. C. 34. disputing against the Hereticks who denyed Christ to be the Son of God asks how it shall be manifested unto them that bread upon which thanks are given is the body of our Lord and the Challice his Blood if they say he is not the Son of the Maker of the world S. Cyprian serm de coena dom The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh In the third Age Origen We eat the bread offered by Prayer made a certain holy Body And again hom 5. in div loca Evang. When thou receivest the holy Food thou Eatest and Drinkest the Body and Blood of our Lord then the Lord entreth under thy roof c. In the same Age Tertullian l. 4. contra Marcion C. 40. The Bread taken and distributed to his Disciples he made his body What can be said more clearly then all this either for the Real Presence or Transubstantiation which is nothing but the change of the Bread in Christs Body here so plainly asserted Add to this for communion under one kind denyed by Protestants it is said to have been so given to Infants by S. Denis l. Eccl. Hierach C. ult to both Infants and sick by S. Cyprian serm de lapsis n. 10. and by Tertullian l. ad Uxorem to have been carried to private houses yea and over Sea by Eusebius l. 5. hest which could not be done but under one kind 5. Protestants deny purgatory and prayers for the dead But in the first Age S. Denis Eccl. Hierarch part 3. C. 7. says the Venerable Prelate approaching powereth forth his holy Prayer upon the dead by that Prayer he doth beseech the Divine clemency to forgive all the sins of the dead committed trhough humane Infirmities and to place him in light and in the Region of the living In the same Age S. Clement l. 8. Const C. 48. has a long Prayer accustomed to be said for the dead Again the same S. Clem. Ep. 1. de S. Petro tells us S. Peter taught them among other works of mercy to pray and give alms for the dead And in the Liturgy of S. James Apostle we have Prayers also for them Tertullian l. de Corona militis numbreth prayer for the dead amongst the Traditions of the Apostles
de Unit. eccl We must obey his Precepts and Admonitions that our Merits may receive their reward And in his Serm. de Eleem. If the day of our return shall find us unloadned swift and running in the way of good works our Lord will not fail to reward our merits 10. Protestants deny the possibility of keeping the Commandements which S. Basil orat in illud attende tibi calls a wicked thing to say S. Hierome on the 5. of S. Matthew Blasphemy S. Augustine serm 61. de tempore a denial both of the justice and holiness of God In the the third Age Tertullian as cited by the Centurists Cent. 3. says No Law could tye him who had not in his power due obedience to the Law This is a maxime in Philosophy wherefore Origen hom 9. in Jos sayes plainly the baptized may fulfil the Law in all things Now not to be more tedious or prolix in ciing either Passages or Fathers whose Quotations could easily make a just Volume of the Sacraments I have spoken in the former Section and of the Pastors of the Church their infallible Authority in a general Council in the third which with what is here said are the main things and most substantial denyed by Protestants but clearly asserted by the Fathers cited who all confessedly did live in the first three ages a very few excepted I have brought of the fourth and fifth age only as witnesses of what was practised in the Church before their time leaving the Canons of the Apostles and many things by Tradition from them conserved in the Church and witnessed by the Fathers with the Decrees of most holy Popes and Martyrs of the first and second Age as these of Anacletus Alexander Sixtus Telesphorus Pius Anicetus Soter c. holding out so many of our Tenets against Protestants and this to shun Cavils and Exceptions which they might take either at their writings or place as they do As for the same cause many other most renouned Authors as Policarpus Cornelius Prochorus Methodius Nilus Agapetus Dorotheus and others upon this only account with the Book of Hermes of whom S. Paul to the Romans Ch. 16. maketh mention called the Pastor which Hamelmanus and M. Hooker both Protestants grant to have been reckoned by the antient Fathers in the number of Ecclesiastical Books and particularly as seemeth to Hamelmanus by no less men then Irenaeus Clement and Origen Yet this Book in such esteem with them he will have to be impure as laying the ground of Purgatory Prayer for the dead Merit and Justification of Works of professed Chastity in Priests and Church-men of fasting from certain Meats at times c. But I hope M. Menzeis will make no exception against most Authors I have produced unless passing from his appeal to the Fathers of the first three ages he pass also from his second ground of Faith as certainly after all has been said he should do seeing I may justly speak home to him here with S. Augustine in his 11. Book against Julian the Pelagian Heretick c. 10. What the Catholick Fathers and Doctors have found in the Church that they hold what they have received from their forefathers that they have delivered to their children Whilest we had no debate as yet with you before them as Judges our case was pleaded amongst them we were not as yet contesting with you and nevertheless by their decree we have the victory over you Neither is this victory imaginary as that of M. Menzeis but real as the three Arguments I have brought make good which by way of recapitulation I set before him in this one Argument the Doctrine of the Church and writings of the Fathers in the first three Ages can be no ground to Protestants for what they teach First if the chief Reformers disown them Secondly if most learned Protestants accuse them of many Errours Thirdly If their own Writings in all controverted Tenets be flatly against Protestant Doctrine but all this is true from the places produced then their Writings can be no ground to them Yet Protestants will needs make up their Religion from the Writings of the Fathers as some Poets from the Centons and broken Verses of Virgil and Homer the life of Christ They challenge the Fathers for their Heresie upon a word or two picked out of places wherein they have an Orthodox sense In so many hundred Volumes of the Fathers writings that some word or passages seem to favour Heresie what wonder Gods own Word if we will stick to the naked Letter seeming to favour so many as we have seen above They oppose Fathers to Fathers and sometimes one to himself so they are possessed with the Spirit of contradiction that all may turn Problematick and be controverted among them They cite the Scriptures against the Fathers as if their new and giddy headed start-ups did better understand them then the most antient and solid Divines they will at times by passages of the Fathers or Scripture strive to condemn the practice of the Church and Decrees of Councils but whoever amongst the Fathers did so doth any one of the Fathers with the first Reformers oppose Scripture as understood by them to the Authority of the Church or to the same Scripture as explained by her Doth any of them attach the Roman Church of Errour To say such a Church so great and glorious in the Christian world did Apostatize and none did remark her Apostacy is like a general Eclipse of the Sun remarked by none The least Errours of particular Hereticks the Fathers have so narrowly sifted so sharply censured so solidly confuted and shall we think they have either not spyed or spared to censure the corruptions of a whole body and Church But let wise men and greatest Shcollars be at variance as they please about some places both of Scriptures and Fathers as surely it will be to the Worlds end God hath given us both a sure and short way promised by the Prophet wherein even ignorants and fools cannot err Christ having left us the present Catholick Church in all ages as the most faithful Depositary of his Doctrine and the Infallible Visible Judge of all that can be controverted in matters of Faith Before I end this Section to give you but a scantling with what sincerity and candor Hereticks cite the Fathers this I borrow from M Menzeis in his third paper where in general he most confidently says That whatever the antient Apologists as Justin Martyr Tertullian and Athenagoras have said for the Christian Religion the same Protestants may say for their own Whereupon having diligently read over the first of these Apologies which is that of Justin Martyr as any may do in an hour I have found him so grosly mistaken in citing this Father that I may justly say he could not more forfeit his reputation This I evidence in four chief Points asserted by us and denyed by Protestants The first is Free Will for which Justin in his Apology
is so clear that having said If men had not in their Free Will to fly what is filthy and choose what is honest they should be no wise to blame for what ever action he will have it a Demonstration That men have freedom to live virtuously or fall in sin because we see them by experience to pass from one of these contraries to the other His words are ac nisi libero arbitrio ad turpia fugienda ad honesta deligenda facultatem habeat mortalium genus non fuerit in causâ sive culpâ qualiumcunque demum factorum Sed enim libero id delectu tum recte per virtutem vivere cum per peccatum labi ad hunc demonstramus modum hominem eundem ad contraria subinde transire videmus The second is Merit of Works in acknowledging a reward to them his words again are Atque hoc etiamsi paucis persuaferimus maximum tamen inde feremus lucrum nam ut boni agricolae amplam à domino capiemus mercedem The third is the efficacy of Baptism in cleansing us by water from all former sins and making us the children of God Ut ne necessitatis ignorantiae liberi permaneamus sed â—â—â—ectus scientiae filii fiamus ac remissionem ante commissorum peccatorum consequamur in aquâ The fourth the Real Presence saying of the Consecrated Bread and Wine in so express words Not as common Meat and common Drink do we take these things but even as by the Word of God our Saviour JESUS Incarnate had flesh and blood for our Salvation so we are taught that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the self same JESUS Incarnate His words are Non enim ut communem panem neque communem potum ista sumimus sed quemadmodum per verbum dei caro factus Jesus Christus Servator noster carnem sanguinem habuit ad eundem modum etiam eam in quâ per preces verbi ejus ab ipso profecti gratiae sunt actae alimoniam incarnati illius Jesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus Nam Apostoli in commentariis à se scriptis quae Evangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt Diverse other things in the same Apology I pass these few things being sufficient to shew M. Menzeis ingenuity and how he with other Hereticks dare cite the Fathers who even most evidently and expresly condemn them But to close this Section which citations have made longer then I intended with one Query I ask M. Menzeis where he shall find so much as in one of the Fathers any point of Doctrine taught by the present Roman Church condemned of Heresie as many Protestant Tenets they hold against us are declared Heretical by so many as by S. Ireneus l. 1. c. 20. to say with Simon Magus that men are not saved by good works by S. Epiphanius haeres 8. to say with Cerinthus That children may be saved without Baptism By the same S. Epiphanius to say with the Pâ—oâ—â—maâ—s That God has commanded some impossible things By S. Augustine l. 20. contr Faust to pull down Altars with the Manichees By the same S. Augustine l. 2. Contra lit Petil. C. 32. and 34. To say with the Donatists That the Baptism of Christ and that of S. John Baptist were all one by S. Epiphanius haeres 75. and S. Augustine haeres 53. To say with the Arians that Fasts of the Church are not to be observed nor Prayers nor Sacrifice to be used for the dead By Sozomenus l. 5. c. 20. and Eusebius l. 7. C. 14. To forbid with Julian the Apostate the use of Images and Sign of the Cross by S. Hierome l. contr Helvidianum To equal marriage with Virginity By the same S. Hierom l. contr Vigilant To say with Vigilantius Saints are not to be Invocated nor their Relicks to be honoured By S. Hierome again l. 3. contr Pelagian To brag as the Pelagians did that they were sure of their Salvation By S. Augustine to say with Jovinian That such as are regenerate by Baptism and once received in Gods grace and favour cannot finally fall away By S. Hierome contr Vigilant To say Churchmen ought to marry By S. Cyril in Epist ad Calo-syrium Episc of Madness as well as Errour To say with some in these dayes Christs body did not remain in the Eucharist if it were kept untill the morrow By S. Augustine l. 6. contra Julian C. 2. 3. and ad Bonifac. C. 2. 4. To say with the Pelagians That the children of the Faithful are born holy and need no Regeneration by Baptism By S. Augustine l. de haeres C. 54. To teach with the Eunomians A man is saved by Faith only By S. Augustine l. 1. C. 2. ult contra Maximin To deny Apostolical Traditions in the Church By S. Cyprian Ep. 55. to say with most Hereticks To Peters Chair and the Principal Church Infidelity or false Doctrine can have access By Irenaeus l. 3. C. 3. to deny all Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerful Principality By all the Fathers in the Council of Calcedon Act. 16. To deny that all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-Bishop of Old Rome So that the Protestant Religion is not only void of all Solid Ground either in the Divine Scriptures or Holy Fathers but also in most clear and express words is condemned as Heretical by both It being indeed nothing but a new Heresie patcht up of many old condemned Errours joyned to some fresh Notions and Conceits flowing from the same Spring and Spirit of Pride and Rebellion against all the Antient Fathers and present Pastors of the Church It s frequent changes show it is not from God It s Monstrous Divisions in so many Sects that it has not the Unity of Faith Its inconstancy in Principles Tenets Form of Worship and Government that it is not built upon the Rock and consequently hath no solid Foundation or Ground Conclusion of all that has been said wherein also the true Grounds of the Catholick Religion are set down A Little Error in the beginning turns great in the end sayes the Prince of Philosophers Aristotle in his Physicks which as it is most true in the first Principles of all Natural Sciences so it is in the Grounds of the Christian Faith The innumerable by-wayes of Sectaries their monstrous and manifold Divisions from the true Church amongst themselvs so many Controversies among Christians in our days such wranglings and jars for Religion flow all from one Spring to wit The mistake of true Principles and Grounds And this one Errour in the beginning makes them run themselves in so many and infinite great in the end Pride and Contention the two Pillars of Heresie will let them acknowledge no Authority of Councils or Fathers yield to no evidence of Reason submit to no Judge Whence Controversies are driven to nothing but idle and
endless Contentions and Quarrels Councils are called Conventiles when they sentence or censure them the Church is changed into a Synagogue the Fathers forfeit their credit places and passages from Scripture are applyed or misapplyed as they list Now a jeer now a jest in handsome Language which jovial and jeering humours most look upon are their common Answers to solid Reasons Evidence in Motive of credibility is mocked at Faiths certainty is changed into probability a few Fundamentals comprehending chief Mysteries what or how many they cannot tel are judg'd only necessary to be believed Errors in Integrals as they call them which make the greatest part of Christian Doctrine are taught to be things indifferent to our belief In them even the Apostles were not in allible say Rainolds and Whitaker with some other Protestant Divines In them the whole Church may err says M. Menzeis and upon this as if she had erred come in all Sectaries to reform her she is old and her Spirits exhausted they have the fulness of the Spirit her Eyes by age are dimmed she sees not what is manifest in Scripture they as younger see clear shee is too Superstitious in her Religious Ceremonies they as more familiar with God use none like Prophets Extraordinarily sent by God they preach against Priests and people they set out a New Gospel of their own as if they were Apostles and Evangelists finding no true Scripture before Yea as if they had Christs own power they abandon the Antient Church as the Synagogue and make up a new one changing both the Priesthood and Sacrifice No more pennances and satisfactions of men to Gods Justice for their offences because Christ hath satisfied for all No more fasting except very seldom and that only for temporal ends No good Works are left in our power they are too hard yea impossible seeing even our best actions are sins Faith only justifieth and to believe is an easie task So the strait path is made plain and the narrow way broad to them Whil'st others strive to work their salvation with fear and trembling chastizing their bodies with the Apostle S. Paul least they become reprobates They live secure that each of them is one of the Elect making even this an Article of his Faith And this they perswade to simple ones with some refined words uttered in the tune of the Sybilles giving responees from the belly so far they are fetched with a deep sigh as if they breathed nothing but zeal some more Learned relying on the acuteness of their wits go willingly along with them not to captivate their understandings or submit to any Visible Judg 〈◊〉 men of interest comply outwardly with the prevailing party keeping their own retentions of mind and this it is which their Preachers for the most part desire of us that we would but comply in hearing that is believe one thing and force our Consciences to profess another Come hear us say they and you shall not be troubled we seek no more and of their most understanding hearers they get no more as I have often heard from themselves We are not say they so Proud and Arrogant as Papists to call our Church and her Doctrine Infallible the Scripture is only so By it judg of us and what we teach as you your selves read and understand This is the liberty of the children of God to be tyed to no Churches Faith to no Councels Decrees to no Fathers Doctrine The Word as clear in it self or explained by it self the Spirit speaking inwardly in our hearts and every mans Natural Reason directed by certain Rules for the right understanding of both is the only means God hath left for the conversion of Infidels conviction of Hereticks and setling of every good Christian in his belief O Liberty Liberty and Freedom of the children of God from the Popes Supremacy Councels Infallible Authority the Churches Jurisdiction in matters of Faith and Religion and generally the usurped power of any Visible Judg. This is M. Menzeis and Protestants great Principle which as I have demonstratively I hope above proved makes all our Debates in Religion and takes away all cerrainty in Faith But because to ruine Protestant Grounds and give no better in their place were rather to destroy then edifie to throw down then to build and in a Controversie of Religion rather to set up Atheism then root out Heresie as M. Menzeis continually cavilling at our Tenets but never once settling his own with so much labor hath done I therefore do here for a Conclusion briefly here set down and clearly prove solid the Grounds of the Catholick Faith The Ground then of true Faith and Religion Established by Christ and his Apostles not only solid and infallible in it self but also clear and perspicuous to all yet special and particular to us in Communion with the Sea of Rome to which no Sectaâ—y Schismatick or Heretick doth or can pretend removing all Doubts deciding all Controversies silencing all sowers of false Doctrine and Errours keepâ—ng Unity stopping Divisions quieting mens Consciences instructing the Ignorant setling the Unstable captivating the understanding of the most Learned to the obedience of Faith and which the greatest and quickest wits of the Christian World that is all the holy Fathers have ever built their faith upon Is Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered expounded by her both as an infallible Propounder and Judge Whence if any man here ask the Analysie and resolution of our Faith I answer him in a very few words We believe such things as are from Scripture and Apostolical Tradition taught in the Church to be true because God hath revealed them The reason again why we believe God did reveal such things is for that we see evident Motives of credibility in this Church and none else wherein God shows himself Author of her Doctrine confirming it with diverse infallible Marks and chiefly Miracles 〈◊〉 which manifestly appear both his Subscription and Seal Digitus Dei hîc est Pharaoh's Magicians could not but acknowledge this Exod. the 8. V. 19. Seeing only the Dust of the Earth suddenly by Aaron changed into Vermin they cryed out The hand of God is here So that there be two things to be remarked in the Resolution of Divine Faith The first is God revealing Deus revelans And the second is God showing himself Authour of such a Revelation Deus proponens se authorem revelationis say the Divines What God hath revealed is taught us by his Church as an infallible Propounder that he is Author of the Revelations made to her he attests in the Motives of credibility as infallible marks that it is he who speaks So all in our Faith is infallibly from God and all infallibly propounded to us The things revealed by the true and infallible Church and the Revelation by infallible Motives which being clear to all who have Eyes Ears and Understanding make evidently credible and infallibly certain all and
ye 〈◊〉 prove that to be infallibly Gods Word which was preached by the Apostles this they did sufficiently themselves Neither that the Doctrine of Authentick Scripture is infallibly true that was also done before there was a Protestant in the world but coming from those Generals which make all the Answers of your best Writers we desire ye shew by some infallible sign that your Bible is Gods pure Word and your Glosses on it conform to the Sense and Letter To reply Scripture doth evidence it self by its innate light to be Gods Word so that all may sufficiently know it by this and all be obliged to believe it is refuted by Christ himself presently telling us his own hearers had not sinned in not receiving it as such if he had given no External Evidence of his infallibility in propounding for as I have remarked above Scripture hath no greater Efficacy Evidence or Light in our Books then in our blessed Saviours own mouth Neither will the Majesty of the Stile or the purity of the Doctrine do it both these being as great in the the Books of Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus which Protestants reject as in the Ecclesiastes and Canticles which they receive Besides that the first of these two is imaginary as to the Letter there being less Majesty in the Letter of Scripture then in the Philosophers and Orators Writings as is conâ—essed by Paul And the second is in question chiefly in Protestant Bibles which do not agree with any Original or Copy that before Luther can be found if we trust their own Authours whom I have quoted Lastly If all Councils all the Fathers all the Pastors of the Church be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture against us for we will receive nothing but upon infallible Authority and all their Volumes of Controversie shall not come to one line Yea further could they bring Scripture for what they teach as they will never be able to do yet without an infallible Propounder and Judg well might we dispute but conclude nothing wrangle but agree in nothing to the Worlds end For as sole Scripture without an infallible Church propounding and Explaining it so a naked Church without infallible Marks and a Doctrine without infallible Motives prove nothing Secondly I say the true Church is this infallible propounder on whose Authority we must rely For proof of this It is to be observed that in holy Scripture there be three Foundations or Grounds of Faith mentioned by the Apostle S. Paul The 1. Is our blessed Saviour Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Another Foundation no man can lay then that is laid which is Jesus Christ The 2. Is the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.29 Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets The 3. The Church 1 Tim. 3. The house of God which is the Church of the living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth From which clear places of Scripture I remark 1. The Foundation of Faith is ever a Living Visible and Speaking Ground to wit Christ the Apostles Prophets and Church the dead Letter of Scripture being no where called this Ground 2. That these three Grounds of Faith both in the Old and New Law properly speaking make but one according to the same Apostle for another Foundation no man can lay sayes he beside Christ JESUS So that the Prophets Apostles and Church must not be thought different Foundations from Christ all their Vertue in upholding Faith and Veracity in propounding Faith Whence they are called the Foundation and Ground of it coming from the particular assistance of his Spirit Strengthening Inspiring and Directing them Hence also is their infallibility for the Foundation of Christ stands sure says the Apostle 2 Tim. 2.19 And consequently is altogether infallible 3. That the Church here called a Ground which supporteth our Faith is not to be said the only diffusive body of all true Believers but more the Representative Church in her chief Pastors as the Prophets and Apostles in old Wherefore some few Catholick Authors so often objected as holding the Canons and Decrees of Councils only infallible when they are generally received by the whole Church in my opinion are highly mistaken and surely to be understood if any in Express terms speaks so of Councils not wholly Oecumenical or not Lawfully convocated and knownly approved by the Pope or whereof some rational doubt may be made in things essentially required in which cases I grant the general belief of the Church could best warrant the infallibility of their Decrees Otherwise a few particular persons might cope with General Councels as Luther and his Adherents at first Vendicating to himself the Negative voice as if he had been high Bishop in the whole Church which were to take away all possible means of preserving Unity in Faith yea to foment all Schisms and Divisions every one pretending the whole Church holds no such Doctrine whil'st he who is a Member dissents So that such Doctors if they should allow no obligation in receiving the Decrees of the Representative Church to the which they do and must submit even this their Sentence could neither be thought Catholicks or rational men But however some few speak or think God did promise us an infallible Church Isa 2. V. 2 3. Wherein he should teach us his ways and judge amongst the Nations himself not personally for he never went out of Jewry but by her Pastors He has establish'd this infallible Church in St. Matth. 16. V. 19. Upon the Rock Christ hath commanded us to hear her in St. Matth. 18. V. 17. And the persons we should hear in this Church as well as the end wherefore we would hear them and rest upon their Authority is clearly set down in these words 4. Ephes 11. He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry till we all come in the Union of Faith that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine c. From all which places of Scripture it is Demonstratively manifest that as the true Church is infallible and we bound to hear her yea and to rely upon her Authority as the Pillar and Ground of our Faith so is it most evidently clear that as she speaketh only to us infallibly by the voice of her Pastors and teachers united it is them we should hear seeing God in her not personally as I have said but by them both Judgeth and Teacheth as the infallible Propounders of his Divine Truths with the Prophets and Apostles in old and the infallible Judges of our Controversies and Debates 2. The same is proven from the unanimous consent of the Fathers quoted at length in my third Section for the infallibility both of the Church and Councils And may be confirmed even by the confession of many Rational and Moderate Protestants who receive the Scripture and consequently all and every Point contained in it
as the Word of God upon the sole Authority of the Church As M. Whitaker against Stapleton p. 1. c. 11. I deny not but the Churches Tradition is the Argument whereby to convince what Books are Canonical and what not M. Fulk in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catholick The Church hath judgment to discern the Word of God from the Writings of Men. M. Covel in his defence of Hooker Doubtless it is a tolerable Opinion of the Church of Rome to affirm that the Scriptures are holy in themselves but so esteemed of us for the Authority of the Church And M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy we all know that the first outward Motive leading men so to esteem of Scripture is the Authority of the Church And as these own her Authority in Propounding the Scripture Books so other Protestants in resolving all Doubts and deciding all Debates as Bancroft Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his Sermon on the 8. of February 1588. God says he hath bound himself to his Church of purpose that men by her direction might in matters of doubt be relieved he speakes of the Representative Church which onely directeth Master Field in the Epistle to his Treatise of the Church Seeing the Controversies of Religion are grown in number so many and in Nature so Intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the World is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Doctrine and rest in her judgement Here again the Representative Church both Judging and Teaching M. Hooker in the Preface of his Books of Ecclesiastical Policy We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have taught the World to seek for the ending of Contentions by submitting it self to some judicial and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to submit And what is this but a General Council M. Bilson in his perpetual Government is clear for it To have no Judge sayes he for the ending of Ecclesiastical Contentions were the utter subversion of all peace Synods are surest means to decide doubts Sr. Edwin Sands in his Relation of the Religion used in the West parts of the World The Protestants are as severed and scattered Troops each drawing a diverse way without any means to take up their Controversies c. No ordinary way to Assemble a General Council of their part which is the only hope remaining ever to aswage their Contentions 3. Reason evinceth it The true Church is the School of infallible and Divine Truths then she must have infallible Masters and Propounders A fallible Church is most properly named by a Learned Writer a Spiritual cheat it may well be called the Ground of Opinion Doubt and Despair but not of Infallible and Divine Faith If the Sheep hearing the voice of their Pastors and following them be misled who shall be their sure Guide And if all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church together assembled may mistake either the uncorrupted Letter or true sense of Scripture who I pray you can assure himself he takes it aright No infallibility in matteâ—â— of Faith and Religion is left upon Earth 〈◊〉 the high Bishop and chief Pastors of the Church unanimously Teaching and Propounding cannot err It were more then madness any man should say the contrary and yet hold himself infallibly secure of what he believes Would a Protestant be but once at the pains to speak to an Infidel for his conversion to the true Church calling all her Pastors even assembled in a Council fallible I should willingly hear what he could so much as say in general for Protestancy yea or for the Christian Religion No doubt he should first speak of one true God then of Christ and Faith in him as necessary to salvation telling his Proselyte how out of his Goodness and Mercy towards us he had made himself Man and died upon the Cross for our sins Yet afterwards had risen again and by his Miracles showen both his Civinity and Power and by these strange Works and Wonders having established his Church he had delivered his Will and Doctrine to her in his Written Word called the Holy Scripture Upon this the Infidel no little astonished at such a Discourse surely should ask him some Ground for it and how he could be perswaded it were true Here I imagine the Bible is produced as the Word of God and sole ground of Faith But who assures me of this says the infidel It was attested by many Miracles which Christ and the Apostles did work who first preâ—â—hed it Answers the Protestant they were holy men chosen by our Saviour Christ for the conversion of the World they did Teach his Word Infallibly They did set it down in Writing confirmed it with Wonders and left it to the Church How long ago replies the Infidel Nigh 1700. years answers again the Protestant One Question more says the Infidel have you any infallible Witness in your Church or any Infallible External Motive that this is the same Word of God that was Preached by the Apostles and delivered by Christ or that in confirmation of it ever any Miracle was wrought The first needs none says the Protestant it is clear to all well disposed persons turn Protestant and you will Evidently see it to be the Word of God and the second is sufficiently attested in it Presently the Infidel having received further instruction in most Points of Protestancy and made more earnest to see how all that has been taught him is true desires he may have for a time the Bible and diligently perusing it finds some things in the Historical Books look like Fables many more in the Prophets he doth not understand many seeming contradictions betwixt the two Testaments many points he was taught by his Protestant Master not in Scripture at all yea many things clearly against it Of all which he asks his Master a diligent account And first whether at present there be no man or company of men can resolve him infallibly of all these doubts None concludes the Protestant but Scripture it self for since the Apostles there is in the Church no Judg no Propounder infallible If so Sir you conclude nothing with me says the Infidel but here I end with you for the Book you ground all you have said upon as if it were clear and infallible to me like the first Principles in our Philosophers Schools is so deeply obscure and highly above the reach of reason that without some powerful motive and inducement no reasonable man can believe it And since you grant it was at first propounded with infallible Motives which now have ceased It seems God would
visible in her Pastors and people by a continued succession from the Apostles which held S. Augustine in her Tenet me in Ecclesiâ says he Successie facerdotum I am holden in the Church by the succession of Priests then he reckons out the only high Priests and Bishops of Rome as the lawful Successors of S. Peter as in his 162. Epistle he says in the Roman Church has ever been the Authority of the Apostolick Sea In ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit authoritas No other having unity in Faith or the means to preserve it by General Councils which have all been holden in her No other and specially the Protestant Church having either Universality or Antiquity as is clear from their late Rise and little Extent Whatever Protestants and other Sectaries sophistically or Subtilly Object against all this is but weak and should stumble none many stronger Objections Atheists Infidels and Hereticks have made against God our Saviour Christ and the holy Scripture The first Principles most clear by the light of Nature suffer their Objections whence the Scepticks amongst Philosophers as the Socinians amongst Hereticks those admitting of nothing as unquestionably clear and these as infallibly true Wherefore to conclude all I have said the Catholick Roman Church being so gloriously marked so generally attested and so notoriously known to be the true Church established by Christ and his Apostles ever conspicuous and visible ever working Miracles converting Infidels making Saints ever holding Councils deciding controversies keeping unity opposing Hereticks and maintaining true Faith upon Solid and Infallible Grounds having so clear testimony from the Fathers from Scripture from God having charisma veritatis certum the Gift and Grace of certain and infallible Truth says S. Irenaeus origines firmas sure beginnings saith Tertullian Veritatem undequaque munitam verity solidly grounded and guarded says S. Epiphaniâ—s haeres 55. authoritatem stabilissimam most solid and constant Authority says S. Augustine Ep. â—8 may 〈◊〉 not say justly with our Countryman Richard of S. Victor l. 1. de Trinit c. 2. Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus If it be Error we do believe in this Church and upon her Authority it is thou O God who hath deceived us for with such signs this Doctrine is confirmed that it can be from no other but thee Let the impartial Reader here compare both Protestant Grounds and Doctrine with ours and see after all their Objections and Cavils what they bring for their new doubtful and inconstant Opinions against our old infallible and constant Faith what against our just claim our clear right our long and uninterrupted possession They come in with the Scripture in hand as the Fundamental Law against which there can be no prescription but what Scripture I pray you save that they have wrested from us olim possideo prior possideo says Tertullian it was first delivered to us we have it of old and we conserve it whole and intire But not so Protestants the many Books they reject shows it is but like a torn bond in their hands blotted in as many places as there be things put in of new or others rased out in their Bibles And then as they bring it it is altogether forceless and can make no security as a rent Charter without Subscription Witness or Seal Gods Subsciption would be seen and acknowledged if it were presented by them as at first by the Apostles with Supernatural 〈…〉 Motives witnesses if they could show it handed down from age to age by infallible Propounders his-Seal in Miracles But the Protestant Church granting her self to be fallible and being destitute both of infallible Motives of credibility and miracles can be no sure propounder of Gods Word neither can it as propounded by her be any sure ground to us Yea Examine well all the Principles Protestants build their Pretended Reformation upon and you shall find them all mearly Whimsecal Paradoxal and improbable For what Probability can there be 1. Of what they say against us that the Popish Church as they call it which they grant to be most antient should have continued so long and ever possessed the greatest part of the Christian World holding Councils condemning Heresies converting Infidels working Miracles and that the Protestant Church which they will have to be the Catholick or Universal all this time was no where to be found never once made mention of by any Author without Councils Statutes or Laws published to the World never converting one Kingdom opposing one Heresie having one Writer of note witnessing her Faith and Doctrine her doings or sufferings her Pastors or People That the antient Congregation diffused through the whole World should be Heretical and the new one in some few corners be Orthodox That corruption of Doctrine did enter so insensibly into the Roman Church that no Councils no Fathers did see or censure it who have observed many lesser things in private men that all the Fathers I have quoted in my 6. Section should have unanimously holden ever since the Apostles what Protestants call Popish Errors or that so many Learned men in the Roman Church who have dived into the very depth of most abstract Sciences could not see before Luther what in Scripture was clear 2. What probability for what they vent of their first Apostles and Reformers that God did send one Apostate Friar who in the Monastery as he confesseth lived so mortified chast and devote but quitting it is so hurried with his passions of Lust and stings of Conscience even for this his new Doctrine as may be seen in the Preface of his Works in Latine and his Table Conferences without any visible mark of his Mission to reform both his Word and Church in opposition to all her ordinary Pastors at that time that the Church before him I mean Luther as he himself glories should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture of true Worship true form of Government c. that notwithstanding so many solemn promises made by God the Word should not depart out of the mouths of Pastors nor the true Church be so much as obscured yet that Christ should have suffered the light of the Gospel to be under a Bushel and the Cuhrch invisible for more then a thousand years That his Reformation should be the work of God and the world ever worse since it That Protestancy should bring back true Faith which is divided into so many Heresies and has caused so many Troubles Divisions and Schisms 3. What show of probability or solidity in Protestant grounds that the ground of Faith which they will have to be sole Scripture as every one reads and understands should support all the Heresies in the World That this Ground given us for keeping of Unity should make all our Divisions in Religion To deny the Authority and Tradition of the Church infallible and yet take Scripture on it that the whole Representative Church in a General Council is not infallible in its Decrees and yet private men reading Scripture are infallible in what they believe That what was at the Margent in their first Bibles would be now put in the Text That pure Scripture should be a cleer Ground for Protestancy and not one Point specifical or special to it to be found in Scripture in express words In fine that Protestants should have the pure Word and rely on the Originals their best Writers granting they have not found so much as an Authentick Copy any where If you will see what probability at last they have either for their Doctrine or Church consider amongst Protestants with the Author of a late Answer in Writ Faith without Unity a Body without united Members a Law without a Judg a Church without an Altar Religion without a Sacrifice Sacraments that do not sanctifie Divine Service without Religious Ceremonies Preachers without a call Doctrine without Infallibility Belief without a ground Commands impossible to be kept Exhortation to what is not in our power Reward without Merit Reprobation without demerit Sin punished where there is no free will new Apostles without Mission or Miracles Reformation without Authority the private Spirit against the whole Church new lights against old revealed Verities single mens Opinions against the common consent of the Fathers Scripture received or rejected upon the Catalogue of the Jews in a word wavering Pastors unsetled Government unstable Faith FINIS