are twenty several Opinions concerning Justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan confession There are sixteen several Opinions concerning Original sin and as many Definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them Lastly He concludes Num. 8. since those ordinary means of Expounding Scripture as searching the Originals Conference of places Parity of Reason and Analogy of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible He that is the wisest and by consequence the likelyest to Expound truest in all probability of Reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of Improbability and uncertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such Mysteries and amidst so many Difficulties Remark well all this discourse from so great a Protestant Doctor finding no certainty of the true sense of Scripture by all the means of Interpretation and reflect with all a little in how hard a condition Protestants stand admitting no Infallible visible Judge in Controversy but boldly undertaking to decide all that which is controverted by sole Scripture Explained by such fallible means and yet more fallible men It is but a Labyrinth of windings and turnings to pass from Scripture as clear in words to conferring of places and deducing consequences after Prayer used and diligent search made with a well disposed mind then to the inward motion or the private Spirit against which the Prophets and Apostles so generally exclaim Ezekiel in his 13. Chapter wo be to the foolish Prophets who follow their own Spirit S. Peter in his 2 Epistle Chap. 1. No Prophecy of Scripture is of Private Interpretation Neither is the question here what is inwardly required in every private man to believe Scripture but what is the external visible and infallible Rule of Faith for that is out of all doubt with us Faith is a supernatural and infused virtue to which the pious motion in the will is no less requisite then the Supernatural light in the understanding to assent to what is revealed by God But seeing neither this light nor pious motions as they are supernatural and incline only to believe a revealed truth do manifest themselves to be such Therefore many thousands even well disposed persons and who seek God in the sincerity of their hearts oftentimes perswade themselves till they be better instructed they believe such a thing as a revealed truth by God which is a condemned Error by him And this none can deny who will not maliciously condemn a world of zealous Ignorants yea some even most learned and holy Fathers who with St. Cyprian in the Point of Rebaptization have believed an Error for a revealed Truth before it was clearly decided by the Church However whether it be this or something else M. Menzeis calls a well disposed mind others the Spirit or the private spirit the Spirit of the Righteous man and so forth I say it cannot be either with the holy Scripture or alone the Rule of Faith and Judg of Controversie 1. Because none without some Particular help can be Infallibly assured of this Interiour Motion Affection or Spirit whether it be Natural or Supernatural from God or the Devil the Spirit of Darknes or Light now no man as M. Field confesseth L. 4. C. 7. Proveth any thing is or may be doubted of by that which is as much to be doubted of as it self 2. We are counselled in the 2 Epistle of St. John Ch. 4. Not to believe every Spirit but to try the Spirits if they be of God But if the Spirits must be brought to the Touchstone of Trial if they must be judged and approved by some other well known and undoubted Authority they are not the sole Rule and Supreme Judg of Faith and Controversy Because this Spirit is secret and hidden our Faith publick and evidently credible this Spirit particular our Faith Catholick or Universal this Spirit the gift of every particular man our Faith subject to no private censure Wherefore M. Hooker Eccl. Pol. L. 1. Sect. 14. and Whitaker against Stapleton C. 2. C. 4. Ingeniously grant that the outward Letter of Scripture sealed with the inward and private Spirit is not a sufficient Warrant for every particular man to receive or reject Scripture Books but that the publick Authority of Gods Church is necessarily required Whence I say further with S. Augustine l. Contr. Ep fund c. 5. That Authority which we obey and believe testifying the Books of the holy Ghospel the same must we believe witnessing this to be the sence of the Ghospel that is not the private Spirit but the same Authority of the Church Thirdly This private Spirit is so far from being the Judge of controversy upon any pretence of adhering to Scripture either as clear in it self or explained by it that instead of compounding debates and keeping unity the chief Office of this Judg it is the very Root of Dissention and Fountain of Heresies and Schisms for as by experience we see it to be different in divers persons so as the Bell to fools it speaketh as they fancy it inclines as they are affected it points out the Object according to the Colour which is in the eye It is like a false light which makes the Aspect of best and fairest Figures vary It is often a blind zeal or a prejudicate Opinion which hinders to see what is clear in Scripture as S. Augustine l. 3. de Doctr. C. 10. well Remarks If the Prejudice saith he of any Erroneous Opinion preoccupate the mind whatsoever the Scripture hath to the contrary men take it to be a Figurative Speech So that it furnisheth to every Sectary reading Scripture his own Spectacles in conferring places his own Rule of proportions His private Weights to ponder Reasons his particular Forge to coine Opinions his secret Touch-stone to try Doctrines his own Reed to measure the Temple Sanctuary and Altar Makes him his own high Priest Pastor and Judg setting up within himself a Supreme Judicatory giving ever sentence in his favour and censuring all the world beside So that none standing to this Rule can be compelled to the unity of the Church and yet none can be accounted Hereticks as the learned Suares l. 1. de defi fid C. 11. most judiciously remarketh if we take Scripture as men read who think themselves well disposed or Expounded by it self according to the Dictamen of the private Spirit for ground for who can swarve from Scripture as clear according to his particular Judgment and Spirit which he even esteemeth to be the Spirit of God Scripture therefore cannot be Judge of Controversie as M. Menzeis will have it 1. By reason the sentence of this Judg must breed a certain and Infallible assurance of all that can come in doubt which Scripture cannot do It being infallible indeed in it self but not to us who may doubt if such a Book be Canonical such
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
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
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
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
have it believed no more For who can prudently believe things not clear in themselves or at least not so to us without some infallible Propunder evidencing by Supernatural Motives as Miracles that such a Doctrine is from God Neither can a Protestant standing to his Principles say any more whence no conversion of Infidels amongst them But no end of their cavelling with us They here urge 1. Suppose the true Church were infallible in her Pastors assembled in a Council yet all we bring in proof of this may be retorted against our private Teachers who are not infallible in propounding But to this it is easily answered that as God most infallibly both by his general Providence and particular Promise directs rules and governs his Church so she by vertue of his special assistance oversees infallibly her private persons in order to our certainty in Faith For in the holy Hierarchy of the Church God hath placed Watchmen most vigilant over their flocks who suffer them not to be misled they have discovered the very least Errors sowen in Corners and branded their Authors as false Teachers Wherefore as unity in belief is the Form and Soul of that great body of the Catholick or Universal Church so whatever Doctrine is commonly taught and received in her without any contradiction from her Pastors is sufficiently known to be infallible 2. They object there is no infallible Propounder of this Article of our Faith The Church is Infallible Answer Yes 1. God shows himself the Propounder of this in the Markes of the Church which we shall presently see 2. As our Saviour Christ calling himself the Son of God and working Miracles did sufficiently yea infallibly evidence to the Jews that it was true what he said So the Church calling her self infallible and working the like Miracles in all Ages doth infallibly evidence to the world that it is true what she says otherwise it would follow that God did employ his Omnipotency and Power to work Miracles in favour of an Impostor thus cheating the world with a lye 3. Therefore I say the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church in which the Doctrine of Christ is infallibly propounded and certainty in Faith and Salvation to be found This Point is of highest concern according to the Fathers For it is only the Catholick Church says Lactantius l. 4. that hath the true Worship and Service of God That is the Well-spring of Truth the dwelling place of Faith the Temple of God into which whosoever entereth not and from which whosoever departeth is without all hope of Life and Salvation Whosoever is divided from her says S. Augustine in his Epistle 152. how laudable soever he seems to himself to live for this only crime that he is separated from the unity of Christ he shall be excluded from life and the wrath of God shall remain upon him And again in his 50. Epistle as a Member cut off wants the spirit of life so a man separated from the body of Christ cannot have the spirit of Justice c. They have not the Holy Ghost who are out of the Church S. Cyprian de Unitat. Eccl. The Spouse of Christ cannot be defiled with adultery whosoever divided from this Church cleaveth to the Adulteress he is separated from the Promises of the Church he cannot have God for his Father who hath not the Church to his Mother S. Irenaeus l. 3. C. 40. in the Church God hath constituted Apostles Prophets Doctors and all the rest of the Operation of the Spirit whereof those are not partakers who repare not unto the Church where the Church is there is the Spirit of God Vincentius Lyrinensis contr haeres C. 1. 2. says That he having very often most diligently inquired of many Holy and Learned men how he might certainly distinguish the true Catholick Faith from all Heresies it was ever answered him by the Law of God and the Tradition of the Church Divinae legis authoritate Catholicae ecclesiae traditione Then making to himself the common Objection of Protestants seeing the Rule of Scripture is perfect what necessity of joyning to it the Tradition of the Church He presently Answers because all take not Scripture one way and in the same sense because of its deepness All the Fathers run upon this out of the Catholick Church no true Religion no Divine Faith no infallible Guide no sure way to Salvation no hope of Heaven no means to attain Eternal Happiness and Life Wherefore God by his Divine Appointment Order and Decree having tyed us and that under no less pain then the damnarion of our Souls to live in the Unity and Communion of this Church in which only he has placed the Chair of his Doctrine and Channels of his Graces I presuppose 1. This Church may be easily known and that by clear Marks in all Ages and by all she being so amply great and Eminently high that the Prophet Isa Ch. 2. calls her The Mountain of the Lords house established in the top of Mountains and exalted above the Hills to which all Nations should flow 2. Tat those Marks be the same now which did evidence her in Christs and in the Apostles time for all things are best conserved by the same means by which they received their being says the Phylosophers Conservatio continuata productio 3. That whatever Church is found to have these Marks should be undoubtedly acknowledged for the true one otherwise they could not have proved her the true Church at first This presupposed that the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church I most evidently prove in short for this hath been often done in large volumns and that by a very few undoubted Signes and as it were most legible Characters of the Primitive Church in the time of the Apostles paralelling the one with the other Three things are chiefly remarkable in the Apostles and Church under them 1. Their Sanctity and Holiness of Life 2. The great conversion of Infidels wrought by them 3. Their manifold and wonderful Miracles These be the Marks of their mission by which they show themselves to be the servants of God to be sent by God and that God by his Vertue and Power concurreth and cooperateth with them Their Holy Humble Poor and Austere Life makes them like to their Master Christ and fit Instruments for the great Employment they are going about Miracles make their Credential Letters and witness the fulness of their power Conversions are the end of their Embassy which as it was to last till all the Nations of the earth were brought to the Unity of Faith and bosome of the Church according to that Promise of Christ There shall be one shepherd and one Fold so their true Successors are constantly known by the same Signs in all Ages as the undoubted Marks and Badge of the Apostles I begin at Miracles which I call the Apostles Credentials and make the chief infallible Mark of the true Church and all
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
consequently according to M. Menzeis Rule the Arian Heresie must prevail neither will he ever be able standing to his Rule to answer an Arian Cobler making this Objection as Learned Writers remark Eutyches conferring these two places The Word was made flesh in S. John 1. and the water was made Wine in S. John 2. fell in this detestable Blasphemy That the Humane Nature was changed into the Divine as the Water was converted into Wine And without all doubt again the second is the clearer place to us the first that two Natures should be united in one Person surpassing as the Divines teach even the Natural capacity of Angels Manicheus explains the same passage The Word was made flesh Figuratively and in show as Protestants This is my body and that by a clear place of S. Paul to the Phil. 2. v. 7. where it is said Christ took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men Most clear words as would seem in favour of this Heresie and such that if Protestants could bring any with as great a show against the real presence all their Pulpits should sound with them till their hearers became deaf But there be none in all the Scripture so clear against the real presence I say as the words quoted have a seeming clearness against the real Incarnation of Christ the four Evangelists and S. Paul speaking in so express and formal words for the former that the Fathers with St. Chrysostome Hom. 6. have recourse to the words for the real presence as clearer to prove that giving in the Sacrament his body and blood he must have taken the Nature of Man Nestorius on the contrary will have these words of S. John the 2. Dissolve ye this Temple and in three dayes I shall raise it again to be taken Litterally and not Figuratively and upon this holds out a new Heresie that the Son of God did dwell only in his Holy Humanity as in a Temple Valentine and Apollinaris reading in S. John 3. no man hath ascended into heaven but he that descended from Heaven gain sayes the Mystery of Christs Incarnation and wil needs have his flesh to have descended from Heaven as his Manhood afterwards ascended thither And this Heretical Exposition they confirm by conferring the ensuing places in St. Paul to the Ephesians 4. He that descended the same is also he who ascended And in the first to the Corinths 15. The first man of Earth Earthly the second Man of Heaven Heavenly A thousand such Errors in the greatest Fundamentals of Christianity have Hereticks drawn out of the clear Fountains and Brooks of holy Writ by the deceivable and deceiving search of weighing places Why not Protestants with them they sail on the same Sea and deep of Scriptures with them they direct their course by the same Card of conferring clearer and obscurer places the same Rule they apply to all the crooked lines of their Errors and Deviations What can be answered to all this M. Menzeis Principle always standing No Infallible visible Judg but to have recourse with him to the well disposed mind wherefore Thirdly I say this doth not yet satisfie to the Question no not with all the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis doth bring it being as hidden Intricate Doubtful and Inscrutable who performs all these Conditions aright as to find out certainly and infallibly the true sense of Scripture without an Infallible Judge Yea supposing one uses them aright yet let us learn from no lesser Protestant then Doctor Jeremy Taylor what certainty of the true sense men can attain by them His words are so remarkable to my purpose in a Discourse of liberty in Prophesying Sect. 4. that here I even set them down at length First then says he Sometime the sense is drawn forth by the Context and Connexion of Parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three Antecedents and Subjects spoken of What Man or what Rule shall ascertain me that I make my Reference true by drawing the Relation to such an Antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not Secondly One other great pretence is the conference of places which is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sense alteration of Circumstances or difference of Style amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most diligent observer Thirdly Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason but it is with Reason as with mens tasts When a man speaks reason it is but reason he should be heard c yet because it must be reason that must judg of reason unless other mens understandings were of the same Air the same Constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed unto by another mans reason especially because such reasonings as usually are in Explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute Circumstances and Particularities in which it is so easy to be deceived and so hard to speak Reason regularly and always that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived Fourthly Others pretend to Expound Scripture by Analogy of Faith This he says is but a Chimera a thing in the Clouds which varies like the right and left hand of a Pillar c. Fifthly Consulting of Originals is thought a great matter to Interpretation of Scriptures but this is to small purpose for indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek and rectifie Translations But I know no man that says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy certain to be understood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least in the Language c. Then numb 6. he saith in general All these ways of Interpreting Scriptures which of themselves are good helps are made either by design or by our infirmities ways of Intricating and Involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learn their Doctrines from Scripture but come to the understanding of Scriptures with preconceptions and Idea's of Doctrines of their own and then no wonder Scripture look like Pictures wherein every man in the room thinks they look on him only and that wheresoever he stands or how often soever he changes his Station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the Promoter of our Disease and our Meat becomes the matter of sickness and the Mischief is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it For there is no Rule no Limit no certain Principle by which all men may be guided to a certain and so Infallible Interpretation that he can with any Equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of Controversie or ambiguity Osiander in his confutations of the Book which Melancton wrote against him observes there
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