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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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