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
hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon contra hoc robur contra hunc Inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur Is it not on the Church her Infallible Authority St. Augustine admits the Scriptures contr Ep. fund c. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas Doth he not stick so close to the same Authority of the Church that he sayes Ep. fund c. 4. If any clear testimony were brought out of Scripture against it he would neither believe Scripture nor Church for that on the Church her Authority he believed the Scripture Quod si forâ—e in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei apostolatu invenire potueris infirmabis mihi Catholicorum Authoritatem qui jubent ut tibi non credam quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Was not the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written Was not again the Church of the Jews the same Judge after the Law was given till Christ his time and this by the express Order of God in Scripture Deut. 17. v. 8. would God there direct them unto a Judge and punish them with death for not obeying in matters of the Law and Religion an Authority which might any wise deceive them Or in the Law of Grace it self has Christ in St. Matth. 18. v. 17. commanded us to hear a Church not Infallible or subject to errour Is not the Church of God built on a Rock so that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her S. Matth. 16.19 Has not the Church this promise from Christ S. Matth. 28.20 And loe I am with you even to the end of the world Is not the Church called by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Tim. 3.13 The Ground and Pillar of Truth However Mr. Menzeis will have this ground sole Scripture In fine if these and such like Texts we should hear the Church receive her Decisions obey her commands be not clear what is clear in all the Scripture or if they be subject to diverse Interpretations who can better judge of their true sense then the same Church Will you say Natural Reason with the Socinians or the private spirit with Anabaptists and Quakers or conferring of places and passages with Protestants Is there any one more rational then the whole Church of God any spirit to be trusted rather then the Spirit of Truth promised to her or any one better versed in all the places of Scripture then all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church composing her Supreme Judicatory in a general Council Let us hear I pray you the Fathers upon this I mean the Authority both of Church and Councils as an Infallible Visible Judge the better to silence Mr. Menzeis vain glorious bragging S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 49. We must believe those Priests that are in the Church those that have a succession from the Apostles who together with Episcopal Power have according to the good pleasure of the Father received the certain gift of truth And again the same S. Irenaeus c. 62. the Church shall be under no mans judgment he excepts not Mr. Menzeis yea nor Luther nor Calvin to reform her for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect Faith of the Father and of the dispensation of Christ and firm knowledge of the Holy Ghost who teacheth all truth Origen praef in lib. periarch That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church and in understanding Scripture we must not believe otherwise then as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us S. Cyprian de unit eccl That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresy S. Chrysostom in c. 2. is That all the Hereticks in the World cannot pervert her Doctrine S Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Myst 18. That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 5. in Is c. 54. That she is founded by Christ in truth for 〈◊〉 S. Ambrose l. 4. Hexam c. 2. That she cannot fail Eusebius Caesariensis de praeparat Evang. l. 1. c. 3. That her Faith is invincible to the very Powers of Hell S. Augustine l. 4. de bapt c. 4. I know by Divine Revelations that the Spirit of Truth teacheth the Church all truth S. Augustine again l. de Utilit cred c. 16. Fear not to run to the bosom of the Church which by succession of Bishops descending from the Apostolical Sea manifestly even to the acknowledgment of all mankind hath obtained the height of Authority Hereticks who on every side barked against her being partly by the consent of Nations partly by the Authority of Councils partly by the Majesty of Miracles condemned to which Church not to yield primacy is a point either of highest Impiety or headlong Arrogancy In fine the same S. Augustine Ep. 118. To think not right what the Catholick Church practises is most insolent madness I leave to the Physicians judgment what foot of this Distemper and Madness had the first Reformers of the Church not only thinking and calling what she practised Idolatry and Superstition but even judging and condemning her of Apostacy Schism and Heresy as Mr. Menzeis here of Arrogancy and Pride Odi Ecclesiae illius fastum I hate says he that Churches Pride speaking of the Catholick Roman Church for calling her self Infallible but let me answer him as Plato Diogen Calcas Ecclesiae fastum majore fastu he most persumptuously accuses her of Pride no lawful establisht Judicatory being proud in censuring private Delinquents as they deserve but Rebels to their lawful Judges in censuring them both Presumptuous and Proud with him But least any with Mr. Menzeis should apply all these Testimonies of the Fathers to the diffusive body of the Church and not to the Representative in a general Council as if the one were Infallible in Believing and not the other in Teaching according to that promise of Christ in S. Matth. 28.20 Go teach all Nations and lo I am with you all days to the end of the world We must remark that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words and promises in future ages no less then in the Apostles time then we are to take them for all ages except there be some express limitation made as to Preach Baptise remit Sins feed his Flock lead men in all Truth c. Yet because each Apostle had a power over all the Church this is said to every one of them but to their Successors who have not each one this power together in a Council which for this all the Fathers in all ages have acknowledged as a Soveraign and Infallible Judicatory what ever Mr. Menzeis standing to his Great Principle say to the contrary Thus S. Cyril l. 10. de trin averres Decrees of General Councils to be most Holy and Divine Oracles S. Leo
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
his Prince and King I instance only that base and perfidious bewraying of Gods Word belying of the known truth and betraying of his Countrey and King in that most unchristian Sermon upon these words How long wilt thou mourn for Saul whom I have rejected Applying them to our most Gracious Soveraign which I should have been ashamed to relate if this notorious Impostor and most absurd abuser of Gods Word had not first in the Preface of a Sermon in Print and now again so often in this his Book most deceitfully and maliciously cryed out Papists could be no good Subjects as if their Tenets did tend to Rebellion whil'st all Loyal Protestants in the three Kingdoms both love and respect our Loyalty how ever they hate our Profession and look upon him with all his Covenanting Fry as a most fiery Incendiary of Rebellion Now Sir if such a man whom you most cry up for his Eloquence as if like another Samson his strength consisted in his hair be a Person fitted to give the Grounds of Religion defend the Protestant Faith or convert any one to his Belief for that with a Pharisaical countenance a Puritanical tone and a strong voice colouring some slight Learning and reading of Pamphlets with plagiary Phrases and Passages to stuff up a Book in Print and turn the Glass twice in his Sermons let any be judge As that Philosopher of old hearing himself praised by the rabble who commonly approve nothing but such stuff as is in themselves did presently make an examen of his actions I hope Protestants seeing their Religion Defended by such a Writer will more diligently enquire of its weakness which they can never better see then in his Papers where having undertaken to give the Grounds of the Protestant Religion the only Subject of this Dispute either by Word or Writ in them all has not as his Adversary well re-marks so much as ten lines to settle clear or defend them in the least but scraping together objections against Catholicks so often answered by them borrows some passages to no purpose at present and heaps up undervaluing words with such injurious scoldings railings and imprecations against an Old Grave Learned and Modest Man that after he hath called him an impudent Liar a Knave Rogue Sycophant Fool a dull and Lethargick-head a Neat-herd in Ignorance a Devil in Malice and what not He imprecates in fine out of his corrupt Bible changing the word Imperet with imâ—reâ—et the same curse Saint Michael did in their conflict to the Devil such is the Pride Passion and poison of his heart so contrary to the Spirit of God After this what may we expect of such a person if we hear the Wise mans saying In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia True Wisdom never enters into a wicked and malicious soul yet Sir to satisfie your loving and friendly desire I intend to examine more at length what Wit and Learning he shews and first in his two long Epistles Dedicatory and to the Reader which could receive no Answer from Mr. Dempster as appearing but a twelvemonth after his death After this God willing I wil positively refute which he so urges may be done First his great Principle of No Infallible visible Judge of Controversie and then both his Ruinous Grounds SECT I. Some brief Reflections on the Title of Mr. Menzei's Book and his two long Epistles Dedicatory and to the Reader HIs Title being in Latine Papismus Lucifugus according to that saying a strong Thief shall have a strange name must needs be explained and surely understood of that New Gospel Light in the Covenant for in it Mr. Menzeis was a bright Star of the first Magnitude or Fiery Comet himself of which Light a Prelatick Poet in answer to a Satyre upon the Consecration of a Bishop Writes thus Your Phoebus from the West did rise A light that did put out mens eyes Welcome Confusion This Light indeed Popery shuns as all other New Lights against old received Christian Verities but not that either of Scripture or Antiquity the onely true Light of the Christian World as flowing from Christ the Sâ—n of Justice and carried by so many holy Popes Bishops and Priests in Communion with them even unto the most remote corners of the Earth as the conversion of all Kings and Countries to the Christian Religion do testifie which Light Mr. Dempster no where declines but constantly holds out to make nothing for clearing the Grounds of the Protestant Religion except it be in shewing them both ruinous and false so that Mr. Menzeis here Offendit in Luce in limine that is stumbles both in the light and in the specious Title of his Book whereof the very first line is not to the purpose The Question being only of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion and not of Popery at all He begins with a great show of humility who am I the meanest of the thousands of Israel Answer Est qui se nequiter humiliat interiora ejus plena dolo Eccles 19. But let his late Bishop in the Church Principal in the Colledge and fellow Brethren in the Ministery bear witness of this when they have opposed him in the least Yea his own Jactancy through all his Papers and Book with his base revilings in every page and under-valuing of his Adversary It is those his humble thoughts of his own abilities makes him so boldly assert there was consultation used in the present Dispute Surprizal intended and a choice Champion pitched upon to Encounter with him as a Hector But the known truth is to all them who had a hand in the undertaking as they did witness in his presence at the Meeting that they had only yielded to his Importunity in desiring a Meeting and that they had taken him only who was next at hand for the time a man most able indeed for a civil Conference but most unable for a Clamorous Dispute as being of a very weak Constitution and of a totally confiscated health But all this Conference must be set out by him in a disguised Dress Mr. Dempster proclaimed an Ignorant Catholicks charged with Calumnies the better to Paint out his Victory and Triumph As in like case another Conference as he quotes by Dr. Prideaux and Dr. Featly of late whom he might have spared to name being as good at Calumniating Inventions as either of them and no doubt but he will be cited hereafter as they now who nevertheless most deceitfully relates both the occasion of the Conference and what passed in it The clamours of women he speaks of if any for it was a most modest person did speak was onely to suppress his clamours heard even at the Cross and witness to his face that he had passed from his engagement to them which was to give and defend the Grounds of the Protestant Religion as he had engaged under his hand and this his missive was the Paper Mr. Dempster kept open at the Meeting which
he would have generally supposed to have been the first exchanged Paper with him but it is particularly known to us Mr. Dempster had never then intended to write a line But Mr. Menzeis cautious and conscious to himself that it had been easie to reverse his Grounds and Involve him in inextricable difficulties as shall hereafter appear if he had answered directly by word refuses the performance of his promise or to speak for the Protestant Religion at all but will only Impugne some Opinions of Authours in the School which are neither fit for the Pulpit where he did first challenge them nor the capacity of common hearers and much less that which he chiefly insisted on any Point of our Faith The first is That men are not bound presently to repent when ever they have offended God under the danger of incurring a new sin Whereupon Mr. Menzeis frameth his Argument as if this were a Dicision of the Catholick Roman Church and then sayes he Mr. Dempster denied the Major whence he took witness that the Jesuit admitted the Minor a rare Inference and quick He passeth under silence the confirmation of the Major denied because disgraceful to him who though he did think it a point of Faith and that so unquestionable yet could never prove it by Scripture contenting himself with a weak comparison which he is ashamed to set down in his Book But however Doctors vary in prescribing a limited time wherein we should repent all hold the shortest delay both surest and best and publick Repentance is generally taught to be necessary for publick transgressions as publick Recantations for open Calumnies like to that of Mr. Menzies against his Soveraign How long wilt thou mourn for Saul c. His Penitential Sermon being as yet to make so well doth he presently repent Yea not only his Practice but Doctrine also if truly a Protestant is so far from presently repenting that Teaching mens best actions to be sinful he must either confess repentance at no time to be commanded or else blasphemously avouch God hath commanded us to sin Is it not a jearing of Gods Commands and a scoffing of men to affirm the Commandements to be impossible and yet urge that even affirmative ones should be hourly and instanly kept Forgetting two Maxims of the School Nemo tenetur ad impossibile and Praecepta affirmitativa obligant semper sed non pro semper In the second Argument he both argues and and answers to himself Mr. Dempster being silenced by his clamours concerning the intention of Priests in administring the Sacraments which if requisite he will have it to make all Faith uncertain But in vain there being greater assurance of their intention then that Ministers use aright the Elements and pronounce the words or that they teach not false Doctrine and set not out corrupt Bibles The assistance of Gods Spirit promised to his Church and his particular Providence in Governing and Ruling it assures us nothing necessary either to Faith or Salvation can be wanting in her No want of Intention can wrong them who are come to age they may supply by their own Intentions Desires and Acts of the love of God And for children whom Protestants will have to be saved by the faith of their Parents and not by Baptism Is it not more sure that publick persons in the Church want not a right Intention then that private men have true Faith The conferring of a Sacrament is not only Actio Hominis I hope but also Humana as the Divines speak What then if a Mad man in a frolick or a Comedian for a jeer as we read to have been done in derision of Christians should pour out water on any one and pronounce the words yea what if a Priest shewing a new Convert how he is to be Baptized should do the same Were these lawful and valid Baptisms where nothing save the Intention is wanting It is easie to cavil at the chief Heads of the Christian Religion but hard to say any thing solidly against them After this he comes to his Apologies First for so much writing on so little purpose Answer he should have said so little to the purpose there scarce being ten lines precisely to the purpose in all his Papers and Book Secondly That he was not so speedy in Answering as Mr. Dempster upon his Incombacy's and upon deliberating whether he should answer the emptiness of Mr. Dempsters Scriblings who antidated his Papers yet that he might guess with Apelles at his great hast by his foul work Answer his greatest Imcombacy's as I am informed are but to dite and declaim Bellarmines Objections or such like out of other Controversy Books And if it be an empty Question to ask the Grounds of his Religion Sure it must be an empty Religion and void of Grounds Neither did Mr. Dempster Antidate his Papers but did write back to him as currantly as any man could do a missive Letter never intending they should see the Press and finding very little solidity in his Answers He guesses at his great hast by his foul work but can shew nothing foul in it save onely when he resumes his filthy scoldings but we may easily guess at his little wit by his Foolish Work and Answers no where to the purpose His third Apology is for the Acrimony and bitterness of his expressions which he sayes had their rise from Mr. Dempsters Dunghil Eloquence Repetitions Praeteritions Calumnies Answer Mr. Menzies scoldings are the only Eloquence of the Dunghil most Learned men oftentimes be not very Eloquent in the Vulgar Tongue As to his Repetitions he is no good Disputant who passes from his medium before the Argument be answered For Preteritions all wise men pass what is not to the purpose as most of his papers and Book And as for Calumnies I leave to his papers to justifie his modesty however Mr. Menzies most injuriously Calumniate him In his Epistle to the Reader he continues his Apologies for Disputing Writing Printing granting one might have said more in a very few sheets for the satisfaction of a lover of Truth then he in all his Papers and this is most true Nay but he has been constrained to follow the anomalous motions of a tautologizing Jesuit Answer These two words set together sound well in a Pulpit but signifie nothing or little for how can his motion be anomalous or irregular who steers still to the same point constantly propounding the same thing Or how can he be said to Tautologize and use idle Repetitions who insists still in the same question till he get a full and satisfactory Answer as if a man come to require his money from a Debtor should hear from him many news of the late Wars and then asking again his money the Debtor should speak of our new League with many Forraign Princes But the Creditor still mindful of the main did reiterate the occasion of his coming and ask a new when he could expect his money were this
Communion with the Church therefore cannot erre The Church hath from Christ and ever has exercised a Judicatory Power in all belonging to Faith and Worship therefore cannot err Christ hath sealed constantly in all Ages her Doctrine with Wonders and Miracles therefore it cannot err To conclude if the Church and her Pastors assembled in Councils mistake clear Scripture misapply Scriptures deceive or be deceived what particular man can either justly censure her and them or solidly Ground himself Magna vis veritatis great is the strength of Verity and nothing more true then what is here holden out that to admit with Mr. Menzeis of no Infallible visible Judge of Controversie is the only Fountain and Spring of all Divisions Schisms and Heresies to which this one Protestant Principle opens so wide a Gate SECT IV. Wherein Mr. Menzeis first Ground of the Protestant Religion to wit sole Scripture is shewn to be no Ground to them and that they have not reformed the Church according to the uncorrupted Scriptures but corrupted the Sciptures to deform the Church SCripture then is Protestants ground of Religion and in it all Fundamentals are clear this is very plausible to the ignorant people who think it to be so upon their Ministers Tradition and highly Glory both in reading and explaining the Bible Yet no peculiar Ground to them as was required all Hereticks for ought M. Menzeis hath said pretending with as great reason the same Neither have Heresies says St. Augustine l. 1. c. 4. contr ad vers leg proph or certain Doctrines bewitching the mind sprung from any other Head then from good Scriptures not well understood But to proceed with order before we come to the understanding of Scripture First What Scripture I pray you is this the Protestant Ground Is it the Scripture Translated or in the Original Tongues Mr. Menzeis speaks nothing of this The learned Chamiers cited as a chief Protestant Champion by him in his Panstratia l. 1. c. 2. s 15. Says only true Originals adding as for Translations the sense of Protestants is that all of them of what standing name or credit soever they be and with what Diligence Sincerity or Learning soever they were made are only so far certain as they agree with the first Context I mean says he as they express that sense which is certainly manifest to be the true sence of the Hebrew and Greek words And Doctor Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers Dipped has these words p. 1. No Translation is simply Authentical or the undoubted Word of God To these Subscribeâ— Doctor Baron our Countrey man inferiour to no Protestant I know either in Loyalty or Learning Tract 1. c. 2. p. 46. Laici illiterati c. Unlearned Laicks says he believe only Implicitly confusedly and 〈◊〉 upon the Divine Authority of Scripture formeâ—ly taken by reason they can have no certain express and distinct knowledge of the Doctrine contained in Scripture as such or of the agreement of Translations in vulgar Languages with the Originals yea they know not so much but upon other mens testimony and report as that the Doctrine propounded to them to be believed is set down in the Scripture or written Word at all Whence followeth according to these learned Protestants the ground of the Protestant Religion must be only the Scripture in the Original Languages that is Greek Hebrew and Syriack which of a thousand Protestants 2. does not understand Where then must all other Protestants ground their faith a very few number of Linguists being excepted shal they believe only Implicitely and on other mens report as D. Baron will have them But this is the Colliers Faith Mr. Menzeis jears though I fear all his skill in Languages often force him to turn a Collier himself or shall they rely on Translations which Chamiers after all diligence used and Doctor Daniel with him confess not to be the undoubted Word of God but in so far as they are known to agree with the Hebrew and Greek Texts and how few undoubtedly know this Yea Protestant Translations of the Bible are so generally corrupt that you shall find none that has not been challenged even by most learned Protestants for manifold corruptions and that very gross To begin at Luther let us hear Zuinglius of him Tom. 2. ad Luther C. de Sacram. fol. 412. Where after detection of many corruptions in Luther he concludes thus See how thy case standeth that in the eyes of all men thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of holy Scripture which thing thou canst never deny before any Creature how much are we ashamed of thee who hereto have esteemed thee beyond all measure and now find thee to be such a false fellow Neither can Luther deny his corruptions himself for in that place of St. Paul where a man is said to be justified by faith he grants l. Contra Cochleum p. 408. he puts into the Text the word only which the Apostle has not Licet Paulus verbo sola non utatur qou ego usus sum and is not this a main place Protestants use against us so well are they grounded in Scripture Of Calvin Charles Molinaeus in his Translation of the New Testament part 2. fo 110. says Calvin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Scripture to leap up and down as the truth it self declareth he useth violence to the Letter of the Gospel and in many places clearly transposes it and besides this addeth to the Text. Are these the Reformers of the Church by the uncorrupted word or corrupters of the Word to deform the Church Castalio saith of Beza That to note all his Errors in translating the New Testament it would require a great volume Five times he differs from himself though one of the best Linguists ever Protestants had King James a great Scholar as a great Monarch in the sum of the conference before his Majesty thinks the Geneva Translation the worst of all others And Mr. Parkes in his defence of the first Testimony concerning Christs descending into Hell says as for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they be purged from those manifold Errours which are both in the Text and at the Margent or else utterly prohibited Now as to our own Translations in English Mr. Bruges in his Apology Sect. 6. Says plainly that the approved Protestant Translation hath many omissions many additions which sometimes obscure sometime pervert the sense And M. Carleil p. 116. remarkes that the English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from their right sense and shew themselves to love darkness more then light falshood more then truth they have corrupted and depraved the sense obscured the Truth deceived the Ignorant and supplanted the simple And Mr. Broughton a chief Linguist in England in his Epistle to the Lords of the Privy Council desireth them to procure speedily a new Translation because that which is now is full of Errours And in his
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
2 Thes 2. says it is evident that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Writing but many things without and those be as worthy of credit as others Which he could not have said if Fundamentals were only the infallible Truths and they clearly revealed in Scripture S. Epiphanius Heres 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all things yet no necessity of using Traditions if all Fundamentals were in Scripture they only being necessary according to Protestants S. Augustine l. 5. de Bapt. Contr. Donat Ch. 23. the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants is neither to be contemned or any wise thought superfluous yet not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition If this was not in his Judgment a Fundamental hear himself again l. 3. de Orig. Anim. C 9. if thou will be a Catholick believe not teach not say not that Infants prevented by death before they are baptized can come to the pardon of their Original sin Is it not a Fundamental to believe Scripture to be the Word of God which S. Augustine takes on Tradition What if a man should receive the New Testament as sufficiently containing Fundamentals and reject the Old with the Manichees admit of some of the Evangels but not others with the Ebionits What if one should deny the word Person the name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday because not clear in Scripture and consequently no Fundamentals according to M. Menzeis Rule Marcion and with him the Anabaptists teach Baptism should be conferred more then once The Donatists that Baptisme of Hereticks at least should be reiterated Sabellius one only Person in the Godhead Nestorius two Persons in Christ and for this are accounted Hereticks yet no clear Scripture is brought condemning their Errours S. Augustine l. de unitate Eccl. says expresly of the Donatists Errour this neither you nor I read in express words 7. How many Scriptures are clear against Protestants in all controverted Tenets So that however it be clear in Fundamentals it clearly speaketh against them See for this the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel with the Manual of Controversie and after you have pondered the places quoted in them judge whether the Protestant Religion be rightly defined by M. Menzeis The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture and their protestancy only their protesting against Popish Errours Which Definition if good having its Genus proximum differentiam ultimam should distinguish Protestants from all other Sectaries but this it doth not it being common to them with most Hereticks who have ever been all of them professing with you Sir to adhere to the written Word they received and as understood by themselves as the Arians Nestorians Pelagians Photinians c. and all protesting against the Churches Errours and Popes Authority For as the sole Roman Church did ever oppose all Hereticks as the only zealous Defender of the true Faith and Doctrine which S. Paul calls the Depositum entrusted to her So all generally how soon they turn Hereticks Protest prattle Preach chieflly against her turn over all the Writings of Authours who have made mention of Heresies and you shall find that all from the first to the last have opposed themselves to that company of Christians which was in communion with the Pope and Bishop of Rome for the time and that this company hath opposed it self to them all neither did they oppose themselves all to any other company whatsoever Yea this was ever the distinctive mark of Hereticks not to communicate with the Pope and Sea of Rome as may be seen in the Writings of the Fathers St. Irenaeus l. 3. C. 3. S. Hierome Ep. 57. S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius S. Augustine in Ps Contr. part Don. and generally in all ages and by all so that you protesting with them against the Church and Pope take their very Badg and Livery and shamefully declare by this Charactaristick Mark of your Defection from the ever acknowledged true Church and high Bishop thereof by all the Fathers your Apostacy Heresie and Schism It is very plausible I must confess to poor Ignorants when Preachers make them believe they teach nothing save only the pure Scripture and written Word protesting against all unwritten Traditions as Popish Errours But if any man consider a little with himself your Tenets in particular he shall presently find it is openly against God and his written Word ye protest in all points of Controversie under the false pretence of protesting against Popery and that not so much as one Tenet peculiar to you is contained in Scripture This I evidence in most Articles of Popish Doctrine you protest against where all may see and judge how well your Religion is contained in Scripture Is it not to protest against the goodness of God to say with you he created some for Hell independently of their works and likewise against his Word 1 Tim. 2. where it is said he will have all to be saved and in the 2. Ep. of St. Peter 3. where he is declared not willing any should perish Is it not to protest against his Mercy and express word again to say he died not for all The Apostle S. Paul assuring he did die for all and as that in Adam all died so in Christ all be restored to life 1 Cor. 13. Is it not to protest against his Justice and Word to teach that he punisheth us for what we cannot do as for the want of good Works which Protestants will have not to be in our power Yet the Apostle says Heb. 6.10 God is not unjust that he should forget our work Is it not to protest against the Wisdom and Word of God to say he obliges us to perform things impossible as Protestants call the Commandements where as Saint John in 1 Ep. C. 5. says they are not so much as heavy Is it not to protest against his Veracity and Word to affirm that the Church can teach Errours and stand in need of Reformation Christ having commanded us to hear it in S. Matt. 18. and the Apostle S. Paul 1 Tim. 3. calling it the Pillar and Ground of Truth Is it not to protest against his Providence and Word to assert that he has given us the dead Letter of the Law without an Infallible Visible Judge leaving to every poor Ignorant to Interpret Scripture according to his fancy S. Peter having said no Scripture is of private interpretation and Christ having commanded us to hear his Church Is it not to protest against the Efficacy of Christs Mediation Sufferings Death and also his Word to hold that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin S. Joh. 1. Rev. 5. Saying he washed us from our sins in his own blood And S. Paul 1 Cor. 6. we are Washed justified Sanctified Is it not to protest against his Divine Order to tye our Sanctification to Faith only and his express word in S. James