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
the least they being scarce like to the Apples of Sodom in his confused Rapsody that is pleasant to the eye though no less rotten in the heart as who has best right to the Root and Tree may justly claim the Branches and Fruit so whoever proves he hath the true Grounds of Religion may easily prove all Superstructures on this ground to be true the accessary followeth the principal and this is the chief and principal question amongst us let this be once decided in their favour and we have no more process with them Secondly he desires nothing be brought has been answered by Protestants Answer if he had given example in this he had never written a line However if any thing has been solidly answered to what I bring against his great principle of no Infallible visible Judge of Controversie or both his grounds as I most sincerely protest it never did come to my hands so let Mr. Menzeis send it me and here an end Thirdly That personal Criminations be laid aside Answer then these personal Criminations when he calls Mr. Dempster a dull and Lethargy-head a Neat-herd a man of a Prostitute reputation a Knave a Sycophant a Devil should have been blotted out of his Book As Infamous persons are not received for witnesses so Calumnies can be no wise sooner refuted then by shewing that he who calumniates has lost all reputation and credit If it were not softly insinuated what a quick wit Mr. Menzeis is who names Mr. Dempster a dull and Lethargy-head How learned a Pastor who calls him a Neat-herd how famous who challenges him to be of a prostitute reputation how honest who calls him a Rogue and a Knave how sincere and ingenuous who terms him a Sycophant and how great a Saint who compares him to a Devil his sole authority in Print might perhaps endanger Mr. Dempsters good name wherefore he must not take ill a little hath been said of this not for Criminations but as Answers to Calumnies and notorious falshoods especially his Apology being the greatest of his wrongs as if Mr. Dempster had extorted them he was forced to it because for sooth he can suffer no man to withstand him or not to be satisfied with what he brings This is all the Injury we read in Mr. Dempsters papers which can be no excuse certainly to him who easily foreseeing what might be replyed dare glory with Job he takes injuries for a Crown citing as a Heroick word in Luther Indies magis mihi placeo superbus fio quod video nomen pessimum mihi crescere I please my self more and more daily yea I become proud to see that I have got a very ill name and that it grows upon me which if true his pleasure may be great and his pride too for few of his coat after Luther have got a worse name for changes in Religion Jars and contentions with his brethren disobedience to his Bishop and disloyalty to his Prince Here presently to set up his good name a little he playes the Prophet striving to pry into Mr. Dempsters Intentions and thoughts why he slighted all the points stated by him and Instances only that he should prove there be two Sacraments and no more but here the Spirit fails him in all his Divinations the only reason of this being for that all other controverted Tenets with Protestants are borrowed from divers old condemned Heresies and this only proper to them However Mr. Dempster should have proved seven Sacraments Answer No not this or any thing else in the present dispute as not to the purpose save only that Protestants for their Religion could shew no solid ground this he sticks to this he insists upon and this only whilest Mr. Menzeis like a Bird ever upon wing flies from branch to branch a mark of no great Constancy and Solidity either in Wit or Learning But he will needs bring in the Romish Religion by the head and shoulders upon the Stage and have Mr. Dempster to decline it be tryed by Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church in the first three ages Answer The Romish Religion has no part in the present Scene neither is Master Dempster acting any thing directly in defence of it but Impugning the Protestant grounds and this Mr. Menzeis in his first answer clearly grants his words are The Thesis then which we defend and you impugne is this The Protestant Religion is the true Religion No mention here of the Catholick Roman Faith and yet Mr. Menzeis in all his papers and Books speaks very little for the Protestant Religion but always against the Popish laying aside the Thesis which he sets down himself as his Text so often in the Pulpit to rail at random against us And this with a like Sincerity and Candor as when he says Quakerism is but Popery under a disguise Answer then most men mistake it thinking it so far from Popery under what ever disguise that it is nothing but Puritanism in puris naturalibus and undisguised Is the private Spirit our Ground and Guide Do we allow Laicks and Women to preach or private persons whatsoever upon pretence of New Gospel Light to reform the Church This Presbyterians and Puritans in the beginning of the Reformation and again in the Covenant did with them Yea on the same very ground of adhering to the pure Word and to the Spirit and Light within them against all Authority in Church and State Is not this the Quakers chief Argument against Protestants when they ask their Power and Call We are come to Reform you say they and all your Hirelings even as you the Papists and Priests We ground our selves on the pure and naked Word the Spirit speaketh within us we regard not men Church Councels Fathers have erred Which Answer Mr. Menzeis if constant to his own principles with all his Needle-headed Nicities as he speaks will hardly refute In fine he sayes Romanists boast his Papers shall have an Answer these six Moneths might have done it Our Reply will discover we apprehend some danger c. Answer Few Romanists do think his papers deserve a Reply yea nor their pains to read them as saying little to the purpose much less do they esteem the enterprise to answer them so high as it should be called a boast He who rather contends with us in solidity of reason then celerity of dispatch will neverthleess have this expected answer six Moneths before his Book did appear at which time he makes the Magistrates command the Stationer under the highest pains that he should Print no Reply Yet after his Book has been a twelve moneth under the Press at home we may have a Book Printed at a start abroad neither is there such hast in replying for any danger we apprehend his railings never having wronged Catholicks in the least but much Protesiants many whereof have turned Quakers to hear Tub-preachers professing greater Modesty Sincerity yea and Solidity in belief then he who by his frequent changes in
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
Advertisement of corruptions to the Protestant Bishops saith that their publick Translation of Scriptures is such as it perverteth the Text of the Old Testament in four hundred forty eight places and that it causeth millions of millions to reject the New Testament and run to Eternal flames How many divers and different Translations in Queen Elizabeths and King James times how often what was first at the Margent hath been put in the Text Now if Translators of the Scripture in English men furnished with so many helps endued with so many gifts so well versed in the Hebrew and Greek tongues so guided by all the Rules Mr. Menzeis gives to attain the right meaning and sense of Holy Writ have fallen into so many and so gross errours and Mistakes as to have depraved detorted wrested obscured the Scripture and Word of God so that it as Translated by them decieveth the Ignorant supplanteth the simple perverteth the Text in so many places as that it carrieth milions to Eternal Flames What hope can any one have of meaner Talents with fewer helps and less learning and knowledge to attain by his own private reading of Scripture the undoubted Truth Steadiness in faith and Religion a full and satisfactory solution of all doubts or security of Salvation and yet these very same so corrupt Translations as their own Ghospellers testifie are read in Churches expounded in Pulpits and put in the hand of every one who understands neither Latine Greek nor Hebrew as his sole ground of Faith and Judg of controversie whereby he is made able to Judge not only of Popish Errors the Writings of the Fathers and Decrees of Councils but even of his own Pastors Doctrine his Churches Faith and his Countries Religion Secondly to come to the Originals Shall they then onely be the Protestants Ground of Faith If so I ask Mr. Menzeis where we shall find them Yea we are so far from having all the Originals that it is doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written The purity of Originals is sometimes called in Question and Calvin Inst l. 1. C. 13. Doth imagine even these the Fountains run not always clear Luther Enar. in Is Cryes out on the Jews for crucifying the Text as well as Christ and upon Gen. C. 24. Says again he has often told many words there be in the Hebrew Text which the Hebrews themselves do not understand And to say true amongst the Jews the least of their three Massoreshe's so they call the Book which contains the many corruptions and divers Lections in the Hebrew Text counts eight hundred places disagreeing ambiguous or corrupt neither do the most learned Rabbies agree in the Letter of Scripture In Hebrew it self some reading according to the Points or Vowels put in by Rabbi Jacob and some by these of Rabbi Aron most different one from another all the points being added to the Text Five hundred years after Christ and that by his professed Enemies the Jews long after the Vulgar Latine Translation which was made before the Text and Letter of Scripture was corrupt But Protestants take in also with these the corruptions of the Greek Text remarked in part by St. Ireneus Tertullian Origen and others says Eusebius when the ancient Hereticks the Arians Macedonians Nestorians c. had corrupted and adulterated the Word of God to support their Errours as Protestants at present in all their Translations do I know M. Menzeis will tell me perhaps he hath seen both the Hebrew and the Greek Texts well but who assures him they are not corrupt Yes but the Protestants have corrected them and that according to the Authenticks which never any Protestant did see The most Learned amongst Protestants have never seen the Original Scriptures which were first penned by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists Copies are no less subject to faults in the Letter then Translations to mistakes in the sense Yea the Authors of that great famous Bible that is Printing at London if not yet ended in so many Languages witnesseth in the Preface they have set out not so much as one Copy could be found they can assure to agree in all things with the Original their labour may be great in this vast Volume to correct the Copies they find deficient but their Authority is not Infallible In a word no Infallible Authority is admitted by Protestants to judge either of the Letter or Sense For that savours rankly says M. Menzeis of that Erroneous Popish Tenet of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversie And I Answer to deny one in all these and such like cases savours rankly of a tottering wavering groundless Faith most like to that of M. Menzeis I say yet further if no Translations of Scripture can be a ground of Faith as most learned Protestants grant so neither any Original it would seem without some Infallible Judg for I must ever be sure they are unccorrupted and again all the defect in Translations coming from the misunderstanding of Originals I ask who dare say he understands them better then they who have Translated and upon this as he himself reads and conceives ground his Religion and Faith Thirdly before all this if M. Menzeis will prove it a solid Ground to rely on sole Scripture as the onely ground of Faith without any Infallible visible Judge or assurance that he who tells me this is the uncorrupted Letter this the true and genuine Sense has the peculiar assistance of the Holy Ghost I demand what Infallible Motive can prudently perswade Protestants that the Word of God they rely on was ever set down in Writing or is extant at this day Is it the testimony of Scripture calling it self Gods Word or the Innate Light of the same Scripture showing it self to be such to a well disposed Intellect and mind If the first do not Nicodemus and S. Thomas Gospels carry the same titles with these of St. Matthew and St. Mark If the second then the Fathers of the first three ages whom M. Menzeis most owns were not well disposed persons who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authority of a Council at Carthage had declared them Canonical and much less Luther that holy man who rejecteth St. James Epistle with some others As Protestants ground their Faith say they on Gods word so Quakers on the Spirit and we deny not but both be equally Infallible if once known Infallibly to be the Spirit or Word of God But we demand of each Sect what Infallible External Rule or Motive they give us to know either Gods Word speaking in Scripture or Spirit in them Both answer with M. Menzeis they both show themselves to all who are well disposed But this clears not us the well disposed heart being only known to God let all then be objectively true as M. Menzeis sayes his Religion is which they both teach as certainly is what ever by Gods Word or Spirit is revealed we only insist to know Infallibly that
God did reveal such Doctrine as theirs either by his Word or Spirit For we receive now no Immediate Revelations as the Prophets and Apostles did in old times nor have we Evidentiam in attestante as the Divines call it that is any Evidence that it is God who speaks points of faith being only propounded to us by men who either put the Scriptures in our hands to read or teach us by word of mouth The Protestants great Principle let 's own no man or Church as an Infallible Judge yea M. Menzeis in his sixth paper offers upon this to turn Papist if the Infallible assistance of the Propounder can be proved necessary but never clears what other way we can be Infallibly assured that all which the Protestants do teach was revealed by God Unless it be in his third paper where speaking of the True and Genuine Sense of Scripture he tells us we may have it as from a Jurist the Explication of a Municipal Law or from a Mathematitian a demonstration of Euclides But what a weak Answer is this Do any receive Demonstrations on Authority as Points of Faith Or is the assent I give to the Law so explained by a Jurist Infallible If Christ himself had not shown his Divinity by his Works and Wonders he grants the Jews had committed no sin in refusing to belive him The Apostles Credentials were their Miracles both did thus evidence the Infallible assistance they had of Gods Spirit to the World and shall any man trust M. Menzeis boldly asserting there is no necessity of any was it not for this the power of Miracles was left in the Church as the marks of her assistance and seals of her Doctrine with other Motives of credibility Notwithstanding Protestants with M. Menzeis will propound to us the Catalogue of Canonical Scripture Books assure us of the uncorrupt Copies and Letter enforce upon our Consciences the sense they give whil'st so confidently obtruding all this they neither dare or do say nor can evidence by any external mark or sign they have the particular assistance of Gods Spirit As if all this were clear in it self with Mathematical Demonstrations But doth Scripture in our Bibles show it self better to be the Word of God now then when Christ was speaking in person Then an external Evidence God did speak by his Son is acknowledged as necessary by him and now shall any man reasonably say there is no necessity of any when he speaks by his servants and Church however this prove efficacious and strong for M. Menzeis conversion it would seem to me more then sufficient for his or any mans conviction Fourthly to claim to Scripture yet so as they can no wise evidence they take it aright is common to Protestants with all Hereticks so no peculiar Ground When Sectaries clash with Sectaries is not all their babling out of Scripture You shall see says Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 35. Hereticks so abound with Scripture as they fly through all the Volumes of the holy Law through Moses the Books of Kings the Psalmes and Prophets c. read the works of Paulus Sam satenus Priscillian Eunomius c. you shall not find ae page which is not Coloured and painted out with the sentences of Old and New Testament Nestorius to support his Heresie gloried as Gennadius reporteth in his Catalogue in the evidence of threescore Testimonies which he produced as the Covenant in three hundred whereof scarce three any wise to the purpose The Valentinians Marcionists Arians will submit to none but Scripture as St. Augustine witnesseth of Maximinus the Arian Bishop in his first Bok against him Neither doth it avail M. Menzeis to say Scriptures are clear in terminis or made clear by conferring of places or show themselves clearly to a well disposed mind First for that though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind So that it wanteth not difficulty to determine always what is absolutely clear there being many clear places as would seem not to be taken in the clear and obvious sense as the passages Hereticks did most build on will presently shew As when Marcion despiseth Moses and the Prophets upon Christs own clear words in S. John the 10. How many soever have come before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees affirmed Christ to be the Sun upon a like Scripture in St. John the 8. I am the light of the world The Waldenses taught no man could be put to death no not by the lawful Authority of a Judge upon clear Scripture again Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill c. The Devil citeth clear Scripture to Christ and the Jews against his death we have heard in the Law the Messias abideth for ever Moreover many seeming Contradictions in Scripture you shall find in Becan and others one might think clear And many things are believed even by Protestants which be not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church and the Command of keeping holy the Sunday the Scripture neither naming persons or telling what a person is defining Sacraments as M. Menzeis doth or setting down their number abrogating the keeping of the Sabbath or having for the Sunday any command Many places of Scripture again are flatly against Protestants and clear for us as for the Real Presence This is my Body this is my Blood S. Matth. 26. For Justification not by Faith only but also good works Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only S. James 2.24 For Traditions from the Apostles besides the written Word Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by Word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.13 And such like places cited in most Books of Controversie for all Controverted Tenets Protestants never being able to bring any one clear place of Scripture against any of our Tenets not evidently mistaken or confessedly corrupted as when they make S. Paul say a man is justified by faith only Luther above cited granting he has put in the word only which Saint Paul hath not or Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image in place of Idol as is clearly the word Pesel in the Hebrew Text. Secondly as to conferring of places and explaining the more obscure by these which are clear did not Arius boast of this against the Fathers of the Council of Nice proving the unity in Nature of the Father and Son out of these words in S. John the 10. I and my Father are one No says the Arian this place as obscure to us and passing the reach of Humane capacity must be explained by this other more clear in St. John 17. where Christ prayes his Apostles May be one with him as he and his Father are one that is in will and affection and surely the second place is clearer to us and
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
Figuratively as clearly so spoken in Scripture some other place of Scripture must be brought or some other Infallible Authority telling me this in express words otherwise I cannot have that certainty of it which is required in Divine Faith 3. Amongst all the clear places in Scripture to pick out the Fundamental ones how hard is it for every one Not to say Morally impossible M. Menzeis himself granting he cannot do it more then make a Coat to the Moon For by this means all should be obliged to know all Texts of Scripture and then to examine diligently each one first whether it be evident or obscure least it should appear upon examination to be evident which at the first sight did not seem so And secondly Whether it be generally commanded and have a Character of necessity to be believed by all for then according to M. Menzeis Rule I know it to be a Fundamental but Chillingworth his learned Divine tells him a little above to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary is an intricate piece of business S. Paul to the Heb. 2. C. 6. V. requires no more as necessary as would seem then that he who cometh to God believe he is and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him S. John 3. Ch. 6. says he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life the Prophet Royal that all who fear the Lord are blessed and many other such passages there be in Scripture which might make a â—â—n think one thing or two at most were necessary to Salvation as sometimes the believing of one Point sometimes the doing of one good action Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place full Remission of sins to Alms deeds in another c. and yet who will say either of these two is sufficient for working a mans Salvation Add to all this I find in Scripture If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments S. Matth. 19. Yet Protestants teach that to be impossible and consequenly this Fundamental must lead all to despair as that other make all to presume it being a Fundamental again amongst Protestants that every man should believe he is one of the Elect which being an Article of his Faith may reasonably secure him and yet all not being of this number some from this Fundamental must or should at least presumptuously believe a lye Further the eating of blood and strangled meat is generally forbidden by the Apostles to all the Gentiles converted to the Christian Faith as it was before to the Jews whence I infer what is generally commanded to all should generally be believed by all and so if M. Menzeis Rule be good this must come in amongst the Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion which if it be so in the Pulpit I know not but at Table I am sure it is not A hundred such absurdities follow upon seeking Fundamentals in Scripture by these deceiving signes and uncertain marks M. Menzeis gives us without any Infallible Guide 2. It is to be remarked that Protestants neither agree in setting down Fundamentals nor cannot give a precise Catalogue of Points of Faith they think to be Fundamental as was required of M. Menzies but that also they mistake the very Notion and name A Fundamental verity in the Christian Religion being either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and belief whereof none can be saved Now the Question amongst us is not about this but whether a Man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things then these when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the former For then say Catholicks he is equally obliged to believe them by reason of the formâ—â— Object which is Divine Revelation can in nothing deceive or should in any thing be called in question though in respect of the Material Object or thing revealed we be not so obliged to know it For there is nothing less or more certain when God speaks he being the first verity yea verity it self who delivers all he says with one and the same Infinite Certainty where no degrees of more or less certitude can have place Protestants it would seem as they take Fundamentals will not be tyed to this whence they receive in communion with them and as the true Members of their Church some who hold most contrary Tenets as M. Menzeis the Waldenses Wickliffians Hussists who in his seventh Paper grants the whole body of the Church collectively taken cannot err in Essentials or Fundamentals yet so as that in some whole ages the Integrals may be vitiated But if he understand by Integrals lesser Points of Faith as to their Object and Matter yet equally revealed by God and propounded by his Church to us with chief Mysteries wherein the Protestants mistake and Errour in their Distinction of Fundamentals and Integrals consists his Assertion is both Erroneous Heretical because an Act of Faith grounded on the Motive of Gods Infinite and infallible Veracity in revealing is a Vertual and Implicite Belief of all he has revealed so that the true Belief of one Article implyes a belief of all Wherefore S. Athanasius says in his Creed whosoever doth not hold the Catholick Faith whole and inviolate he shall perish for ever And S. Hierome l. 3. contr Ruff. for one word or two contrary to the Faith many Hereticks have been cast out of the Church Yea S. Gregory Naz. tract de fide says nothing can be more dangerous then those Hereticks who when they run through all things uprightly yet with one word as with a drop of poyson corrupts the true and sincere Faith of our Lord and of Apostolical Tradition S. Basil as Theodoret reports l. 4. Hist c. 6. being desired to relent a little to the time Answered That such as were instructed in the Divine Doctrine do not suffer any Syllable to be corrupt but for its defence if need require willingly imbrace any kind of death And the Church in her Publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one Point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily believed when known to be decided by her So doth the Church of England Excommunicate all who hold any thing contrary to the 39. Articles though they judg them not all Fundamental As the Athenians punished without remission the least word against the received opinion of their Gods and the Jews says Joseph contra Appion the least transgression of the Law So God threatneth that he shall be blotted out of the Book of Life who ever shall deminish any word of the Revelation Apoc. 22. v. 19. Yet Luther rejecting whole Epistles of Scripture in M. Menzeis Book is called a holy man but so speaketh not Luther of him denying the Real Presence
who in his Book against the Sacramentarians says plainly They believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in vain all these things avail them nothing for as much as they deny this Article of the Real Presence and attach him of falshood who said of the Sacrament This is my Body And he had reason for St. Thomas 2.2 q. 5. a 3. with other Divines teach he has no Spiritual Faith who believeth not every thing little or great Fundamental or not Proposed to him by the same Authority Whereupon they infer that no Sectary upon his own choice adhering to this or that believeth any thing So Tertullian l. de praesc speaking against Valentine says some things of the Law and Prophets he approveth some things not that is difalloweth all whil'st he disproveth some 3. From all this appeareth how idlely this distinction of fundamntals not fundamentals in the Protestans sense was brought in by them it serving to no other purpose then to palliate their divisions at present deceive Ignorants in the pretended succession they claim to in old condemn'd Hereticks whose Errors they will have to be no Fundamentals As M. Menzeis taking Hierome of Prague John Huss Wickcliff the Waldenses and Grecians for true Protestants before Luther to make up an imaginary Succession in the Protestant Church which to do with any apparent shew of Truth 1. He should prove those Sects to have been the Catholick Church spread through the whole world and owned as such by the Fathers of those times 2. Justifie their Doctrine which we find partly in their own Writings partly in the most Authentick Records of the Ages wherein they lived to have been in many things most false erroneous and unchristian 3. Their succession from the Apostles times finding their Bishops and Pastors in the Registers of the Church History or Fathers Neither will he make this good by the Authority of Friar Reiner who speaking of the Waldenses whom he names Lionists says at most even as Illiricus quotes his words some affirm they have been from the time of Pope Sylvester others from the dayes of the Apostles M. Menzeis to make the Argument stronger will have Friar Reiner to say absolutely they were from the time of the Apostles with his ordinary ingenuity but what I pray you concludes he from this Those who said so being Lionists themselves as witnesseth Piliâ—hdorphius So a little before Waldo there arose Hereticks who falsly bragged of the same even as after them Protestants do now But if you or they either sir were in all ages from the Apostles tell us the Authours in every age who marked the succession of your Pastors where lived your people c. then refute the great number of learned Writers who lived when such Sects did start up in a suddain as a Mushrome in a night marking their Rise and noting their Errours which certainly they had never done if such Doctrine had been professed before as that of the true and visible Church But to speak a word in particular of every one of those Sects with what ignorance and falshood M. Menzeis calls them true Protestants you shall presently see And first in John Huss to whose name I am sure he has a more just claim then to his Religion if we trust all the most Authentick Records of Huss his Doctrine I cite not for this the Juridick Acts of the Council at Constance because Popish not Father Gordon of Huntley no less eminent for his Learning then Birth because a Jesuit though living in Prague in Boheme where Hussits most abound and having made most diligent enquiry of their Tenents he found as he witnesseth Cont. 3. de Euch. c. 17. they did hold Invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead the Fastings and Ceremonies of the Catholick Church with free will confession of Sins seven Sacraments c. But I hope he will trust Fox a most firy Protestant speaking thus upon the 2. Ch. of the Revelation What did Huss at any time teach or defend in the Council wherein he did not seem superstitiously to consent with the Papists what did the Popish Faith decree concerning Transubstantiation which he likewise with the Papists did not confirm who celebrated Mass more Religiously then he or more Religiously observed the Vows of Priestly Chastity Concerning Free Will Predestination informed Faith that is without Charity the cause of Justification and merit of good Works what other thing did he hold then is taught at Rome All this he and more in his Monuments that he did acknowledge seven Sacraments and the Popes Supremacy p. 216. and 227. And if he should as yet disown Fox as a private Writer yet must he trust Luther as a man extraordinarily sent by God to Reform the Church and the 14. Apostle The Papists burned Huss says he Colloq Germ. C. de Antich when as yet he departed not a fingers breadth from the Papacy for he taught the same which the Papists do only he found fault with their Vices against the Pope he did nothing To the same purpose Luther has much more Tom. 2. in Assert art 30. and Tom. 3. in Ps 2. But in fine should not Huss himself be trusted better then any his works are extant and perusing them you shall find he did hold seven Sacraments upon the fifth of S. James Transubstantiation in his Book of the Lords Supper Ch. 2. and 3. the Sacrifice of the Mass in his Sermon of Funerals Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead in the same place confession of sins to a Priest in his Treatise of pennance invocation of Saints in his Epistles 22.30.35 Veneration of Relicks upon Ps 115. yea in his question of believing the Popes Supremacie as to his office dignity and power though with this Caveat common to him with Wicliff that ecclesiastical dignity as well as Civil was grounded on Inherent Justice and so lost by Mortal Sin which neither Catholicks nor Protestants do teach Nevertheless M. Menzeis is not ashamed to own Huss for a Protestant so constant is he in professing his Fundamentals which he will have to be in Scripture so clear I insist not so much on the rest yet to say a little of every one Of Hierome of Prague Fox pag. 585. relateth whatever was his Opinion in other things yet stood he constantly in defence of the real Presence and Transubstantiation saying he did give more credit to S. Augustine and other Doctors of the Church who affirmed the same then to any that denyed it Wikcliff again M. Menzeis is not ashamed to call a Protestant who in his own Writings so expresly holds against them 1. Worship of Images in his 9. Ch. of the Eucharist Images says he we adore purely as signs but God we must adore with all our power It is therefore granted that Relicks Images and the Sacraments be with prudence to be adored He did also hold Invocation of Saints in his Sermon of the Assumption into Heaven of our blessed Lady
2.24 Ye see then how that by Works a man is justified and not by Faith only Is it not to protest against his Divine Appointment again and his Word to teach that good Works done in his Grace and by his Grace merit nothing when through all the Scripture Heaven is promised as a reward to our Works and in St. Matth. 10. It is said Christ shall render to every one according to his Works Is it not to protest against his Divine Authority and Word to deny the Real Presence All the Evangelists speaking so clearly This is my Body this is my Blood Is it not to protest against his express Command and Word to forbid Images as Idols He having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the Ark of the Covenant Exod. 25. Is it not to protest against his own Practice and Word to deny we should honour his Saints whom God himself Honours yea and glorifies Them that honour me I will honour 1 Reg. 2.30 Is it not to protest against his Dispensation and Word to deny the Power given to his Apostles and their Successours to forgive sins he having said in S. John 20.23 Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven Is it not to protest against the Satisfaction which his Justice requires for our sins even after the guilt is forgiven to deny Purgatory The Scripture witnessing that he did exact satisfaction of David and many holy penitent sinners after he had forgiven their sins And S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. If any ones work burn he shall suffer loss but himself shall be saved yet so as by fire where we have clearly a purging and punishing yet saving fire Is it not to protest against Christs Eternal Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech Ps 109. and S. Paul Hebr. 5. to reject the unbloody and unspotted Sacrifice of the Mass which the Prophet Malachy 1. C. 10. V. calls a clean Oblation to be offered amongst the Gentiles from the rising of the Sun even to the setting and that in every place Is it not to protest against all God commands us and his Word to take away free Will in obeying Deut. 30.19 I have set before you life and death chuse To conclude what Point is there in all the Catholick Faith which Protestants protest against which is not either Directly against Gods Divine Attributes Christs Mediation and Dispensation his Churches Authority his Saints and Servants honour some part of Christian duty belief or life or generally not against his express written Word as it is plain in it self or expounded by the unanimous consent of the Fathers And yet so impudently bold is this spirit of Heresie as to dare say that that is contained in Scripture which Scripture most evidently contradicts that is only in opposition to Popish Errours which impugnes the very Fundamental and most substantial Verities of the Gospel and Christian Faith that by the pure and uncorrupted word it will reform the Church when corrupting the Word and correcting the Church as subject to failings and Errours in Religion it ruinateth both Church and Word What has been said in this and the former Section further instanced in two Particular Controverted Points The Real Presence and two Sacraments THE Protestant Religion is The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture Sole Scripture is their Ground and in it all Fundamentals are clear Says M. Menzeis How false all this is in general doth evidently I hope appear by what I have said above Here I instance only further two particular Points he handles at length the better to make see the falshood of his strong and bold Assertions in the weakness and nullity of his Proofs And this first in his refuting one of our chief Tenets viz. The Real Presence then in maintaining one of his own to wit That there are two Sacraments and no more 1. Then to prove Christs body is not really in the Sacrament these most clear words This is my body must not says he be taken in the literal sense but Figuratively why so doth the Scripture say this no no Scripture is brought What then a Philosophical Demonstration as he pretends The word this in the literal sense is inexplicable and the Proposition implyeth a contradiction ergo c. But why the Pronoun this inexplicable because let Romanists strain their wits Answers M. Menzeis and squeeze their Authors they cannot tell what it can signifie whether the Bread Body or something indeterminately Who would not laugh here to see Mr. Menzeis a professor of Divinity take such a weak Argument for a Demonstration most like in this to a certain Romantick Knight Errand call'd Don Quicsot who imagining to himself a Windmil to be a Gyant and then fighting with it as with a Hector he did both blunt his Sword and batter his Reputation For what I pray you doth the Pronone this signifie in any proportion but Indeterminately till it be determined to some particular thing by the following words So that let a man say a hundred times this he determines nothing but by the ensuing words as here This is my Body makes a determinated sense the last words determinating the first which alone and of it self signifies nothing determinately and so to seek what it signifies determinately alone and before the other words be pronounced is to quibble and speak non-sense by seeking a determinate Object under a word which of its nature hath none And this is the first part of his Demonstration for establishing by a Logick Sophism without any clear Scripture a main Point of Religion The second part of this Demonstration is That it implyes a manifest contradiction a true Affirmative Proposition de praesenti should produce its Object Why this because in the instant of Nature wherein the Proposition is conceiv'd before its Object as the cause before its Effect the Proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the Object in that instant is not The same Argument he urgeth in the instant of time wherein the Copula is pronounced or Particle is before the two last words And for that Catholick Authours give many and diverse Solutions of this Argument as the Custome is in the School he will be satisfied with none But because Mr. Menzeis is good at Retortions I retort his Argument thus Is not this a true Affirmative Proposition de praesenti which produces its Object in St. John 15. This is my command that ye love one another Now what difficulty in the former Proposition either in the word this or in the Instants of Nature and Time or that a true affirmative Proposition make its own Object which is not here do not these words make a new Command says Christ as the former his body what if M. Menzeis could have brought an Axiome of Philosophy against the Real Presence as that Maxime so commonly propounded and answered in the School quae sunt eadem cum uno tertio sunt eadem inter se proving as would seem that
a General Council as infallible in their Decrees Here either acknowledgeth the Records of the Ecclesiastick History and Writings of the Fathers as witnessing infallibly to us the Doctrine of these ages or else must grant he hath no infallible assurance that this his second ground of Faith is solid and Infallible There being no other way left us without particular Revelation to know what Doctrine the Church did teach and believe in the first three Ages save only the Writings of the Fathers and Tradition of the present Church which consequently M. Menzeis must either here own as Infallible or avouch he builds his Faith upon a sandy and fallible ground The first Reformers standing better to their own Principles then he and of much greater sincerity and learning grant plainly the Fathers of the Primitive Church to hold many things in opposition to them Luther L. de servo arbitr C. 2. and in his Table Conferences C. de patrib Eccl. The Authority of the Fathers is not to be regarded in the Writings of Hierome there is not a word of true Faith in Christ sound Religion Tertullian is very Superstitious I have holden Origen long since accursed of Chrysostome I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk I weigh not him a hair Cyprian is a weak Divine affirming there yet further that the Apology of Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctors of the Church yea even Augustine himself Calvin L. 3. Inst C. 5. It was a custome 1300. years ago that is in the second age to pray for the dead but all of that time says he I confess were carried away with Errour And in the fourth Book of his Institutions Chapter 9. he will stand to no Decision of Councils Fathers Bishops but try all by Scripture alone granting generally all the Western Churches to have defended Popery Resp ad Versipell p. 134. Melancthon on the first Cor. 3. speaks plain presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscâ—â—ed the Doctrine of Justice by Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised new Worships In like manner Peter Martyr 1. devotis p. 477. that in the Church Errours did begin Immediately after the Apostles and therefore as long as we stand to Councils and Fathers we shall be alwayes in the same Errours Whitaker cont 2. q. 5. C. 7. it is true which Calvin and the Centurists have written that the antient Church did Err in many things as touching Limbo free Will merit of Works c. Chemnitius in Exam. conc trid pa. 200. most of the Fathers did not dispute but avouch that the souls of Martyrs heard the petitions of those who prayed to them they went to the Monuments of Martyrs and Invocated Martyrs by name D. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory grants Tertullian Cyprian Hierome Augustine do witness that Sacrifice for the Dead is a Tradition of the Apostles yea in his retentive says Prayer for the dead prevailed within the first 300. years And in his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick That Pope Victor in the second Age did practise Supremacy in the Church The Centurists do reprehend Cyprian Origen Tertullian in the third Century and S. Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters Primacy as they do also S. Cyprian in the third Century of Superstition for saying that the Priest at Mass holds the place of Christ and offers up Sacrifice to God the Father Sacerdotem Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi deo patri sacrificium offerre And generally confess the Fathers of the third Age do witness and that not in obscure terms invocation of Saints videas in doctorum hujus soeculi Scriptis non obscura vestigia invocationis Sanctorum They say further in the second Century S. Irenaeus admitteth free Will even in Spiritual actions and that S. Clement every where asserteth it so that the Doctors and Parstors of that Age were in this manner of blindness say they reckoning out in this number S. Cyprian Theophilus Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Justine Irenaeus Athenagoras Tatianus c. As doth also Abraham Scultetus with them Yea Doctor Humphrey in his Jesuitisms pa. 2. and else where Eccl. C. 15. says it cannot be denyed but that S. Irenaeus S. Clement and other Fathers of the first and second age called Apostolicks for that they were Disciples of the Apostles or immediately followed them have in their Writings the Opinion of free Will and Merit of Works The Cenâ—ury Writers and Scultetus Tax for the same Clement of Alexandria S. Cyprian Justin Martyr c. In the third Century they say Origen made good Works the cause of Justification and in the 5. accuse S. Chrysostome for handling the Doctrine of Justification impurely as attributing Merit to Works M. Whitaker saith that not only Cyprian but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that Errour as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin and to satisfie to Gods Justice in so far as Luther on the 4. ch to the Gallathians calls for this Hierome Ambrose Augustine and other Fathers Justice-workers of the old Papacy And M. Wotton in his defence of M. Perkins forbeareth not to censure for this very Point of Merit the undoubted and confessed Writings of Ignatius Disciple of S. John Chemnitius in his Examine par 4. p. 20. affirmeth the Antient Fathers Erred in making Pilgrimages to Relicks of Saints and Osiander with the Centurists Cent. 4. that S. Hierome did foolishly contend that the Relicks of Saints ought to be worshipped For owning Traditions Chemnitius in his Exam. Par. 1. p. 87.89.90 reproves Clement of Alexandria Origen Epiphanius Hierome Ambrose Basil Maximus Damacene and M. Whitaker de Sacr. Script S. Chrysostome as speaking inconsiderately when he admitteth them D. Reynolds in his Concla 1. p. 689. somewhat more moderate leaves the censuring of S. Epiphanius for this to the Church M. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwrights Reply grants Ignatius Disciple of the Apostles to have said of Hereticks They do not admit the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins And M. Beacon in his Treatise the Relicks of Rome says the Mass was begotten conceived and born anon after the Apostles time if it be true what Historiographers write Calvin L. 1. Inst C. 4. confesseth in the Primative Church Confession Pennance and Absolution by the Priests and the Century Writers that in the times of S. Cyprian and Tertullian there was used private confession even of thoughts and lesser sins then so commanded as necessary Where any judicious Reader may evidently see how by chief Protestant Authours both the Primitive Church and the Fathers are censured for many Errours Yea and for the very same which are most objected against the Romish Church a most invincible Argument from the confession of our Adversaries That the Church and Fathers of the three first Ages did teach the self same Doctrine with the present Roman Church and
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
every one Point of our Religion and Faith Now to prove what I have set down to be the only true solid and infallible Grounds of the true Christian and Catholick Faith 1. That Scripture is this Ground is granted by M. Menzeis and all Protestants so needs no proof as to them 2. That sole Scripture without the Declaration and Exposition of the Church as an infallible Propounder Expounder and Judge cannot be this Ground is proved at length in my fourth Section and presently you shall see it again 3 That Apostolical Traditions are necessarily joyned with Scripture Is 1. proved from clear Scriptures most expresly commanding us to receive them 2 Thes 2.13 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or by Epistle 2 Thess 3.6 Now I command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the Traditions which he received 1 Corinth 11.2 Remember me in all things and keep the Traditions as I delivered them to you 2. By the Authority of the Fathers of the first three ages quoted in my sixth Section with that of S. Chysostome S. Augustine and others above mentioned 3. From manifest and Demonstrative reason in some chief Points which all Christians believe without any express Scripture as I have instanced in persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the keeping of Sunday c. and in many Heresies condemned by the Church Councils Fathers yea and Protestants themselves without any clear Scripture can be brought against them as S. Augustine avoucheth of the Errour of Donatists c. Rests then only to prove that the Church's Authority as an infallible Propounder is necessary to make all these Divine and infallible Truths in themselves contained either in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible Grounds to us For this I presuppose 1. From the Apostle S. Paul Hebrews 11. That without Faith it is impossible to please God 2. From the same Apostle Ephes 4.5 That there is but one Faith one Baptism one Lord JESUS Christ 3. From him again Hebr. 10.23 That we must hold fast the profession of our Faith without wavering From which Texts importing the Necessity of Faith the Unity of Faith and the steadiness in believing required in Divine Faith it doth follow that some infallible means which all may make use of must be appointed by God to attain to this Faith so absolutely necessary to all For to say God hath commanded us and that under the pain of Eternal Damnation to believe undoubtedly and not furnished infallible means to attain to such belief were to accuse his Goodness Providence and Wisdom And this no Christian or rational man will deny so that all the Question that can be moved is about the infallible means to attain without doubt or wavering to Divine Faith which may perswade infallibly all sort of persons that such things are revealed by God removing all reasonable doubts that can arise either concerning Gods Revelation which is the formal object of Faith or the things he hath revealed which makes its material Object and this means I say again must not only be solid and infallible objectively and in it self as M. Menzeis will have the Protestant Religion and Grounds of it but also subjectively and to us it being the same thing as to make a perswasive motive not to appear and not to be according to that Maxime Idem est non esse non apparere Wherefore a ground however infallible in it self yet not appearing so to us and known to be such availeth nothing as to our belief The Mathematicians Demonstrate the Sun to be many times greater then the Earth and their Demonstration no doubt is both certain and evident in it self yet never shall perswade a Country clown that it is greater then his Cap for that no Demonstration of this is clear and certain to him Even so is it in the Ground of Faith it must be both solid and and infallible in it self and it must be known to be such by all who prudently rely upon it This presupposed to conclude all that has been said and fully prove both the Ground of Faith in the Catholick Roman Church solid as the Rock it is built on and the means for conveying it to us infallible I first show against M. Menzeis or rather for him and his conversion the necessity of an infallible Propounder of what â—e must undoubtedly believe for if this can be made good he engageth again to turn Papist 2. That the true Church is this infallible Propounder â— That the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church 1. Then as to the necessity of an infallible Propounder If no men no Church be infallible in propounding then holy Scripture and consequently all that is contained in it is only delivered to us by fallible means and so no infallible certainty in Faith The consequence is clear for most infallible Truths may be changed altered corrupted and both fallibly and falsly propounded to us as the first and chief Mysteries of the Christian Religion by Hereticks have been 2. Faith comes of hearing says the Apostle then as there be infallible believers and hearers so must there be infallible Teachers for Hearing and Teaching are Correlatives 3. No other infallible means is or can be assigned by Protestants to Ignorants yea to all who understand not the Original Languages for what is contained in Scripture save only the Authority of their Pastors and Church but this Authority in propounding is not acknowledged infallible by them then no infallible means is left 4. There is no less necessity the Church be infallible in propounding then the Evangelists in penning and the Apostles in Preaching no disparity can be given Gods Word being equally infallible in it self before both as iâ— is now 5. Our Saviour Christ most expresly owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting the Jews had not sinned in refusing to believe him if by his Works and Wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God and consequently infallible in his Doctrine 6. For this the gift of Miracles is given to the Apostles and left in the Church to show their infallible assistance in propounding If you answer that was necessary at first but not now because it is the same Doctrine you teach which the Apostles did propound infallibly You say nothing for that it is we doubt of or rather undoubtedly we deny that your Doctrine is the same You presently appeal to Scripture but in vain till first you answer to all that is objected in my fourth Section how ye know infallibly what ye call Scripture to be Gods Word then the Letter you read to be uncorrupted the sense you give to the genuine c. and to all the clear places of Scripture I have brought against most of your particular Tenets I do not here ask
ye 〈◊〉 prove that to be infallibly Gods Word which was preached by the Apostles this they did sufficiently themselves Neither that the Doctrine of Authentick Scripture is infallibly true that was also done before there was a Protestant in the world but coming from those Generals which make all the Answers of your best Writers we desire ye shew by some infallible sign that your Bible is Gods pure Word and your Glosses on it conform to the Sense and Letter To reply Scripture doth evidence it self by its innate light to be Gods Word so that all may sufficiently know it by this and all be obliged to believe it is refuted by Christ himself presently telling us his own hearers had not sinned in not receiving it as such if he had given no External Evidence of his infallibility in propounding for as I have remarked above Scripture hath no greater Efficacy Evidence or Light in our Books then in our blessed Saviours own mouth Neither will the Majesty of the Stile or the purity of the Doctrine do it both these being as great in the the Books of Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus which Protestants reject as in the Ecclesiastes and Canticles which they receive Besides that the first of these two is imaginary as to the Letter there being less Majesty in the Letter of Scripture then in the Philosophers and Orators Writings as is conâ—essed by Paul And the second is in question chiefly in Protestant Bibles which do not agree with any Original or Copy that before Luther can be found if we trust their own Authours whom I have quoted Lastly If all Councils all the Fathers all the Pastors of the Church be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture against us for we will receive nothing but upon infallible Authority and all their Volumes of Controversie shall not come to one line Yea further could they bring Scripture for what they teach as they will never be able to do yet without an infallible Propounder and Judg well might we dispute but conclude nothing wrangle but agree in nothing to the Worlds end For as sole Scripture without an infallible Church propounding and Explaining it so a naked Church without infallible Marks and a Doctrine without infallible Motives prove nothing Secondly I say the true Church is this infallible propounder on whose Authority we must rely For proof of this It is to be observed that in holy Scripture there be three Foundations or Grounds of Faith mentioned by the Apostle S. Paul The 1. Is our blessed Saviour Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Another Foundation no man can lay then that is laid which is Jesus Christ The 2. Is the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.29 Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets The 3. The Church 1 Tim. 3. The house of God which is the Church of the living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth From which clear places of Scripture I remark 1. The Foundation of Faith is ever a Living Visible and Speaking Ground to wit Christ the Apostles Prophets and Church the dead Letter of Scripture being no where called this Ground 2. That these three Grounds of Faith both in the Old and New Law properly speaking make but one according to the same Apostle for another Foundation no man can lay sayes he beside Christ JESUS So that the Prophets Apostles and Church must not be thought different Foundations from Christ all their Vertue in upholding Faith and Veracity in propounding Faith Whence they are called the Foundation and Ground of it coming from the particular assistance of his Spirit Strengthening Inspiring and Directing them Hence also is their infallibility for the Foundation of Christ stands sure says the Apostle 2 Tim. 2.19 And consequently is altogether infallible 3. That the Church here called a Ground which supporteth our Faith is not to be said the only diffusive body of all true Believers but more the Representative Church in her chief Pastors as the Prophets and Apostles in old Wherefore some few Catholick Authors so often objected as holding the Canons and Decrees of Councils only infallible when they are generally received by the whole Church in my opinion are highly mistaken and surely to be understood if any in Express terms speaks so of Councils not wholly Oecumenical or not Lawfully convocated and knownly approved by the Pope or whereof some rational doubt may be made in things essentially required in which cases I grant the general belief of the Church could best warrant the infallibility of their Decrees Otherwise a few particular persons might cope with General Councels as Luther and his Adherents at first Vendicating to himself the Negative voice as if he had been high Bishop in the whole Church which were to take away all possible means of preserving Unity in Faith yea to foment all Schisms and Divisions every one pretending the whole Church holds no such Doctrine whil'st he who is a Member dissents So that such Doctors if they should allow no obligation in receiving the Decrees of the Representative Church to the which they do and must submit even this their Sentence could neither be thought Catholicks or rational men But however some few speak or think God did promise us an infallible Church Isa 2. V. 2 3. Wherein he should teach us his ways and judge amongst the Nations himself not personally for he never went out of Jewry but by her Pastors He has establish'd this infallible Church in St. Matth. 16. V. 19. Upon the Rock Christ hath commanded us to hear her in St. Matth. 18. V. 17. And the persons we should hear in this Church as well as the end wherefore we would hear them and rest upon their Authority is clearly set down in these words 4. Ephes 11. He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry till we all come in the Union of Faith that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine c. From all which places of Scripture it is Demonstratively manifest that as the true Church is infallible and we bound to hear her yea and to rely upon her Authority as the Pillar and Ground of our Faith so is it most evidently clear that as she speaketh only to us infallibly by the voice of her Pastors and teachers united it is them we should hear seeing God in her not personally as I have said but by them both Judgeth and Teacheth as the infallible Propounders of his Divine Truths with the Prophets and Apostles in old and the infallible Judges of our Controversies and Debates 2. The same is proven from the unanimous consent of the Fathers quoted at length in my third Section for the infallibility both of the Church and Councils And may be confirmed even by the confession of many Rational and Moderate Protestants who receive the Scripture and consequently all and every Point contained in it
visible in her Pastors and people by a continued succession from the Apostles which held S. Augustine in her Tenet me in Ecclesiâ says he Successie facerdotum I am holden in the Church by the succession of Priests then he reckons out the only high Priests and Bishops of Rome as the lawful Successors of S. Peter as in his 162. Epistle he says in the Roman Church has ever been the Authority of the Apostolick Sea In ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit authoritas No other having unity in Faith or the means to preserve it by General Councils which have all been holden in her No other and specially the Protestant Church having either Universality or Antiquity as is clear from their late Rise and little Extent Whatever Protestants and other Sectaries sophistically or Subtilly Object against all this is but weak and should stumble none many stronger Objections Atheists Infidels and Hereticks have made against God our Saviour Christ and the holy Scripture The first Principles most clear by the light of Nature suffer their Objections whence the Scepticks amongst Philosophers as the Socinians amongst Hereticks those admitting of nothing as unquestionably clear and these as infallibly true Wherefore to conclude all I have said the Catholick Roman Church being so gloriously marked so generally attested and so notoriously known to be the true Church established by Christ and his Apostles ever conspicuous and visible ever working Miracles converting Infidels making Saints ever holding Councils deciding controversies keeping unity opposing Hereticks and maintaining true Faith upon Solid and Infallible Grounds having so clear testimony from the Fathers from Scripture from God having charisma veritatis certum the Gift and Grace of certain and infallible Truth says S. Irenaeus origines firmas sure beginnings saith Tertullian Veritatem undequaque munitam verity solidly grounded and guarded says S. Epiphaniâ—s haeres 55. authoritatem stabilissimam most solid and constant Authority says S. Augustine Ep. â—8 may 〈◊〉 not say justly with our Countryman Richard of S. Victor l. 1. de Trinit c. 2. Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus If it be Error we do believe in this Church and upon her Authority it is thou O God who hath deceived us for with such signs this Doctrine is confirmed that it can be from no other but thee Let the impartial Reader here compare both Protestant Grounds and Doctrine with ours and see after all their Objections and Cavils what they bring for their new doubtful and inconstant Opinions against our old infallible and constant Faith what against our just claim our clear right our long and uninterrupted possession They come in with the Scripture in hand as the Fundamental Law against which there can be no prescription but what Scripture I pray you save that they have wrested from us olim possideo prior possideo says Tertullian it was first delivered to us we have it of old and we conserve it whole and intire But not so Protestants the many Books they reject shows it is but like a torn bond in their hands blotted in as many places as there be things put in of new or others rased out in their Bibles And then as they bring it it is altogether forceless and can make no security as a rent Charter without Subscription Witness or Seal Gods Subsciption would be seen and acknowledged if it were presented by them as at first by the Apostles with Supernatural 〈…〉 Motives witnesses if they could show it handed down from age to age by infallible Propounders his-Seal in Miracles But the Protestant Church granting her self to be fallible and being destitute both of infallible Motives of credibility and miracles can be no sure propounder of Gods Word neither can it as propounded by her be any sure ground to us Yea Examine well all the Principles Protestants build their Pretended Reformation upon and you shall find them all mearly Whimsecal Paradoxal and improbable For what Probability can there be 1. Of what they say against us that the Popish Church as they call it which they grant to be most antient should have continued so long and ever possessed the greatest part of the Christian World holding Councils condemning Heresies converting Infidels working Miracles and that the Protestant Church which they will have to be the Catholick or Universal all this time was no where to be found never once made mention of by any Author without Councils Statutes or Laws published to the World never converting one Kingdom opposing one Heresie having one Writer of note witnessing her Faith and Doctrine her doings or sufferings her Pastors or People That the antient Congregation diffused through the whole World should be Heretical and the new one in some few corners be Orthodox That corruption of Doctrine did enter so insensibly into the Roman Church that no Councils no Fathers did see or censure it who have observed many lesser things in private men that all the Fathers I have quoted in my 6. Section should have unanimously holden ever since the Apostles what Protestants call Popish Errors or that so many Learned men in the Roman Church who have dived into the very depth of most abstract Sciences could not see before Luther what in Scripture was clear 2. What probability for what they vent of their first Apostles and Reformers that God did send one Apostate Friar who in the Monastery as he confesseth lived so mortified chast and devote but quitting it is so hurried with his passions of Lust and stings of Conscience even for this his new Doctrine as may be seen in the Preface of his Works in Latine and his Table Conferences without any visible mark of his Mission to reform both his Word and Church in opposition to all her ordinary Pastors at that time that the Church before him I mean Luther as he himself glories should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture of true Worship true form of Government c. that notwithstanding so many solemn promises made by God the Word should not depart out of the mouths of Pastors nor the true Church be so much as obscured yet that Christ should have suffered the light of the Gospel to be under a Bushel and the Cuhrch invisible for more then a thousand years That his Reformation should be the work of God and the world ever worse since it That Protestancy should bring back true Faith which is divided into so many Heresies and has caused so many Troubles Divisions and Schisms 3. What show of probability or solidity in Protestant grounds that the ground of Faith which they will have to be sole Scripture as every one reads and understands should support all the Heresies in the World That this Ground given us for keeping of Unity should make all our Divisions in Religion To deny the Authority and Tradition of the Church infallible and yet take Scripture on it that the whole Representative Church in a General Council is not infallible in its Decrees and yet private men reading Scripture are infallible in what they believe That what was at the Margent in their first Bibles would be now put in the Text That pure Scripture should be a cleer Ground for Protestancy and not one Point specifical or special to it to be found in Scripture in express words In fine that Protestants should have the pure Word and rely on the Originals their best Writers granting they have not found so much as an Authentick Copy any where If you will see what probability at last they have either for their Doctrine or Church consider amongst Protestants with the Author of a late Answer in Writ Faith without Unity a Body without united Members a Law without a Judg a Church without an Altar Religion without a Sacrifice Sacraments that do not sanctifie Divine Service without Religious Ceremonies Preachers without a call Doctrine without Infallibility Belief without a ground Commands impossible to be kept Exhortation to what is not in our power Reward without Merit Reprobation without demerit Sin punished where there is no free will new Apostles without Mission or Miracles Reformation without Authority the private Spirit against the whole Church new lights against old revealed Verities single mens Opinions against the common consent of the Fathers Scripture received or rejected upon the Catalogue of the Jews in a word wavering Pastors unsetled Government unstable Faith FINIS