Substantial Points partly in written partly unwritten Institutions In the same Age S. Ignatius apud Euseb l. 3. Hist C. 36. doth exhort all to stick to the Traditions of the Apostles In the second Age S. Irenaeus L. 3. C. 4. what if the Apostles had left no Scriptures at all ought we not to follow the Order of Tradition which they have delivered unto those to whom they did commit their Churches and to which assent many Barbarous Nations who believe in Christ without Character or Ink. In the same Age Origen Hom. 5. in lib. num there are many things in Ecclesiastical Traditions which all ought to do and on the 6. Ch. to the Romans he sayes to baptize Infants is one In the third Age Tertullian de praescr teacheth Hereticks are to be confuted rather by Tradition then Scripture and L. de Cor. mil. speaking of the Ceremonies of Baptism the Sign of the Cross Sacrifice for the Dead c. he addeth of these and such like things if thou require a ground in Scripture thou shalt find none Tradition did begin them Custome has confirmed their Practice and Faith doth observe them In the same Age S. Cyprian l. 1. Ep. 12. says he that is Baptized ought to be anointed but of this Unction there is no mention in Scripture and in his second B. Ep. 3. he admonisheth Water should be mixed with Wine in the Chalice at Mass upon a like Tradition from the Apostles See in what I have cited heretofore how the Fathers have received the Scriptures upon Tradition and many most substantial Points with it and upon due consideration of all this let any one judg whether the Fathers of the first three Ages in these their most Authentick Writings I know do make a ground for Protestant or Catholick Doctrine speaking so plainly the chiefest most Substantial Points of our Faith were delivered partly in Written and partly in Unwritten Institutions exhorting us to stick to Traditions conserved in the Church which serve for conversion of Infidels conviction of Hereticks and generally ought to be kept by all 3. Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Yet in the first Age the very Liturgies of the Apostles are extant and in that of S. James we offer unto thee O Lord the unbloody Sacrifice for our sins And S. Andrew in the Book of his Passion written by his Disciples sayes unto the Tyrant I sacrifice daily the Immaculate Lamb to Almighty God And in the same Age S. Clement Ep. 3. It is not lawful to celebrate Masses in other places but in these wherein the proper Bishop shall appoint these things the Apostles receieved from our Lord and delivered to you S. Ignatius Ep. ad Smyrnens It is not lawful without a Bishop to offer or Sacrifice or Celebrate Mass In the second Age S. Irenaeus l. 4. ad u. heres C. 32. calls the Body and Blood of Christ the Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offereth to God through the whole world And Tertullian l. de Veland virg it is not permitted that women should teach or speak in the Church nor Baptize nor Offer Origen hom 13. in Exod. you think your selves guilty and unworthy if any part of the Consecrated Host be lost through your negligence S. Hippolitus Orat. de Antichr bringeth in Christ speaking thus Come you Bishops and Priests who have daily offered my precious Body and Blood How clear are the following Fathers S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Athanasius S. Basil c. with S. Augustine for this as even in the third Age S. Cyprian Serm. de coena dom the Eucharist is a Holocaust to purge our sins and in his Epistle ad Cyrill he calls it a Sacrifice seven times 4. Protestants deny the Real Presence and Transubstantion But in the first age S. Ignatius in his Epistle ad Smyrnenses often cited by Eusebius Athanasius S. Jerome Theodoret and other antients speaking of the Saturnian Hereticks says They admit not of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours flesh which suffered for our sins and in his Epistle to the Romans I do not delight in any corruptible food nor in the pleasures of this life I desire the bread of God the heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ the Son of God S. Denis Areop l. de Eccl. Hierarch C. 3. O most Divine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe mercifully to open the Veils of those signifying Signs wherein thou hidest thy self and appear plainly unto us In the second Age S. Irenaeus l. 4. C. 34. disputing against the Hereticks who denyed Christ to be the Son of God asks how it shall be manifested unto them that bread upon which thanks are given is the body of our Lord and the Challice his Blood if they say he is not the Son of the Maker of the world S. Cyprian serm de coena dom The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh In the third Age Origen We eat the bread offered by Prayer made a certain holy Body And again hom 5. in div loca Evang. When thou receivest the holy Food thou Eatest and Drinkest the Body and Blood of our Lord then the Lord entreth under thy roof c. In the same Age Tertullian l. 4. contra Marcion C. 40. The Bread taken and distributed to his Disciples he made his body What can be said more clearly then all this either for the Real Presence or Transubstantiation which is nothing but the change of the Bread in Christs Body here so plainly asserted Add to this for communion under one kind denyed by Protestants it is said to have been so given to Infants by S. Denis l. Eccl. Hierach C. ult to both Infants and sick by S. Cyprian serm de lapsis n. 10. and by Tertullian l. ad Uxorem to have been carried to private houses yea and over Sea by Eusebius l. 5. hest which could not be done but under one kind 5. Protestants deny purgatory and prayers for the dead But in the first Age S. Denis Eccl. Hierarch part 3. C. 7. says the Venerable Prelate approaching powereth forth his holy Prayer upon the dead by that Prayer he doth beseech the Divine clemency to forgive all the sins of the dead committed trhough humane Infirmities and to place him in light and in the Region of the living In the same Age S. Clement l. 8. Const C. 48. has a long Prayer accustomed to be said for the dead Again the same S. Clem. Ep. 1. de S. Petro tells us S. Peter taught them among other works of mercy to pray and give alms for the dead And in the Liturgy of S. James Apostle we have Prayers also for them Tertullian l. de Corona militis numbreth prayer for the dead amongst the Traditions of the Apostles
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
consequently according to M. Menzeis Rule the Arian Heresie must prevail neither will he ever be able standing to his Rule to answer an Arian Cobler making this Objection as Learned Writers remark Eutyches conferring these two places The Word was made flesh in S. John 1. and the water was made Wine in S. John 2. fell in this detestable Blasphemy That the Humane Nature was changed into the Divine as the Water was converted into Wine And without all doubt again the second is the clearer place to us the first that two Natures should be united in one Person surpassing as the Divines teach even the Natural capacity of Angels Manicheus explains the same passage The Word was made flesh Figuratively and in show as Protestants This is my body and that by a clear place of S. Paul to the Phil. 2. v. 7. where it is said Christ took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men Most clear words as would seem in favour of this Heresie and such that if Protestants could bring any with as great a show against the real presence all their Pulpits should sound with them till their hearers became deaf But there be none in all the Scripture so clear against the real presence I say as the words quoted have a seeming clearness against the real Incarnation of Christ the four Evangelists and S. Paul speaking in so express and formal words for the former that the Fathers with St. Chrysostome Hom. 6. have recourse to the words for the real presence as clearer to prove that giving in the Sacrament his body and blood he must have taken the Nature of Man Nestorius on the contrary will have these words of S. John the 2. Dissolve ye this Temple and in three dayes I shall raise it again to be taken Litterally and not Figuratively and upon this holds out a new Heresie that the Son of God did dwell only in his Holy Humanity as in a Temple Valentine and Apollinaris reading in S. John 3. no man hath ascended into heaven but he that descended from Heaven gain sayes the Mystery of Christs Incarnation and wil needs have his flesh to have descended from Heaven as his Manhood afterwards ascended thither And this Heretical Exposition they confirm by conferring the ensuing places in St. Paul to the Ephesians 4. He that descended the same is also he who ascended And in the first to the Corinths 15. The first man of Earth Earthly the second Man of Heaven Heavenly A thousand such Errors in the greatest Fundamentals of Christianity have Hereticks drawn out of the clear Fountains and Brooks of holy Writ by the deceivable and deceiving search of weighing places Why not Protestants with them they sail on the same Sea and deep of Scriptures with them they direct their course by the same Card of conferring clearer and obscurer places the same Rule they apply to all the crooked lines of their Errors and Deviations What can be answered to all this M. Menzeis Principle always standing No Infallible visible Judg but to have recourse with him to the well disposed mind wherefore Thirdly I say this doth not yet satisfie to the Question no not with all the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis doth bring it being as hidden Intricate Doubtful and Inscrutable who performs all these Conditions aright as to find out certainly and infallibly the true sense of Scripture without an Infallible Judge Yea supposing one uses them aright yet let us learn from no lesser Protestant then Doctor Jeremy Taylor what certainty of the true sense men can attain by them His words are so remarkable to my purpose in a Discourse of liberty in Prophesying Sect. 4. that here I even set them down at length First then says he Sometime the sense is drawn forth by the Context and Connexion of Parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three Antecedents and Subjects spoken of What Man or what Rule shall ascertain me that I make my Reference true by drawing the Relation to such an Antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not Secondly One other great pretence is the conference of places which is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sense alteration of Circumstances or difference of Style amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most diligent observer Thirdly Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason but it is with Reason as with mens tasts When a man speaks reason it is but reason he should be heard c yet because it must be reason that must judg of reason unless other mens understandings were of the same Air the same Constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed unto by another mans reason especially because such reasonings as usually are in Explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute Circumstances and Particularities in which it is so easy to be deceived and so hard to speak Reason regularly and always that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived Fourthly Others pretend to Expound Scripture by Analogy of Faith This he says is but a Chimera a thing in the Clouds which varies like the right and left hand of a Pillar c. Fifthly Consulting of Originals is thought a great matter to Interpretation of Scriptures but this is to small purpose for indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek and rectifie Translations But I know no man that says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy certain to be understood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least in the Language c. Then numb 6. he saith in general All these ways of Interpreting Scriptures which of themselves are good helps are made either by design or by our infirmities ways of Intricating and Involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learn their Doctrines from Scripture but come to the understanding of Scriptures with preconceptions and Idea's of Doctrines of their own and then no wonder Scripture look like Pictures wherein every man in the room thinks they look on him only and that wheresoever he stands or how often soever he changes his Station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the Promoter of our Disease and our Meat becomes the matter of sickness and the Mischief is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it For there is no Rule no Limit no certain Principle by which all men may be guided to a certain and so Infallible Interpretation that he can with any Equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of Controversie or ambiguity Osiander in his confutations of the Book which Melancton wrote against him observes there
2.24 Ye see then how that by Works a man is justified and not by Faith only Is it not to protest against his Divine Appointment again and his Word to teach that good Works done in his Grace and by his Grace merit nothing when through all the Scripture Heaven is promised as a reward to our Works and in St. Matth. 10. It is said Christ shall render to every one according to his Works Is it not to protest against his Divine Authority and Word to deny the Real Presence All the Evangelists speaking so clearly This is my Body this is my Blood Is it not to protest against his express Command and Word to forbid Images as Idols He having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the Ark of the Covenant Exod. 25. Is it not to protest against his own Practice and Word to deny we should honour his Saints whom God himself Honours yea and glorifies Them that honour me I will honour 1 Reg. 2.30 Is it not to protest against his Dispensation and Word to deny the Power given to his Apostles and their Successours to forgive sins he having said in S. John 20.23 Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven Is it not to protest against the Satisfaction which his Justice requires for our sins even after the guilt is forgiven to deny Purgatory The Scripture witnessing that he did exact satisfaction of David and many holy penitent sinners after he had forgiven their sins And S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. If any ones work burn he shall suffer loss but himself shall be saved yet so as by fire where we have clearly a purging and punishing yet saving fire Is it not to protest against Christs Eternal Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech Ps 109. and S. Paul Hebr. 5. to reject the unbloody and unspotted Sacrifice of the Mass which the Prophet Malachy 1. C. 10. V. calls a clean Oblation to be offered amongst the Gentiles from the rising of the Sun even to the setting and that in every place Is it not to protest against all God commands us and his Word to take away free Will in obeying Deut. 30.19 I have set before you life and death chuse To conclude what Point is there in all the Catholick Faith which Protestants protest against which is not either Directly against Gods Divine Attributes Christs Mediation and Dispensation his Churches Authority his Saints and Servants honour some part of Christian duty belief or life or generally not against his express written Word as it is plain in it self or expounded by the unanimous consent of the Fathers And yet so impudently bold is this spirit of Heresie as to dare say that that is contained in Scripture which Scripture most evidently contradicts that is only in opposition to Popish Errours which impugnes the very Fundamental and most substantial Verities of the Gospel and Christian Faith that by the pure and uncorrupted word it will reform the Church when corrupting the Word and correcting the Church as subject to failings and Errours in Religion it ruinateth both Church and Word What has been said in this and the former Section further instanced in two Particular Controverted Points The Real Presence and two Sacraments THE Protestant Religion is The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture Sole Scripture is their Ground and in it all Fundamentals are clear Says M. Menzeis How false all this is in general doth evidently I hope appear by what I have said above Here I instance only further two particular Points he handles at length the better to make see the falshood of his strong and bold Assertions in the weakness and nullity of his Proofs And this first in his refuting one of our chief Tenets viz. The Real Presence then in maintaining one of his own to wit That there are two Sacraments and no more 1. Then to prove Christs body is not really in the Sacrament these most clear words This is my body must not says he be taken in the literal sense but Figuratively why so doth the Scripture say this no no Scripture is brought What then a Philosophical Demonstration as he pretends The word this in the literal sense is inexplicable and the Proposition implyeth a contradiction ergo c. But why the Pronoun this inexplicable because let Romanists strain their wits Answers M. Menzeis and squeeze their Authors they cannot tell what it can signifie whether the Bread Body or something indeterminately Who would not laugh here to see Mr. Menzeis a professor of Divinity take such a weak Argument for a Demonstration most like in this to a certain Romantick Knight Errand call'd Don Quicsot who imagining to himself a Windmil to be a Gyant and then fighting with it as with a Hector he did both blunt his Sword and batter his Reputation For what I pray you doth the Pronone this signifie in any proportion but Indeterminately till it be determined to some particular thing by the following words So that let a man say a hundred times this he determines nothing but by the ensuing words as here This is my Body makes a determinated sense the last words determinating the first which alone and of it self signifies nothing determinately and so to seek what it signifies determinately alone and before the other words be pronounced is to quibble and speak non-sense by seeking a determinate Object under a word which of its nature hath none And this is the first part of his Demonstration for establishing by a Logick Sophism without any clear Scripture a main Point of Religion The second part of this Demonstration is That it implyes a manifest contradiction a true Affirmative Proposition de praesenti should produce its Object Why this because in the instant of Nature wherein the Proposition is conceiv'd before its Object as the cause before its Effect the Proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the Object in that instant is not The same Argument he urgeth in the instant of time wherein the Copula is pronounced or Particle is before the two last words And for that Catholick Authours give many and diverse Solutions of this Argument as the Custome is in the School he will be satisfied with none But because Mr. Menzeis is good at Retortions I retort his Argument thus Is not this a true Affirmative Proposition de praesenti which produces its Object in St. John 15. This is my command that ye love one another Now what difficulty in the former Proposition either in the word this or in the Instants of Nature and Time or that a true affirmative Proposition make its own Object which is not here do not these words make a new Command says Christ as the former his body what if M. Menzeis could have brought an Axiome of Philosophy against the Real Presence as that Maxime so commonly propounded and answered in the School quae sunt eadem cum uno tertio sunt eadem inter se proving as would seem that
the three persons being Identified and the same thing with the Godhead and Divine Nature cannot be really distinguished one from another Should a Christian bely Christ who is the first Verity upon pretence he speaketh against natural reason who will so reason with God let him hear S. Bernards most Excellent saying Ep. 109. What is more against Reason then that one should strive to go beyond Reason by force of Reason But true it is no Mystery of our Faith is against Reason though some there be above the reach of Humane Weakness Wherefore as the former Maxime though much stronger then what M. Menzeis here objects is shown to have no repugnancy with the distinction of persons by our Divines So I easily answer him the Proposition is true in the instant of Nature the Object being only extant in the instant of Time wherein the Proposition is compleatly ended because it affirmeth only its Object to be extant in that instant of time and not before In that instant of Nature wherein the Proposition precedes its Object it affirms indeed the Object to be but not for that instant as I say truly this day what will be to morrow In instanti naturae vera est propositio sed non pro instanti naturae say they in the School But M. Menzeis Argument if solid would prove against all Phylosophy there could be no Practick Knowledge which hath no real Object but what it makes to it self for that in such conceptions of the mind the act of the understanding is ever prior to the Object as its cause and so in that instant of priority if his Objection have place we shall have a knowledge of nothing because in it the Object is not Yea it should prove in all these places of Scripture Let the Light be made let the Firmament be made young man I say unto thee rise I will be thou healed and in such like the Omnipotent Word of God not to be effectual if the words did not produce what they signifie as these other words This is my body So that M. Menzeis here taking this his trifling whimsical Sophism for an unanswerable Argument shews not only his weakness both in Phylosophy and Grammar but also manifestly that Hereticks contradict Christs most clear words and the Authority of his Church upon most insignificant and frivolous objections And upon such trifling Sophisms shall any Christian refuse to believe what Christ hath taught in so express terms what the Evangelists have so accurately set down in holy Writ what the Fathers have confirmed in so many Volumes what the Martyrs have subscribed with their blood what the Church doth testifie by her Pastors and practise what God hath sealed with so many Miracles and Wonders sometime appearing in the Consecrate Host in form of a man sometimes when it has been stabbed by Jews and Hereticks making it gush out in blood sometimes by its vertue casting out Devils or quenching fire as so many Authentick Records both of History and Fathers do witness O boldness and impudence of Heresie so to cavil at Christs own words and yet proudly pretend pure Scripture is its only Ground 2. To instance how M. Menzeis again from Scripture clear in Fundamentals proves that Fundamental Tenet of Protestants yea their proper and only Tenet all the rest being borrowed from old condemed Heresies as we have seen There be two Sacraments and no more After a huge work in his last Paper and a whole year spent before the answer to this Query did appear instead of clear Scripture which he was only desired to bring he gives the following discourse 1. To clear the state of the Question he says know we do not affirm that the word Sacrament is to be found in Scripture 2. We understand by a Sacrament of the New Testament a Substantial Visible Sign instituted by God recorded in the Gospel to Seal up the Promises of Salvation which is to endure in the Church to the end of the world 3. We do affirm in this sense there be only two proper Sacraments in the New Testament Baptisme and the Lords Supper 4. Then coming to prove there be two Sacraments and two only that there be two he proves it thus to Baptism and the Lords Supper agree all the parts of the foresaid Description for you have says he the Divine Institution of Baptizing with water Mat. 28.19 and of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. That they are Seals of the promises of Salvation is no less clear And first of Baptism Act. 2.38 39. and also of the Lords Supper in so much that the Cup is called the New Testament which you must acknowledge to be no proper speech but it is only so called because it is sigillum foederis hence also in the Institution mention is made of the remission of sins and of the giving of the Body of Christ and sheding of his blood for us holding forth that forgiveness of sins and all other blessings purchased by the Death of Christ and promised in the new Covenant are by this Ordinance sealed to the people of God And that these Ordinances are to continue to the end of the word is no less manifest from Matt. 28.20 and 1 Cor. 11.26 In fine he proves there be only two Sacraments by this Argument more cannot be produced out of Scripture as shall be proved solutione objectionum ergo c. Now to reflect how judiciously and learnedly M. Menzeis here proves from Scripture there be two Sacraments and two only 1. He doth not affirm the Word Sacrament to be in Scripture 2. Of all the Definition or Description he brings not so much as one Particle is affirmed in Scripture to be Essential to a Sacrament I do not dispute at present how much of it is true in it self or granted by us I only desire it may be made clear from Scripture as clearly containing all Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion which is the only thing in question But nothing is proved by him save only that Baptism and the Lords Supper are of Divine Institution as many other things be which are not Sacraments To prove they are Seals of the promises of Salvation he cites for Baptism Act. 2.28 29. The words omitted by him I hear set down But Peter said to them do pennance and be every one of you Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are far off whomsoever the Lord our God shall call No word here Baptism is a Seal of the promises of Salvation It is said indeed to be given for the Remission of sins and that to whom it is given they receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost which both Protestants deny maintaining there is no virtue in Baptism to confer either of these Effects It is said further that to the Jews and their children yea to