as the Word of God upon the sole Authority of the Church As M. Whitaker against Stapleton p. 1. c. 11. I deny not but the Churches Tradition is the Argument whereby to convince what Books are Canonical and what not M. Fulk in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catholick The Church hath judgment to discern the Word of God from the Writings of Men. M. Covel in his defence of Hooker Doubtless it is a tolerable Opinion of the Church of Rome to affirm that the Scriptures are holy in themselves but so esteemed of us for the Authority of the Church And M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy we all know that the first outward Motive leading men so to esteem of Scripture is the Authority of the Church And as these own her Authority in Propounding the Scripture Books so other Protestants in resolving all Doubts and deciding all Debates as Bancroft Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his Sermon on the 8. of February 1588. God says he hath bound himself to his Church of purpose that men by her direction might in matters of doubt be relieved he speakes of the Representative Church which onely directeth Master Field in the Epistle to his Treatise of the Church Seeing the Controversies of Religion are grown in number so many and in Nature so Intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the World is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Doctrine and rest in her judgement Here again the Representative Church both Judging and Teaching M. Hooker in the Preface of his Books of Ecclesiastical Policy We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have taught the World to seek for the ending of Contentions by submitting it self to some judicial and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to submit And what is this but a General Council M. Bilson in his perpetual Government is clear for it To have no Judge sayes he for the ending of Ecclesiastical Contentions were the utter subversion of all peace Synods are surest means to decide doubts Sr. Edwin Sands in his Relation of the Religion used in the West parts of the World The Protestants are as severed and scattered Troops each drawing a diverse way without any means to take up their Controversies c. No ordinary way to Assemble a General Council of their part which is the only hope remaining ever to aswage their Contentions 3. Reason evinceth it The true Church is the School of infallible and Divine Truths then she must have infallible Masters and Propounders A fallible Church is most properly named by a Learned Writer a Spiritual cheat it may well be called the Ground of Opinion Doubt and Despair but not of Infallible and Divine Faith If the Sheep hearing the voice of their Pastors and following them be misled who shall be their sure Guide And if all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church together assembled may mistake either the uncorrupted Letter or true sense of Scripture who I pray you can assure himself he takes it aright No infallibility in matteâ—â— of Faith and Religion is left upon Earth 〈◊〉 the high Bishop and chief Pastors of the Church unanimously Teaching and Propounding cannot err It were more then madness any man should say the contrary and yet hold himself infallibly secure of what he believes Would a Protestant be but once at the pains to speak to an Infidel for his conversion to the true Church calling all her Pastors even assembled in a Council fallible I should willingly hear what he could so much as say in general for Protestancy yea or for the Christian Religion No doubt he should first speak of one true God then of Christ and Faith in him as necessary to salvation telling his Proselyte how out of his Goodness and Mercy towards us he had made himself Man and died upon the Cross for our sins Yet afterwards had risen again and by his Miracles showen both his Civinity and Power and by these strange Works and Wonders having established his Church he had delivered his Will and Doctrine to her in his Written Word called the Holy Scripture Upon this the Infidel no little astonished at such a Discourse surely should ask him some Ground for it and how he could be perswaded it were true Here I imagine the Bible is produced as the Word of God and sole ground of Faith But who assures me of this says the infidel It was attested by many Miracles which Christ and the Apostles did work who first preâ—â—hed it Answers the Protestant they were holy men chosen by our Saviour Christ for the conversion of the World they did Teach his Word Infallibly They did set it down in Writing confirmed it with Wonders and left it to the Church How long ago replies the Infidel Nigh 1700. years answers again the Protestant One Question more says the Infidel have you any infallible Witness in your Church or any Infallible External Motive that this is the same Word of God that was Preached by the Apostles and delivered by Christ or that in confirmation of it ever any Miracle was wrought The first needs none says the Protestant it is clear to all well disposed persons turn Protestant and you will Evidently see it to be the Word of God and the second is sufficiently attested in it Presently the Infidel having received further instruction in most Points of Protestancy and made more earnest to see how all that has been taught him is true desires he may have for a time the Bible and diligently perusing it finds some things in the Historical Books look like Fables many more in the Prophets he doth not understand many seeming contradictions betwixt the two Testaments many points he was taught by his Protestant Master not in Scripture at all yea many things clearly against it Of all which he asks his Master a diligent account And first whether at present there be no man or company of men can resolve him infallibly of all these doubts None concludes the Protestant but Scripture it self for since the Apostles there is in the Church no Judg no Propounder infallible If so Sir you conclude nothing with me says the Infidel but here I end with you for the Book you ground all you have said upon as if it were clear and infallible to me like the first Principles in our Philosophers Schools is so deeply obscure and highly above the reach of reason that without some powerful motive and inducement no reasonable man can believe it And since you grant it was at first propounded with infallible Motives which now have ceased It seems God would
Auricular confession on the 5. Ch. of James seven Sacraments in his Postscript on the first Ep. and 1. Ch. to the Corinths Wherefore Melancton Ep. ad Micon thus censures him I have read Wickliff and found in him many Errors he never held nor understood Justice of Faith which is the Protestants main Fundamental With the same confidence M. Menzeis calls the Waldenses Protestants who held the Real Presence that the Apostles were but Lay-men that all Magistrates fall from their Dignity by mortal sin that it is not lawful to swear in any case c. as witnesseth Illyricus in Catal. Wald. Confess Bohem. c. And with these the Grecians upon a private Letter sent as he pretends by a Patriarch to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury though all who ever conversed with Grecians know they say daily Mass hold Transubstantiation seven Sacraments Prayer to the Saints and for the dead c. as all may see in the censure of the Oriental or Grecian Church and deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and consequently make no distinction betwixt these two Persons in the Godhead But it is enough to M. Menzeis it seems that they disown the Pope to be called Protestants and so Turks and Tartars may come in with them Whence I leave to judg how constant a Protestant M. Menzeis is owning such Doctors and Doctrine and what Credit again he deserves after so many clear Testimonies and that even of learned Protestants and the very writings of the persons in question convincing him of most notorious falshood and Errour The most antient and holy Fathers as S. Ireneus Tertullian Philastrius S. Epiphanius S. Augustine Theodoret S. John Damascen and others who have written a Catalogue of Heresies did not certainly distinguish Fundamentals and Integrals amongst Divine Truths sufficiently propounded as Protestants do when they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently damnable Errours then what they think to have no repugnancy with Fundamentals and essentials in the Doctrine of the true Church as in the Pelagians Novatians Donatists Monothelits who all embraced the Trinity Incarnation Passion of Christ c. S. Epiphanius Heres 75. and S. Augustine l. de heres C. 33. condemn the Arians for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church the first remarking they were accustomed to eat flesh on Fridays and in the Lent yea chiefly in the holy Week wherein Christ died S. Hierome in his 2. book against Jovinian condemneth him for saying Fastings and all other Exercises of good works were not meritorious S. Augustine in his Book of Heresies c. 54. condemns the Eunomians for teaching no sin could hurt a man if so he had but only Faith S. Epiphanius haeres 64. all who denied free will S. Hierome Vigilantius in his Book against him for affirming the Relicks of the Saints ought not to be reverenced the same S. Hierome against Jovinian with S. Augustine in his Book of Heresies C. 82. condemn him for holding Wedlock equal in dignity and merit to virginity S. Augustine again l. Contr. Julian C. 2. the Pelagians for teaching the Children of the Faithful Parents did not need Baptism but were born holy and in his 1. Book 2. C. and last against Maximus the Arians for not receiving Traditions Now let M. Menzeis choose either to acknowledge all these and many such like condemned Heresies by the Fathers to be no Fundamentals and consequently that many other things then these which Protestants call Fundamentals are necessary to be believed under the danger of incurring Heresie and Eâ—ternal damnation or owning them as such let him confess Protestants Err even in Fundamentals with them seeing all here condemned is Protestant Doctrine borrowed from those more ancient Hereticks and condemned by the Fathers even then 4. As to that he says all Fundamentals are clear in Scripture and that according to S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Irenaeus S. Thomas of Aquine and Sixtus Senensis holding what ever is obscure in one place to be clear in some other I answer very easily with a manifold distinction 1. To such eminent Doctors of the Church as he cites most Scriptures are clear I grant to all indifferently I deny 2. To such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast the Traditions of the Apostles conserved in her as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest I grant to others I deny 3. With Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 2. to such as level the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick sense I grant to others I deny 4. With Doctor Field a Protestant in his 4. Book C. 14. to such as be first setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their delivery of Scriptures I grant to others I deny Neither are these my Distinctions any wise to shift the Argument which maketh nothing either against us or for him But to clear the Fathers words in the very genuine sense they speak them See S. Chrysostome his meaning in his 14. Hom. on S. John S. Augustines contra Cresconium C. 33. where he says if any one fear to be deceived in this question through its obscurity let him ask Councel of the Church which the holy Scriptures do demonsrate without any ambiguity That of S. Irenaeus in his 2. Book Ch. 47. and more expresly in his 1. Book Ch. 49. S. Thomas his words That what ever is necessary to be believed under the Spiritual Sense that some where is manifestly declared by the Letter as they do not specifie to whom this manifest declaration is made so we grant it to the Church and her Doctors for to her all things are known says St. Irenaeus in which is perfect Faith as to the Apostles it was given by our Saviour Christ to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven 5. But I would ask M. Menzeis did ever any of these Fathers receive the Scriptures as the undoubted Word of God otherwise then on the Churches Authority S. Augustine saying I would not believe the Scriptures if the Authority of the Church did not move me to it is no less clear for this then Scripture it self in Fundamentals Or did ever any of them fancy to himself a place of Scripture as clear for any thing the whole Church standing in a contrary Judgment For this is the only Point we debate with Protestants and clearly prove both by the Scriptures and Fathers against them 6. However Scripture be clear in Fundamentals in the sense I have given that is particularly and in as many words or generally and as commanding us to hear the Church yet surely it doth not set down all that is Fundamental in express terms if we trust the Fathers whom M. Menzeis appeals to as holding Scripture clear in Fundamentals or can all be so evidently deduced from scripture but by the Authority of the Church that Hereticks be silenced and Unity preserved in Faith S. Chrysostome on
are twenty several Opinions concerning Justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan confession There are sixteen several Opinions concerning Original sin and as many Definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them Lastly He concludes Num. 8. since those ordinary means of Expounding Scripture as searching the Originals Conference of places Parity of Reason and Analogy of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible He that is the wisest and by consequence the likelyest to Expound truest in all probability of Reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of Improbability and uncertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such Mysteries and amidst so many Difficulties Remark well all this discourse from so great a Protestant Doctor finding no certainty of the true sense of Scripture by all the means of Interpretation and reflect with all a little in how hard a condition Protestants stand admitting no Infallible visible Judge in Controversy but boldly undertaking to decide all that which is controverted by sole Scripture Explained by such fallible means and yet more fallible men It is but a Labyrinth of windings and turnings to pass from Scripture as clear in words to conferring of places and deducing consequences after Prayer used and diligent search made with a well disposed mind then to the inward motion or the private Spirit against which the Prophets and Apostles so generally exclaim Ezekiel in his 13. Chapter wo be to the foolish Prophets who follow their own Spirit S. Peter in his 2 Epistle Chap. 1. No Prophecy of Scripture is of Private Interpretation Neither is the question here what is inwardly required in every private man to believe Scripture but what is the external visible and infallible Rule of Faith for that is out of all doubt with us Faith is a supernatural and infused virtue to which the pious motion in the will is no less requisite then the Supernatural light in the understanding to assent to what is revealed by God But seeing neither this light nor pious motions as they are supernatural and incline only to believe a revealed truth do manifest themselves to be such Therefore many thousands even well disposed persons and who seek God in the sincerity of their hearts oftentimes perswade themselves till they be better instructed they believe such a thing as a revealed truth by God which is a condemned Error by him And this none can deny who will not maliciously condemn a world of zealous Ignorants yea some even most learned and holy Fathers who with St. Cyprian in the Point of Rebaptization have believed an Error for a revealed Truth before it was clearly decided by the Church However whether it be this or something else M. Menzeis calls a well disposed mind others the Spirit or the private spirit the Spirit of the Righteous man and so forth I say it cannot be either with the holy Scripture or alone the Rule of Faith and Judg of Controversie 1. Because none without some Particular help can be Infallibly assured of this Interiour Motion Affection or Spirit whether it be Natural or Supernatural from God or the Devil the Spirit of Darknes or Light now no man as M. Field confesseth L. 4. C. 7. Proveth any thing is or may be doubted of by that which is as much to be doubted of as it self 2. We are counselled in the 2 Epistle of St. John Ch. 4. Not to believe every Spirit but to try the Spirits if they be of God But if the Spirits must be brought to the Touchstone of Trial if they must be judged and approved by some other well known and undoubted Authority they are not the sole Rule and Supreme Judg of Faith and Controversy Because this Spirit is secret and hidden our Faith publick and evidently credible this Spirit particular our Faith Catholick or Universal this Spirit the gift of every particular man our Faith subject to no private censure Wherefore M. Hooker Eccl. Pol. L. 1. Sect. 14. and Whitaker against Stapleton C. 2. C. 4. Ingeniously grant that the outward Letter of Scripture sealed with the inward and private Spirit is not a sufficient Warrant for every particular man to receive or reject Scripture Books but that the publick Authority of Gods Church is necessarily required Whence I say further with S. Augustine l. Contr. Ep fund c. 5. That Authority which we obey and believe testifying the Books of the holy Ghospel the same must we believe witnessing this to be the sence of the Ghospel that is not the private Spirit but the same Authority of the Church Thirdly This private Spirit is so far from being the Judge of controversy upon any pretence of adhering to Scripture either as clear in it self or explained by it that instead of compounding debates and keeping unity the chief Office of this Judg it is the very Root of Dissention and Fountain of Heresies and Schisms for as by experience we see it to be different in divers persons so as the Bell to fools it speaketh as they fancy it inclines as they are affected it points out the Object according to the Colour which is in the eye It is like a false light which makes the Aspect of best and fairest Figures vary It is often a blind zeal or a prejudicate Opinion which hinders to see what is clear in Scripture as S. Augustine l. 3. de Doctr. C. 10. well Remarks If the Prejudice saith he of any Erroneous Opinion preoccupate the mind whatsoever the Scripture hath to the contrary men take it to be a Figurative Speech So that it furnisheth to every Sectary reading Scripture his own Spectacles in conferring places his own Rule of proportions His private Weights to ponder Reasons his particular Forge to coine Opinions his secret Touch-stone to try Doctrines his own Reed to measure the Temple Sanctuary and Altar Makes him his own high Priest Pastor and Judg setting up within himself a Supreme Judicatory giving ever sentence in his favour and censuring all the world beside So that none standing to this Rule can be compelled to the unity of the Church and yet none can be accounted Hereticks as the learned Suares l. 1. de defi fid C. 11. most judiciously remarketh if we take Scripture as men read who think themselves well disposed or Expounded by it self according to the Dictamen of the private Spirit for ground for who can swarve from Scripture as clear according to his particular Judgment and Spirit which he even esteemeth to be the Spirit of God Scripture therefore cannot be Judge of Controversie as M. Menzeis will have it 1. By reason the sentence of this Judg must breed a certain and Infallible assurance of all that can come in doubt which Scripture cannot do It being infallible indeed in it self but not to us who may doubt if such a Book be Canonical such
a Copy conform to the Original such a Translation Authentick such a place clear such a sense genuine 2. The Judge of Controversie ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand and as the Law sayes the Apostle is not for the just but the unjust so the Judg of Controversie is not only for the well disposed but more in some manner for others and especially the unlearned and unstable who according to St. Peter Wrest the Scriptures to their own damnation Yea the most learned amongst the Fathers as S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen after much pains in the study of Scripture as testifieth Ruffinus l. 11. Hist C. 9. refuse to interpret them but according to the Rule and Uniform consent of their Fore-fathers not relying on all the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis prescribes and they had reason the Scripture being the Book S. John describeth to be clasped with seven Seals Apoc. 5. v. 16. which Ezekiel termeth the enrolled volume written within and without S. Ambrose Ep. 44. A Sea containing most profound Senses of Prophetical Riddles S. Augustine l. 2. de doctrina Christ C. 6. hard in the Stile Discourse Places as well as in the Subject and Matter which makes him cry out l. 12. Confess c. 14. O the wonderful depth of thy speeches O the wonderful depth S. Hierome Ep. 13. C. 4. Says the Text of Scripture has a Shell to be broken before that we can tast the sweetness of the Kernel and Vincentius Lyrinensis C. 2. That all take not holy Scripture by reason of its deepness in one and the same sense but some interpret one way some another so that there may seem to be picked out as many senses as men for Novatus doth Expound one way and Sabellius another otherwise Donatus otherwise Arius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Photinus Apollinaris and other Hereticks with them therefore very necessary it is for the manifold turnings and by-wayes of Errors that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation be levelled according to the Square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick sense whereof Tertullian de Praescript gives this reason for that the sense adulterated is alike perillous as the Stile corrupted But what danger of this says M. Menzeis if Scripture be clear men cannot mistake if not wilfully blinded what is so Could not the Law-maker speak as clear as the Judg Answer we have seen there is nothing almost in Scripture but has been and so may be mistaken Therefore the necessity of a Judge however the Law speak clear has been acknowledged by the greatest men and best wits in the world Aristotle in the first Book of his Morals and fourth of his Politicks And Plato in his Republick prefers good Judges even to best Laws Judges have been ever establisht by the Laws in all Nations as by Scripture in the Church of God and the necessity of one to keep concord and unity is partly grounded on the nature of most clear Words and Sentences which may be taken according to the Letter or Sense Properly or Figuratively Morally or Mystically and so forth Partly on the diversity of Opinions men commonly judging as they are affected and diversly of one and the same thing as their understandings inclinations or interests leads them His Majesties Secretary of State may write no doubt as clear as the Lords of Council and Session speak yet his Letters are directed to them in most businesses of weight least others should take them otherwise then written or wrest them to their own ends even so is it of Scripture written by the Prophets and Evangelists and delivered to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church Whence Catholick Romans build their Belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but Explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the General Definition and Decision of the present Catholick Church Protestants as M. Menzeis holds out ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well disposed mind that is a Prejudicate Opinion that their own Tenets are right Now let any man judg which of these two is most conform to Scripture it self in both Testaments to the practice of the Church in all ages to the consent of Fathers above cited and Reason For first This the Protestant way would seem vain arrogant and presumptuous in so far as that a man who followeth it must be so confident of himself that if he fancy Scripture to be clear for such a Tenet were all the Christian World in a contrary judgment yea had all Christians been so from the time of the Apostles yet must he stand to his fancy grounded upon clear Scripture as he thinks So that no perswasion can remove him from it for that it is a point of his Faith but for a man to be so peremptorily resolute in the sense he hath found in Scripture by his private reading is very presumptuous I say for wherein can he ground prudently such a strong assent as is required in Divine Faith which ought to be above all can be said against it Shall it be on the clearness of the words conference of places on his skill in Tongues on his weighing the precedent and consequent places or on the assistance of the Spirit given to him If so is it not intollerable pride and presumption in any one man to think that no other was ever so clear sighted or quick witted to see and understand in Scripture what is clear no other in such a multitude of Doctors and Fathers so well versed in the Original Languages so circumspect to confer places so exact to weigh Circumstances so acute to draw Consequences in fine so well disposed to find the Truth so fervent in Prayer so particularly enlightned directed and assisted by the Spirit of God What is whymsical Phanatick and Foolish if this be not wherefore Doctor Field ashamed any should think this to be Protestant Doctrine says None of their Divines teach the Scriptures to be so clear that they may be certainly understood by reading and conferring of places For the Rule of Faith says he in his Appendix 2. p. p. 12. is Doctrine descending by Tradition from the Apostles according to which the Scriptures are to be Expounded And in his fourth Book C. 14. The Rule of Faith is the consenting judgment of them that went before us the Rule without which we cannot know the meaning of the things that are in Scriptures for who shall be able to understand them but he that is setled in these things which the Apostles presupposed in their delivery of Scripture Afterward in the 15. Chap. having said There is no question but there be many obscurities in Scripture And in the 18. Ch. having set down many senses of Scriptures in
in the Kingdom then Out-laws and Rebels pretending to adhere immediately to them as they themselves read Think them clear or expound SECT V. Scripture however clear in Fundamentals clearly mistaken by Protestants and clearly making against them LEt us come at last to the Fundamental Points of the Protestant Religion which Mr. Menzeis holds out to be clear in Scripture Whereupon his Adversary demands what things he esteems Fundamental He Answers to ask a Catalogue of Fundamentals is to ask how to make a Coat to the Moon in all her changes And this his quick Reply he borrows from a learned Divine as he calls him Mr. Chillingworth is the man as I conceive for he has the same words a meer Sceptick in Religion and who takes away all certainty in Faith and to say true the Protestant Religion is so Obnoxious to Reformations Alterations Innovations that it is most fitly compared by him to the Moon in all her changes Yea Protestants are of so different Opinions even in what they call Fundamentals that scarce two set down the same Perkins in Cath. Reform p. 407. and in his Exposition of the Creed p. 503. will have all Fundamentals included in the Apostles Creed Duplessis in his Treatise of the Church C. 5. in the Decalogue Du Moulin after Melancton in C. 4. Matt. the Creed and Decalogue Luther Tom. 7. in Enchir. f. 118. in the Creed Decalogue and Lords Prayer Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 4. p. 340. in the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments Sadeel Praef. Resp ad Turr. to believe Christ crucified and the Pope to be Antichrist Chillingworth in his Treatise Intituled the Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation p. 408. n. 35. says plainly Protestants do not agree touching what Points are Fundamental and page 166 we know not precisely just how much is Funtamental Again page 23. he that will go about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate business of it and almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it when he hath done it Wherefore he says in the same page n. 27. that Protestants give not a Catalogue of Fundamentals it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdom and Necessity and when they had done it it had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamental as those that are And yet other Protestants with M. Menzeis harp upon nothing more then the Distinction of Fundamentals from not Fundamentals as if those were necessarily believed these not I know in other places of the same Treatise this Author contradicts himself which shews not only Protestants disagree in Fundamentals one from another but even the same man from himself so well grounded they are in these their Fundamentals and Grounds wherein notwithstanding their monstrous Divisions they vainly bragg to agree But how can it be discerned whether all Protestants or a few agree in Fundamentals unless it be precisely known what and how many Fundamentals there be Potter in fine extends the number of Fundamentals beyond all his Brethren have said his words are page 24. it is Fundamental to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he believe all revealed Truths of God whereof he may be convinced they are of God And doth not this diversity of Opinions equal the changes of the Moon Or is not all this a most clear and manifest Demonstration however Scripture be clear in Fundamentals which now I do not dispute at least it is not so even to the Learnedst and most sharp sighted Protestants who so little agree in that Point that scarce two are of the same Judgment and Mind If others did thus mistake what is perspicuous in Scripture Mr. Menzeis would presently tell us no wonder they do so by reason of their evil disposed intellect But that Protestants and these not of the Vulgar sort but even the Pillars of their Religion and Defenders of their Faith by Volumes in Print should not see what in Scripture is most clear but so vary and divide in such a multiplicity of Opinions and yet maintain Scripture in these same things wehrein they so vary is clear what a wonderful thing is this Or who I pray you can trust men both at once saying Scripture is clear in Fundamentals and yet setting down the same Fundamentals diversly By this plainly confessing either their own blindness and so that they are not good Guides nor to be believed when they speak of what in Scripture is clear or else that their Doctrine in this is false What M. Menzeis holds Fundamental so great a secret it is that neither will he tell us himself nor can any other know it he having so often changed House and built upon diverse Grounds Yet that he should not seem to say nothing a mark he gives us to know what in Scripture is Fundamental to wit if we find it commanded to be believed by all or a Character of necessity to be put upon it Whereupon I reflect first M. Menzeis Doctrine is here very Incoherent for both he teaches it is commanded in Scripture all men believe Fundamentals as things absolutely necessary to salvation and nevertheless the Catalogue of these same things he will have impossible as a Coat to the Moon Would not this argue he is ignorant himself of what all should know and believe Otherwise surely he should never have judged this Catalogue impossible it being easie to a man to call to memory what he knows yea we know no more then we can call to memory says the Roman Orator Tantum scimus quantum memoriâ tenemus Secondly I reflect that rejecting the Infallible Authority of the Church teaching every particular person what is Fundamental and what we must necessarily know and explicitely believe to attain salvation pretending all this is clear and may be found by the marks he has given in Scripture he remaines obliged to a very hard task 1. To prove in General from evident and clear Scripture that all things necessary to be believed are clear and evident in Scripture Let him answer then First where he reads this and to the Fathers teaching the contrary as we shall see below 2. To prove every Fundamental Point in particular immediately and clearly from Scripture And this so that the words cannot be taken obviously and literally in any other sense For if they can be so taken then I have no Infallible Evidence but they should be so taken without some Infallible Guide telling me they should not be so taken in the place alledged As for example these words This is my Body undoubtedly may at least signifie and that most Obviously and Litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament as when I say this is a piece of Gold this a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Wherefore if I will take the words