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
2 Thes 2. says it is evident that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Writing but many things without and those be as worthy of credit as others Which he could not have said if Fundamentals were only the infallible Truths and they clearly revealed in Scripture S. Epiphanius Heres 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all things yet no necessity of using Traditions if all Fundamentals were in Scripture they only being necessary according to Protestants S. Augustine l. 5. de Bapt. Contr. Donat Ch. 23. the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants is neither to be contemned or any wise thought superfluous yet not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition If this was not in his Judgment a Fundamental hear himself again l. 3. de Orig. Anim. C 9. if thou will be a Catholick believe not teach not say not that Infants prevented by death before they are baptized can come to the pardon of their Original sin Is it not a Fundamental to believe Scripture to be the Word of God which S. Augustine takes on Tradition What if a man should receive the New Testament as sufficiently containing Fundamentals and reject the Old with the Manichees admit of some of the Evangels but not others with the Ebionits What if one should deny the word Person the name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday because not clear in Scripture and consequently no Fundamentals according to M. Menzeis Rule Marcion and with him the Anabaptists teach Baptism should be conferred more then once The Donatists that Baptisme of Hereticks at least should be reiterated Sabellius one only Person in the Godhead Nestorius two Persons in Christ and for this are accounted Hereticks yet no clear Scripture is brought condemning their Errours S. Augustine l. de unitate Eccl. says expresly of the Donatists Errour this neither you nor I read in express words 7. How many Scriptures are clear against Protestants in all controverted Tenets So that however it be clear in Fundamentals it clearly speaketh against them See for this the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel with the Manual of Controversie and after you have pondered the places quoted in them judge whether the Protestant Religion be rightly defined by M. Menzeis The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture and their protestancy only their protesting against Popish Errours Which Definition if good having its Genus proximum differentiam ultimam should distinguish Protestants from all other Sectaries but this it doth not it being common to them with most Hereticks who have ever been all of them professing with you Sir to adhere to the written Word they received and as understood by themselves as the Arians Nestorians Pelagians Photinians c. and all protesting against the Churches Errours and Popes Authority For as the sole Roman Church did ever oppose all Hereticks as the only zealous Defender of the true Faith and Doctrine which S. Paul calls the Depositum entrusted to her So all generally how soon they turn Hereticks Protest prattle Preach chieflly against her turn over all the Writings of Authours who have made mention of Heresies and you shall find that all from the first to the last have opposed themselves to that company of Christians which was in communion with the Pope and Bishop of Rome for the time and that this company hath opposed it self to them all neither did they oppose themselves all to any other company whatsoever Yea this was ever the distinctive mark of Hereticks not to communicate with the Pope and Sea of Rome as may be seen in the Writings of the Fathers St. Irenaeus l. 3. C. 3. S. Hierome Ep. 57. S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius S. Augustine in Ps Contr. part Don. and generally in all ages and by all so that you protesting with them against the Church and Pope take their very Badg and Livery and shamefully declare by this Charactaristick Mark of your Defection from the ever acknowledged true Church and high Bishop thereof by all the Fathers your Apostacy Heresie and Schism It is very plausible I must confess to poor Ignorants when Preachers make them believe they teach nothing save only the pure Scripture and written Word protesting against all unwritten Traditions as Popish Errours But if any man consider a little with himself your Tenets in particular he shall presently find it is openly against God and his written Word ye protest in all points of Controversie under the false pretence of protesting against Popery and that not so much as one Tenet peculiar to you is contained in Scripture This I evidence in most Articles of Popish Doctrine you protest against where all may see and judge how well your Religion is contained in Scripture Is it not to protest against the goodness of God to say with you he created some for Hell independently of their works and likewise against his Word 1 Tim. 2. where it is said he will have all to be saved and in the 2. Ep. of St. Peter 3. where he is declared not willing any should perish Is it not to protest against his Mercy and express word again to say he died not for all The Apostle S. Paul assuring he did die for all and as that in Adam all died so in Christ all be restored to life 1 Cor. 13. Is it not to protest against his Justice and Word to teach that he punisheth us for what we cannot do as for the want of good Works which Protestants will have not to be in our power Yet the Apostle says Heb. 6.10 God is not unjust that he should forget our work Is it not to protest against the Wisdom and Word of God to say he obliges us to perform things impossible as Protestants call the Commandements where as Saint John in 1 Ep. C. 5. says they are not so much as heavy Is it not to protest against his Veracity and Word to affirm that the Church can teach Errours and stand in need of Reformation Christ having commanded us to hear it in S. Matt. 18. and the Apostle S. Paul 1 Tim. 3. calling it the Pillar and Ground of Truth Is it not to protest against his Providence and Word to assert that he has given us the dead Letter of the Law without an Infallible Visible Judge leaving to every poor Ignorant to Interpret Scripture according to his fancy S. Peter having said no Scripture is of private interpretation and Christ having commanded us to hear his Church Is it not to protest against the Efficacy of Christs Mediation Sufferings Death and also his Word to hold that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin S. Joh. 1. Rev. 5. Saying he washed us from our sins in his own blood And S. Paul 1 Cor. 6. we are Washed justified Sanctified Is it not to protest against his Divine Order to tye our Sanctification to Faith only and his express word in S. James
all that God shall call promise is made but that Baptism is a Seal of the promise of Salvation neither the Text nor any consequence he draweth from it doth evince it The way he proves from Scripture the Lords Supper to be a Seal of the promises of Salvation is rare for that says he it is called the New Testament which we must acknowledge to be no proper Speech but to be only so called because it is Sigillum foederis This is his Commentary on the Text but what a necessary and clear consequence is this If ever such a consequence as clearly deduced from Scripture was heard of I leave it to the Reader to Judg So clearly are the Sacraments and main Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion contained in Scripture or clearly deduced from it But M. Menzeis thought it as it seems by his so long a digression in his last paper a more easie task to impugne our Sacraments though no part of the present work then to prove his own No Scripture Councils or Fathers hold out seven Sacraments Answer yes Sir both Scripture Councels Fathers do not as bare signs with you but as visible or sensible signs of the invisible grace they produce in the Soul as instituted by Christ our Lord for our Sanctification In this sense there be seven Sacraments set down in the Gospel Decreed by Councâ—ls approved by the Fathers And 1 That the Fathers did so understand a Sacrament is confessed by Protestants who even dare censure the Fathers for this As Musculus loc comm p. 299. did S. Augustine for affirming inconsiderately that the Sacraments of the New Testament give salvation Zwinglius Tom. 2. de Bapt. fol. 70. All the Antient Doctors for supposing the water of Baptism to purge sin The Century Writers Cent. 2. C. 4. Col. 47. In particular censures S. Clement Disciple of the Apostles and Justin Martyr for thinking Regeneration not only to be signified but wrought by Baptism and in the 3. Cent. C. 4. S. Cyprian for teaching that the person Baptizing doth give Sanctity and the Holy Ghost to the Baptized 2 That such a number of visible or sensible signs instituted by Christ for conferring grace and taking away sin is set down in Scripture is clear from the following Texts For Baptisme Acts 2.38 Be every one of you baptized for the Remission of Sins Ephes 5.25 Christ loved the Church cleansing it by the Laver of Water For Confirmation Acts 17. Then they did impose their hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost 2 Cor. 1.22 And he that confirmeth us with you in Christ and hath anoyled us God who also hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts For Pennance S. John 20.23 Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven c. Acts 16.18 And many of them that believed came confessing their deeds For the Eucharist S. Matt. 26. S. Mark 14. S. Luke 22. This is my body c. S. John 6. I am the living bread I am the bread of life he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever For extream Unction S. James 8.14 If any be sick let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anoyling him with Oyl in the name of our Lord c. And if he be in sins they shall be remitted him S. Mark 6.13 And they anointed with Oyl many that were sick and healed them For Holy Order 2 Tim. 1.6 I admonish thee that thou resuscitate the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands For Matrimony Ephes 5.32 This Sacrament is great In all which places of Scripture we have manifestly the External Sign either called a Sacrament or to it annexed the forgiving of sins or conferring of Life and Grace which makes it a Sacrament of the New Law So that there is no lurking here under ambiguity of words as M. Menzeis will have it However Hereticks vary in explaining Scripture the Word of God doth not vary nor his Church in understanding it 3. As for the Fathers and Councils See the Summary of Controversies of the efficacy and number of Sacraments where the places are marked and the Manual of Controversie Art 28. where both Scripture and Fathers are cited at length Luther himself de Captiv Babyl granteth S. Dennis Disciple of S. Paul to stand for seven Sacraments S. Augustine hath them all Baptism in his 28. Epistle to S. Hierom. Confirmation in his second Book against Petilian C. 104 Pennance in his 2. Sermon upon the Ps 101. Eucharist in his 26. Treatise of S. John and his Ep. 120. to Honoratus where he calls it both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament Extream Unction in his 5. Book of Baptism C. 5. Holy Orders in his 2. Book against Parmen C. 13. Matrimony in his Book of Faith and good Works C. 7. And de bono Conjug C. 24. So that when he speaks of two Sacraments of the Church Gemina Ecclesiae Sacramenta he understands there is two chief ones to wit Baptism by reason of its necessity to salvation And the Eucharist for its Excellency and necessity both in his opinion But to insist further on this here is neither to the present purpose or any part of what I did at first undertake M. Menzeis running here and there as in a Labyrinth to shew the fathers take not alwayes the word Sacrament in the strict and proper sense doth only involve himself in unextricable difficulties standing to his ground of Scripture clear in Fundamentals which no where defines what properly a Sacrament is or any where resolves and determinates what may be ambiguous and doubtful either in it self or the Fathers How then shall we be assured of this without an Infallible Visible Judge When some take even the clearest Scriptures and Writings of the Fathers in one sense some in another But the Catholick Church having received the Sacraments from Christ and his Apostles and constantly Administrated them in the sense and for the ends they were Instituted hath sufficiently declared both the Number and Nature of Sacraments according to the Tradition of the Apostles and constant practise of the same Church which is an infallible Ground to us whilest all Hereticks with M. Menzeis are so intricate in the present Question by the Diversity of Notions they either find in Authours or fancy to themselves some admitting not only seven sayes Mr. Menzeis but seventeen Sacraments some seven times seven some seventy seven yea and more that they lye still either in the Lurking Holes of Obscurity and Ambiguity the better to Palliate their Errours or wander up and down in their unsetled Belief following their Fallible Conjectures uncertain Opinions and Groundless Faith SECT VI. Mr. Menzeis second Ground of the Protestant Religion Viz. The Doctrine of the Church in the first three Centuries or Ages proved no Ground to them yea their very Ruine AS Historiographers remark the greatest Empires have begun to decay how soon they left
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
off to ground their greatness on new Conquests And the Naturalists observe that Trees and Plants do presently fade when their Roots do not spread as the Branches spring up So the Protestant Religion should have instantly been chocked in its Rise and as smothered in the Cradle If Protestants standing constantly to their first Principle had still rejected the Doctrine of the Church under the specious pretence of adhering only to the pure and naked Word as a Ground most pure and clear Scriptures making so clearly against them Wherefore though the first Reformers as I shall presently shew did disclaim the Doctrine of the Church in any Age after the Apostles as infallible or Ground of Faith disclaim the Fathers disclaim Miracles disclaim a Succession from any Yet others after the first heat of passion had a little relented finding all this most disgraceful and a most evident Conviction of their Errours and fearing their Religions both fall and ruine if not speedily propped claim a Succession though from Old condemned Heresies with M. Menzeis here from the Waldenses Wickliffians Hussits as we have seen Cite the Fathers though either to no purpose or else corruptedly with Du Plessis so evidently confuted by the Cardinal Du Peron pretend to Miracles with M. Pool in his Nullity of the Romish Faith though falsly most Protestants disowning Miracles since the Apostles time and all the world witnessing it did never see a Miracle amongst them yea they grant in fine the diffusive body of the Church to be infallible in believing but not the Representative or Pastors even assembled in a General Council Infallible in Teaching with M. Menzeis again here Who upon this gives us for a second Ground of the Protestant Religon The Doctrine of the Church in the first three Centuries or Ages The sole reason he gives for the Churches Doctrine as being a Ground of Faith at that time is because if the Catholick Religion was not then purely conserved in her it was no where to be found ab sit says he blasphemia which without blasphemy cannot be thought Whereupon I first reflect that if it be blasphemy to deny the Catholick Religion must always be purely conserved in some Church many chief Protestants surely speak open blasphemy who most boldly affirm before the Reformation made by Luther and Calvin no Church to have conserved true Religion in its purity at all Luther comment in 1 Cor. 1.15 I was the first to whom God vouchsafed to reveal these Doctrines which are now Preached this praise they cannot take from us that we were the first that brought light to the world Without our help no man had ever learned one word of the Ghospel This M. Wotton both acknowledgeth and confirmeth in Exam. Jur. Rom. Luther might well say he was the first a Son without a Father a Schollar without a Master c. Calvin in an Epistle of his to Melancthon It doth not a little concern us sayes he that not the least suspition of any Discord risen amongst us descends to Posterity for it were a thing more then absurd after we have been constrained to make separation from the whole world if we in our beginning should also divide from one another Chillingworth Ch. 5. Sect. 55. as for the External Communion of the visible Church we have without Scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it Bucer p. 660. All the world erred he speaks before the Reformation in that Article of the Real Presence Bibliander in orat ad princip Germ. c. 72. it is without all question that from the time of Gregory the great the Pope is the Antichrist who with his abomination hath made drunk all Kings and people from the highest to the lowest Brochard on the second Ch. Rev. p. 4. when the first assault was made upon the Papacy by Luther the knowledge of Christ was wanting in all and every one of his members White in his defence C. 37. Pa. 136. Popery was a Leprosie breeding so universally in the Church that there was no visible company of men appearing in the world free from it Bennet Morgentern in his Treatise of the Church calls it ridiculous to say any before Luther had the purity of the Gospel Simon Voyon Cat. Doct. in his Epistle to the Reader says when Pope Boniface was installed then was that universal Apostacy from the Faith which was foretold by Paul M. Jewel upon the Revelation fol. 110. The truth was then unheard of when Luther and Zwingle came to preach the Ghospel Febustian Francus in his Epistle of abrogating Ecclesiastical Statutes says for certain through the work of the Antichrist the External Church together with the faith and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure and for these thousand and four hundred years the Church hath been no where External and Visible From all which Testimones of most renowned Protestants yea and of the very first Reformers is evidently proved First that they did not think any visible Church to have conserved at all times the purity of the Gospel which M. Menzeis calls blasphemy to deny Secondly that they claim not a Succession from any that went before them except only from the Apostles what ever later Protestants do falsly pretend Thirdly that they own no more the diffusive body of the Church infallible then the Representative seeing no Church prosessing the Doctrine they did teach is acknowledged by them for many hundred years before the Reformation Fourthly That Popery was the only Religion generally prevailing and openly professed for no less time then fourteen hundred years before Luther Fifthly how well M. Menzeis agreeth with other Protestants in this his second Ground of Faith You shall presently God willing hear both greater and better witnesses deposing against him but first I ask what peculiar reason he has why the Church in her childhood and younger age should be a ground of Faith and not afterwards and in her full maturity as we grant her the fulness of Divine Wisdom even from her birth which did not increase by age so by age it cannot decay We shall now presently see how like the Protestant Church is to that of the three first Centuries but before this I would know why M. Menzeis gives her Doctrine rather for a ground then in following times Is there any peculiar promise made to her any particular reason militates for her or any testimonies of the Scriptures or Fathers given to her in one time rather then in another was her Doctrine then purer her Condition more flourishing her authority greater Doth not M. Menzeis grounding his Faith upon the Doctrine of the Church in any age after the Apostles confirm that Romish Tenet of the Church Doctrine as a Ground in other Ages by parity of reason Secondly I reflect that M. Menzeis who will admit of no Infallible Visible Judg of Controversie of no Infallible Tradition not contained in Scripture nor of any Assembly of the Fathers and Pastor of the Church in
with Pope Pius in his confession of Faith in all those Points quoted by them Free Will Merit of Works Invocation of Saints honouring of Relicks Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead S. Peters Primacy amongst the Apostles the Popes Supremacy in the Church Mass Traditions the Real Presence Confession Pennance Absolution c. So that if M. Menzeis will stand to his own word and trust the Writings of his brethren He is here again engaged to turn Papist Many more such Quotations could I produce from chief Protestant Writers acknowledging both the Church and Fathers of the first three Ages holding most controverted Tenets flatly against Protestants And yet so confident M. Menzeis is he dare take the Church Doctrine at that time for a Ground of the Protestant Religion and this no doubt to shew the deepness of his Learning and how well he is versed in Antiquity till presently we hear the Fathers themselves speaking the better to make both his Weakness and Igorance appear But before I enter upon this I remark M. Menzeis in his 8. paper says we agree with Protestants in all their Positive Tenets and only in their Negatives disagree How true this is I do not now dispute yet must here reflect that all chief Heresies for the most part with that of Protestants have ever consisted in Negations and in denying some Points of Faith generally received in the Church Sabellius denyed three persons in the God-head Eutiches two Natures in Christ Nestorius in Christ one Person The Monothelites two wills in Christ as two Natures The Arians Christ to be consubstantial with his Father The Macedonians the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost Marcion that Baptism in the Church should be conferred but once The Novatians that sinners after Baptism could be absolved upon Repentance and even such Heresies Protestants most claim to as the Grecians deny the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Waldenses deny Princes and Magistrates to conserve their Digities and Power when fallen in mortal sin The Hussits deny that the predestinate could sin the Albigenses Marriages to be lawful the Wickliffians Free Will and so forth Negatio est Malignantis naturae say the Philosophers Negations are of a Malignant Nature whence we see that as Atheism consists in denying God so Heresies are most in Negations as flowing from the Spirit of Pride contradiction Rebellion However it is time we shew what conformity there is betwixt Protestants Negative Tenets and the Doctrine of the Church in the first three Centuries or Ages M. Menzeis provoking so confidently his Adversary to bring any Essential difference from the Authentick writings of these Fathers and upon this engaging to turn Papist I do not here question further then I have done in my second reflection how he who admits of no Infallible Visible Judge can be sufficiently assured of their Authentick Writings for if he take this only upon their conformity with Scripture they can make no peculiar Ground to him rather then other mens Writings having the like conformity with it or can they be caled properly a distinct Ground from it But having seen how many chief Protestants disown the most antient Fathers chalenge them of manyfold Errours censure their Doctrine a most strong conviction against M. Menzeis that they take not their Writings for a Ground let us hear themselves deposing clearly in our favour against him and see if they who have confounded so many Atheists convinced so many Infidels converted so many Hereticks may even happily prevail with M. John I cite here only the Fathers in the first three Centuries after Christ as M. Menzeis makes only his appeal to them In which Ages the Church being still under persecution had not indeed so many Writers as in following times to witness her Doctrine against all Hereticks Yet you shall God willing see how clearly the chiefest of them dissent from Protestants in all controverted Tenets and most disgracefully bely him The Fathers of the first three ages clearly speaking against Protestants in all Chief Controverted Tenets I Begin even at what is most Principal to wit the Popes Supremacy this Potestants deny But in the first Age S. Denis de divinis nominibus C. 3. calls S. Peter first Bishop of Rome the Supreme and most antient top of Divines Where both Primacy and Supremacy is given to him S. Clement Disciple of S. Peter in his first Epistle declares him both the ground stone of the Church and the most powerful of the Apostles S. Ignatius Disciple of S. John in his Epistle to the Romans extolling their Church calls her The Church that presides at Rome In the second Age S. Irenaeus l. 3. contra Valent C. 3. says the Romish Church is the greatest and most antient And again l. 3. C. 3. all Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerful Principality In the third Age Zepherinus Pope in his Epistle to the Bishops of Sicily decreed That the greater causes of the Church were to be determined by the Apostolick Sea because so the Apostles and ther Successors had ordained In the third Age Origen on the 6. Ch. to the Rom. says The chief charge of feeding Christs Sheep was given to S. Peter and the Church founded upon him In the same Age S. Cyprian Ep. ad Jul. We hold Peter the Head and Root of the Church and again Ep. 55. he calls the Church of Rome S. Peters Chair Yea in the second Century Amandus Polonus M. Spark and M. Whitaker though Protestants confess that Victor then Bishop of Rome whom M. Whitgift calls a godly Bishop carried himself as Pope or Head of the Church So well has Protestant Doctrine in this Point a Ground in rhe Fathers of the first three Ages that Danaeus a Protestant in his Answer to Bellarmine acknowledgeth Soveraign Authority to have been practised by the Popes of the third Age the Centurists Cent. 3. that Tertullian did think the keys to be committed chiefly to S. Peter and the Church to be built on him and S. Cyprian to have taught that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother Church Now shall all this be called Protestant Doctrine that S. Peter was Head and Root of the Church that the Church was founded upon him that the chief charge of Christs Flock was given to him that he is the Supreme amongst Divines that the Church of Rome is his Chair which for this hath a more powerful Principality as greatest so that the greater causes in the Church ought to be decided by her where by parts all the Controversie of the Popes Supremacy is holden out against them Secondly Protestants deny we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church But in the first age S. Denis Eccl. Hierarch C. l. speaking of the Apostles says These our first Captains of Priestly Function did deliver to us the chiefest and most
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