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
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
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
endless Contentions and Quarrels Councils are called Conventiles when they sentence or censure them the Church is changed into a Synagogue the Fathers forfeit their credit places and passages from Scripture are applyed or misapplyed as they list Now a jeer now a jest in handsome Language which jovial and jeering humours most look upon are their common Answers to solid Reasons Evidence in Motive of credibility is mocked at Faiths certainty is changed into probability a few Fundamentals comprehending chief Mysteries what or how many they cannot tel are judg'd only necessary to be believed Errors in Integrals as they call them which make the greatest part of Christian Doctrine are taught to be things indifferent to our belief In them even the Apostles were not in allible say Rainolds and Whitaker with some other Protestant Divines In them the whole Church may err says M. Menzeis and upon this as if she had erred come in all Sectaries to reform her she is old and her Spirits exhausted they have the fulness of the Spirit her Eyes by age are dimmed she sees not what is manifest in Scripture they as younger see clear shee is too Superstitious in her Religious Ceremonies they as more familiar with God use none like Prophets Extraordinarily sent by God they preach against Priests and people they set out a New Gospel of their own as if they were Apostles and Evangelists finding no true Scripture before Yea as if they had Christs own power they abandon the Antient Church as the Synagogue and make up a new one changing both the Priesthood and Sacrifice No more pennances and satisfactions of men to Gods Justice for their offences because Christ hath satisfied for all No more fasting except very seldom and that only for temporal ends No good Works are left in our power they are too hard yea impossible seeing even our best actions are sins Faith only justifieth and to believe is an easie task So the strait path is made plain and the narrow way broad to them Whil'st others strive to work their salvation with fear and trembling chastizing their bodies with the Apostle S. Paul least they become reprobates They live secure that each of them is one of the Elect making even this an Article of his Faith And this they perswade to simple ones with some refined words uttered in the tune of the Sybilles giving responees from the belly so far they are fetched with a deep sigh as if they breathed nothing but zeal some more Learned relying on the acuteness of their wits go willingly along with them not to captivate their understandings or submit to any Visible Judg 〈◊〉 men of interest comply outwardly with the prevailing party keeping their own retentions of mind and this it is which their Preachers for the most part desire of us that we would but comply in hearing that is believe one thing and force our Consciences to profess another Come hear us say they and you shall not be troubled we seek no more and of their most understanding hearers they get no more as I have often heard from themselves We are not say they so Proud and Arrogant as Papists to call our Church and her Doctrine Infallible the Scripture is only so By it judg of us and what we teach as you your selves read and understand This is the liberty of the children of God to be tyed to no Churches Faith to no Councels Decrees to no Fathers Doctrine The Word as clear in it self or explained by it self the Spirit speaking inwardly in our hearts and every mans Natural Reason directed by certain Rules for the right understanding of both is the only means God hath left for the conversion of Infidels conviction of Hereticks and setling of every good Christian in his belief O Liberty Liberty and Freedom of the children of God from the Popes Supremacy Councels Infallible Authority the Churches Jurisdiction in matters of Faith and Religion and generally the usurped power of any Visible Judg. This is M. Menzeis and Protestants great Principle which as I have demonstratively I hope above proved makes all our Debates in Religion and takes away all cerrainty in Faith But because to ruine Protestant Grounds and give no better in their place were rather to destroy then edifie to throw down then to build and in a Controversie of Religion rather to set up Atheism then root out Heresie as M. Menzeis continually cavilling at our Tenets but never once settling his own with so much labor hath done I therefore do here for a Conclusion briefly here set down and clearly prove solid the Grounds of the Catholick Faith The Ground then of true Faith and Religion Established by Christ and his Apostles not only solid and infallible in it self but also clear and perspicuous to all yet special and particular to us in Communion with the Sea of Rome to which no Sectaâ—y Schismatick or Heretick doth or can pretend removing all Doubts deciding all Controversies silencing all sowers of false Doctrine and Errours keepâ—ng Unity stopping Divisions quieting mens Consciences instructing the Ignorant setling the Unstable captivating the understanding of the most Learned to the obedience of Faith and which the greatest and quickest wits of the Christian World that is all the holy Fathers have ever built their faith upon Is Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered expounded by her both as an infallible Propounder and Judge Whence if any man here ask the Analysie and resolution of our Faith I answer him in a very few words We believe such things as are from Scripture and Apostolical Tradition taught in the Church to be true because God hath revealed them The reason again why we believe God did reveal such things is for that we see evident Motives of credibility in this Church and none else wherein God shows himself Author of her Doctrine confirming it with diverse infallible Marks and chiefly Miracles 〈◊〉 which manifestly appear both his Subscription and Seal Digitus Dei hîc est Pharaoh's Magicians could not but acknowledge this Exod. the 8. V. 19. Seeing only the Dust of the Earth suddenly by Aaron changed into Vermin they cryed out The hand of God is here So that there be two things to be remarked in the Resolution of Divine Faith The first is God revealing Deus revelans And the second is God showing himself Authour of such a Revelation Deus proponens se authorem revelationis say the Divines What God hath revealed is taught us by his Church as an infallible Propounder that he is Author of the Revelations made to her he attests in the Motives of credibility as infallible marks that it is he who speaks So all in our Faith is infallibly from God and all infallibly propounded to us The things revealed by the true and infallible Church and the Revelation by infallible Motives which being clear to all who have Eyes Ears and Understanding make evidently credible and infallibly certain all and
every one Point of our Religion and Faith Now to prove what I have set down to be the only true solid and infallible Grounds of the true Christian and Catholick Faith 1. That Scripture is this Ground is granted by M. Menzeis and all Protestants so needs no proof as to them 2. That sole Scripture without the Declaration and Exposition of the Church as an infallible Propounder Expounder and Judge cannot be this Ground is proved at length in my fourth Section and presently you shall see it again 3 That Apostolical Traditions are necessarily joyned with Scripture Is 1. proved from clear Scriptures most expresly commanding us to receive them 2 Thes 2.13 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or by Epistle 2 Thess 3.6 Now I command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the Traditions which he received 1 Corinth 11.2 Remember me in all things and keep the Traditions as I delivered them to you 2. By the Authority of the Fathers of the first three ages quoted in my sixth Section with that of S. Chysostome S. Augustine and others above mentioned 3. From manifest and Demonstrative reason in some chief Points which all Christians believe without any express Scripture as I have instanced in persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the keeping of Sunday c. and in many Heresies condemned by the Church Councils Fathers yea and Protestants themselves without any clear Scripture can be brought against them as S. Augustine avoucheth of the Errour of Donatists c. Rests then only to prove that the Church's Authority as an infallible Propounder is necessary to make all these Divine and infallible Truths in themselves contained either in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible Grounds to us For this I presuppose 1. From the Apostle S. Paul Hebrews 11. That without Faith it is impossible to please God 2. From the same Apostle Ephes 4.5 That there is but one Faith one Baptism one Lord JESUS Christ 3. From him again Hebr. 10.23 That we must hold fast the profession of our Faith without wavering From which Texts importing the Necessity of Faith the Unity of Faith and the steadiness in believing required in Divine Faith it doth follow that some infallible means which all may make use of must be appointed by God to attain to this Faith so absolutely necessary to all For to say God hath commanded us and that under the pain of Eternal Damnation to believe undoubtedly and not furnished infallible means to attain to such belief were to accuse his Goodness Providence and Wisdom And this no Christian or rational man will deny so that all the Question that can be moved is about the infallible means to attain without doubt or wavering to Divine Faith which may perswade infallibly all sort of persons that such things are revealed by God removing all reasonable doubts that can arise either concerning Gods Revelation which is the formal object of Faith or the things he hath revealed which makes its material Object and this means I say again must not only be solid and infallible objectively and in it self as M. Menzeis will have the Protestant Religion and Grounds of it but also subjectively and to us it being the same thing as to make a perswasive motive not to appear and not to be according to that Maxime Idem est non esse non apparere Wherefore a ground however infallible in it self yet not appearing so to us and known to be such availeth nothing as to our belief The Mathematicians Demonstrate the Sun to be many times greater then the Earth and their Demonstration no doubt is both certain and evident in it self yet never shall perswade a Country clown that it is greater then his Cap for that no Demonstration of this is clear and certain to him Even so is it in the Ground of Faith it must be both solid and and infallible in it self and it must be known to be such by all who prudently rely upon it This presupposed to conclude all that has been said and fully prove both the Ground of Faith in the Catholick Roman Church solid as the Rock it is built on and the means for conveying it to us infallible I first show against M. Menzeis or rather for him and his conversion the necessity of an infallible Propounder of what â—e must undoubtedly believe for if this can be made good he engageth again to turn Papist 2. That the true Church is this infallible Propounder â— That the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church 1. Then as to the necessity of an infallible Propounder If no men no Church be infallible in propounding then holy Scripture and consequently all that is contained in it is only delivered to us by fallible means and so no infallible certainty in Faith The consequence is clear for most infallible Truths may be changed altered corrupted and both fallibly and falsly propounded to us as the first and chief Mysteries of the Christian Religion by Hereticks have been 2. Faith comes of hearing says the Apostle then as there be infallible believers and hearers so must there be infallible Teachers for Hearing and Teaching are Correlatives 3. No other infallible means is or can be assigned by Protestants to Ignorants yea to all who understand not the Original Languages for what is contained in Scripture save only the Authority of their Pastors and Church but this Authority in propounding is not acknowledged infallible by them then no infallible means is left 4. There is no less necessity the Church be infallible in propounding then the Evangelists in penning and the Apostles in Preaching no disparity can be given Gods Word being equally infallible in it self before both as iâ— is now 5. Our Saviour Christ most expresly owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting the Jews had not sinned in refusing to believe him if by his Works and Wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God and consequently infallible in his Doctrine 6. For this the gift of Miracles is given to the Apostles and left in the Church to show their infallible assistance in propounding If you answer that was necessary at first but not now because it is the same Doctrine you teach which the Apostles did propound infallibly You say nothing for that it is we doubt of or rather undoubtedly we deny that your Doctrine is the same You presently appeal to Scripture but in vain till first you answer to all that is objected in my fourth Section how ye know infallibly what ye call Scripture to be Gods Word then the Letter you read to be uncorrupted the sense you give to the genuine c. and to all the clear places of Scripture I have brought against most of your particular Tenets I do not here ask
hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon contra hoc robur contra hunc Inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur Is it not on the Church her Infallible Authority St. Augustine admits the Scriptures contr Ep. fund c. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas Doth he not stick so close to the same Authority of the Church that he sayes Ep. fund c. 4. If any clear testimony were brought out of Scripture against it he would neither believe Scripture nor Church for that on the Church her Authority he believed the Scripture Quod si forâ—e in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei apostolatu invenire potueris infirmabis mihi Catholicorum Authoritatem qui jubent ut tibi non credam quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram Was not the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written Was not again the Church of the Jews the same Judge after the Law was given till Christ his time and this by the express Order of God in Scripture Deut. 17. v. 8. would God there direct them unto a Judge and punish them with death for not obeying in matters of the Law and Religion an Authority which might any wise deceive them Or in the Law of Grace it self has Christ in St. Matth. 18. v. 17. commanded us to hear a Church not Infallible or subject to errour Is not the Church of God built on a Rock so that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her S. Matth. 16.19 Has not the Church this promise from Christ S. Matth. 28.20 And loe I am with you even to the end of the world Is not the Church called by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Tim. 3.13 The Ground and Pillar of Truth However Mr. Menzeis will have this ground sole Scripture In fine if these and such like Texts we should hear the Church receive her Decisions obey her commands be not clear what is clear in all the Scripture or if they be subject to diverse Interpretations who can better judge of their true sense then the same Church Will you say Natural Reason with the Socinians or the private spirit with Anabaptists and Quakers or conferring of places and passages with Protestants Is there any one more rational then the whole Church of God any spirit to be trusted rather then the Spirit of Truth promised to her or any one better versed in all the places of Scripture then all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church composing her Supreme Judicatory in a general Council Let us hear I pray you the Fathers upon this I mean the Authority both of Church and Councils as an Infallible Visible Judge the better to silence Mr. Menzeis vain glorious bragging S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 49. We must believe those Priests that are in the Church those that have a succession from the Apostles who together with Episcopal Power have according to the good pleasure of the Father received the certain gift of truth And again the same S. Irenaeus c. 62. the Church shall be under no mans judgment he excepts not Mr. Menzeis yea nor Luther nor Calvin to reform her for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect Faith of the Father and of the dispensation of Christ and firm knowledge of the Holy Ghost who teacheth all truth Origen praef in lib. periarch That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church and in understanding Scripture we must not believe otherwise then as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us S. Cyprian de unit eccl That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresy S. Chrysostom in c. 2. is That all the Hereticks in the World cannot pervert her Doctrine S Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Myst 18. That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 5. in Is c. 54. That she is founded by Christ in truth for 〈◊〉 S. Ambrose l. 4. Hexam c. 2. That she cannot fail Eusebius Caesariensis de praeparat Evang. l. 1. c. 3. That her Faith is invincible to the very Powers of Hell S. Augustine l. 4. de bapt c. 4. I know by Divine Revelations that the Spirit of Truth teacheth the Church all truth S. Augustine again l. de Utilit cred c. 16. Fear not to run to the bosom of the Church which by succession of Bishops descending from the Apostolical Sea manifestly even to the acknowledgment of all mankind hath obtained the height of Authority Hereticks who on every side barked against her being partly by the consent of Nations partly by the Authority of Councils partly by the Majesty of Miracles condemned to which Church not to yield primacy is a point either of highest Impiety or headlong Arrogancy In fine the same S. Augustine Ep. 118. To think not right what the Catholick Church practises is most insolent madness I leave to the Physicians judgment what foot of this Distemper and Madness had the first Reformers of the Church not only thinking and calling what she practised Idolatry and Superstition but even judging and condemning her of Apostacy Schism and Heresy as Mr. Menzeis here of Arrogancy and Pride Odi Ecclesiae illius fastum I hate says he that Churches Pride speaking of the Catholick Roman Church for calling her self Infallible but let me answer him as Plato Diogen Calcas Ecclesiae fastum majore fastu he most persumptuously accuses her of Pride no lawful establisht Judicatory being proud in censuring private Delinquents as they deserve but Rebels to their lawful Judges in censuring them both Presumptuous and Proud with him But least any with Mr. Menzeis should apply all these Testimonies of the Fathers to the diffusive body of the Church and not to the Representative in a general Council as if the one were Infallible in Believing and not the other in Teaching according to that promise of Christ in S. Matth. 28.20 Go teach all Nations and lo I am with you all days to the end of the world We must remark that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words and promises in future ages no less then in the Apostles time then we are to take them for all ages except there be some express limitation made as to Preach Baptise remit Sins feed his Flock lead men in all Truth c. Yet because each Apostle had a power over all the Church this is said to every one of them but to their Successors who have not each one this power together in a Council which for this all the Fathers in all ages have acknowledged as a Soveraign and Infallible Judicatory what ever Mr. Menzeis standing to his Great Principle say to the contrary Thus S. Cyril l. 10. de trin averres Decrees of General Councils to be most Holy and Divine Oracles S. Leo
Communion with the Church therefore cannot erre The Church hath from Christ and ever has exercised a Judicatory Power in all belonging to Faith and Worship therefore cannot err Christ hath sealed constantly in all Ages her Doctrine with Wonders and Miracles therefore it cannot err To conclude if the Church and her Pastors assembled in Councils mistake clear Scripture misapply Scriptures deceive or be deceived what particular man can either justly censure her and them or solidly Ground himself Magna vis veritatis great is the strength of Verity and nothing more true then what is here holden out that to admit with Mr. Menzeis of no Infallible visible Judge of Controversie is the only Fountain and Spring of all Divisions Schisms and Heresies to which this one Protestant Principle opens so wide a Gate SECT IV. Wherein Mr. Menzeis first Ground of the Protestant Religion to wit sole Scripture is shewn to be no Ground to them and that they have not reformed the Church according to the uncorrupted Scriptures but corrupted the Sciptures to deform the Church SCripture then is Protestants ground of Religion and in it all Fundamentals are clear this is very plausible to the ignorant people who think it to be so upon their Ministers Tradition and highly Glory both in reading and explaining the Bible Yet no peculiar Ground to them as was required all Hereticks for ought M. Menzeis hath said pretending with as great reason the same Neither have Heresies says St. Augustine l. 1. c. 4. contr ad vers leg proph or certain Doctrines bewitching the mind sprung from any other Head then from good Scriptures not well understood But to proceed with order before we come to the understanding of Scripture First What Scripture I pray you is this the Protestant Ground Is it the Scripture Translated or in the Original Tongues Mr. Menzeis speaks nothing of this The learned Chamiers cited as a chief Protestant Champion by him in his Panstratia l. 1. c. 2. s 15. Says only true Originals adding as for Translations the sense of Protestants is that all of them of what standing name or credit soever they be and with what Diligence Sincerity or Learning soever they were made are only so far certain as they agree with the first Context I mean says he as they express that sense which is certainly manifest to be the true sence of the Hebrew and Greek words And Doctor Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers Dipped has these words p. 1. No Translation is simply Authentical or the undoubted Word of God To these Subscribeâ— Doctor Baron our Countrey man inferiour to no Protestant I know either in Loyalty or Learning Tract 1. c. 2. p. 46. Laici illiterati c. Unlearned Laicks says he believe only Implicitly confusedly and 〈◊〉 upon the Divine Authority of Scripture formeâ—ly taken by reason they can have no certain express and distinct knowledge of the Doctrine contained in Scripture as such or of the agreement of Translations in vulgar Languages with the Originals yea they know not so much but upon other mens testimony and report as that the Doctrine propounded to them to be believed is set down in the Scripture or written Word at all Whence followeth according to these learned Protestants the ground of the Protestant Religion must be only the Scripture in the Original Languages that is Greek Hebrew and Syriack which of a thousand Protestants 2. does not understand Where then must all other Protestants ground their faith a very few number of Linguists being excepted shal they believe only Implicitely and on other mens report as D. Baron will have them But this is the Colliers Faith Mr. Menzeis jears though I fear all his skill in Languages often force him to turn a Collier himself or shall they rely on Translations which Chamiers after all diligence used and Doctor Daniel with him confess not to be the undoubted Word of God but in so far as they are known to agree with the Hebrew and Greek Texts and how few undoubtedly know this Yea Protestant Translations of the Bible are so generally corrupt that you shall find none that has not been challenged even by most learned Protestants for manifold corruptions and that very gross To begin at Luther let us hear Zuinglius of him Tom. 2. ad Luther C. de Sacram. fol. 412. Where after detection of many corruptions in Luther he concludes thus See how thy case standeth that in the eyes of all men thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of holy Scripture which thing thou canst never deny before any Creature how much are we ashamed of thee who hereto have esteemed thee beyond all measure and now find thee to be such a false fellow Neither can Luther deny his corruptions himself for in that place of St. Paul where a man is said to be justified by faith he grants l. Contra Cochleum p. 408. he puts into the Text the word only which the Apostle has not Licet Paulus verbo sola non utatur qou ego usus sum and is not this a main place Protestants use against us so well are they grounded in Scripture Of Calvin Charles Molinaeus in his Translation of the New Testament part 2. fo 110. says Calvin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Scripture to leap up and down as the truth it self declareth he useth violence to the Letter of the Gospel and in many places clearly transposes it and besides this addeth to the Text. Are these the Reformers of the Church by the uncorrupted word or corrupters of the Word to deform the Church Castalio saith of Beza That to note all his Errors in translating the New Testament it would require a great volume Five times he differs from himself though one of the best Linguists ever Protestants had King James a great Scholar as a great Monarch in the sum of the conference before his Majesty thinks the Geneva Translation the worst of all others And Mr. Parkes in his defence of the first Testimony concerning Christs descending into Hell says as for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they be purged from those manifold Errours which are both in the Text and at the Margent or else utterly prohibited Now as to our own Translations in English Mr. Bruges in his Apology Sect. 6. Says plainly that the approved Protestant Translation hath many omissions many additions which sometimes obscure sometime pervert the sense And M. Carleil p. 116. remarkes that the English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from their right sense and shew themselves to love darkness more then light falshood more then truth they have corrupted and depraved the sense obscured the Truth deceived the Ignorant and supplanted the simple And Mr. Broughton a chief Linguist in England in his Epistle to the Lords of the Privy Council desireth them to procure speedily a new Translation because that which is now is full of Errours And in his
Figuratively as clearly so spoken in Scripture some other place of Scripture must be brought or some other Infallible Authority telling me this in express words otherwise I cannot have that certainty of it which is required in Divine Faith 3. Amongst all the clear places in Scripture to pick out the Fundamental ones how hard is it for every one Not to say Morally impossible M. Menzeis himself granting he cannot do it more then make a Coat to the Moon For by this means all should be obliged to know all Texts of Scripture and then to examine diligently each one first whether it be evident or obscure least it should appear upon examination to be evident which at the first sight did not seem so And secondly Whether it be generally commanded and have a Character of necessity to be believed by all for then according to M. Menzeis Rule I know it to be a Fundamental but Chillingworth his learned Divine tells him a little above to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary is an intricate piece of business S. Paul to the Heb. 2. C. 6. V. requires no more as necessary as would seem then that he who cometh to God believe he is and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him S. John 3. Ch. 6. says he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life the Prophet Royal that all who fear the Lord are blessed and many other such passages there be in Scripture which might make a â—â—n think one thing or two at most were necessary to Salvation as sometimes the believing of one Point sometimes the doing of one good action Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place full Remission of sins to Alms deeds in another c. and yet who will say either of these two is sufficient for working a mans Salvation Add to all this I find in Scripture If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments S. Matth. 19. Yet Protestants teach that to be impossible and consequenly this Fundamental must lead all to despair as that other make all to presume it being a Fundamental again amongst Protestants that every man should believe he is one of the Elect which being an Article of his Faith may reasonably secure him and yet all not being of this number some from this Fundamental must or should at least presumptuously believe a lye Further the eating of blood and strangled meat is generally forbidden by the Apostles to all the Gentiles converted to the Christian Faith as it was before to the Jews whence I infer what is generally commanded to all should generally be believed by all and so if M. Menzeis Rule be good this must come in amongst the Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion which if it be so in the Pulpit I know not but at Table I am sure it is not A hundred such absurdities follow upon seeking Fundamentals in Scripture by these deceiving signes and uncertain marks M. Menzeis gives us without any Infallible Guide 2. It is to be remarked that Protestants neither agree in setting down Fundamentals nor cannot give a precise Catalogue of Points of Faith they think to be Fundamental as was required of M. Menzies but that also they mistake the very Notion and name A Fundamental verity in the Christian Religion being either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and belief whereof none can be saved Now the Question amongst us is not about this but whether a Man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things then these when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the former For then say Catholicks he is equally obliged to believe them by reason of the formâ—â— Object which is Divine Revelation can in nothing deceive or should in any thing be called in question though in respect of the Material Object or thing revealed we be not so obliged to know it For there is nothing less or more certain when God speaks he being the first verity yea verity it self who delivers all he says with one and the same Infinite Certainty where no degrees of more or less certitude can have place Protestants it would seem as they take Fundamentals will not be tyed to this whence they receive in communion with them and as the true Members of their Church some who hold most contrary Tenets as M. Menzeis the Waldenses Wickliffians Hussists who in his seventh Paper grants the whole body of the Church collectively taken cannot err in Essentials or Fundamentals yet so as that in some whole ages the Integrals may be vitiated But if he understand by Integrals lesser Points of Faith as to their Object and Matter yet equally revealed by God and propounded by his Church to us with chief Mysteries wherein the Protestants mistake and Errour in their Distinction of Fundamentals and Integrals consists his Assertion is both Erroneous Heretical because an Act of Faith grounded on the Motive of Gods Infinite and infallible Veracity in revealing is a Vertual and Implicite Belief of all he has revealed so that the true Belief of one Article implyes a belief of all Wherefore S. Athanasius says in his Creed whosoever doth not hold the Catholick Faith whole and inviolate he shall perish for ever And S. Hierome l. 3. contr Ruff. for one word or two contrary to the Faith many Hereticks have been cast out of the Church Yea S. Gregory Naz. tract de fide says nothing can be more dangerous then those Hereticks who when they run through all things uprightly yet with one word as with a drop of poyson corrupts the true and sincere Faith of our Lord and of Apostolical Tradition S. Basil as Theodoret reports l. 4. Hist c. 6. being desired to relent a little to the time Answered That such as were instructed in the Divine Doctrine do not suffer any Syllable to be corrupt but for its defence if need require willingly imbrace any kind of death And the Church in her Publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one Point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily believed when known to be decided by her So doth the Church of England Excommunicate all who hold any thing contrary to the 39. Articles though they judg them not all Fundamental As the Athenians punished without remission the least word against the received opinion of their Gods and the Jews says Joseph contra Appion the least transgression of the Law So God threatneth that he shall be blotted out of the Book of Life who ever shall deminish any word of the Revelation Apoc. 22. v. 19. Yet Luther rejecting whole Epistles of Scripture in M. Menzeis Book is called a holy man but so speaketh not Luther of him denying the Real Presence
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
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
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
a General Council as infallible in their Decrees Here either acknowledgeth the Records of the Ecclesiastick History and Writings of the Fathers as witnessing infallibly to us the Doctrine of these ages or else must grant he hath no infallible assurance that this his second ground of Faith is solid and Infallible There being no other way left us without particular Revelation to know what Doctrine the Church did teach and believe in the first three Ages save only the Writings of the Fathers and Tradition of the present Church which consequently M. Menzeis must either here own as Infallible or avouch he builds his Faith upon a sandy and fallible ground The first Reformers standing better to their own Principles then he and of much greater sincerity and learning grant plainly the Fathers of the Primitive Church to hold many things in opposition to them Luther L. de servo arbitr C. 2. and in his Table Conferences C. de patrib Eccl. The Authority of the Fathers is not to be regarded in the Writings of Hierome there is not a word of true Faith in Christ sound Religion Tertullian is very Superstitious I have holden Origen long since accursed of Chrysostome I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk I weigh not him a hair Cyprian is a weak Divine affirming there yet further that the Apology of Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctors of the Church yea even Augustine himself Calvin L. 3. Inst C. 5. It was a custome 1300. years ago that is in the second age to pray for the dead but all of that time says he I confess were carried away with Errour And in the fourth Book of his Institutions Chapter 9. he will stand to no Decision of Councils Fathers Bishops but try all by Scripture alone granting generally all the Western Churches to have defended Popery Resp ad Versipell p. 134. Melancthon on the first Cor. 3. speaks plain presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscâ—â—ed the Doctrine of Justice by Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised new Worships In like manner Peter Martyr 1. devotis p. 477. that in the Church Errours did begin Immediately after the Apostles and therefore as long as we stand to Councils and Fathers we shall be alwayes in the same Errours Whitaker cont 2. q. 5. C. 7. it is true which Calvin and the Centurists have written that the antient Church did Err in many things as touching Limbo free Will merit of Works c. Chemnitius in Exam. conc trid pa. 200. most of the Fathers did not dispute but avouch that the souls of Martyrs heard the petitions of those who prayed to them they went to the Monuments of Martyrs and Invocated Martyrs by name D. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory grants Tertullian Cyprian Hierome Augustine do witness that Sacrifice for the Dead is a Tradition of the Apostles yea in his retentive says Prayer for the dead prevailed within the first 300. years And in his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick That Pope Victor in the second Age did practise Supremacy in the Church The Centurists do reprehend Cyprian Origen Tertullian in the third Century and S. Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters Primacy as they do also S. Cyprian in the third Century of Superstition for saying that the Priest at Mass holds the place of Christ and offers up Sacrifice to God the Father Sacerdotem Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi deo patri sacrificium offerre And generally confess the Fathers of the third Age do witness and that not in obscure terms invocation of Saints videas in doctorum hujus soeculi Scriptis non obscura vestigia invocationis Sanctorum They say further in the second Century S. Irenaeus admitteth free Will even in Spiritual actions and that S. Clement every where asserteth it so that the Doctors and Parstors of that Age were in this manner of blindness say they reckoning out in this number S. Cyprian Theophilus Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Justine Irenaeus Athenagoras Tatianus c. As doth also Abraham Scultetus with them Yea Doctor Humphrey in his Jesuitisms pa. 2. and else where Eccl. C. 15. says it cannot be denyed but that S. Irenaeus S. Clement and other Fathers of the first and second age called Apostolicks for that they were Disciples of the Apostles or immediately followed them have in their Writings the Opinion of free Will and Merit of Works The Cenâ—ury Writers and Scultetus Tax for the same Clement of Alexandria S. Cyprian Justin Martyr c. In the third Century they say Origen made good Works the cause of Justification and in the 5. accuse S. Chrysostome for handling the Doctrine of Justification impurely as attributing Merit to Works M. Whitaker saith that not only Cyprian but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that Errour as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin and to satisfie to Gods Justice in so far as Luther on the 4. ch to the Gallathians calls for this Hierome Ambrose Augustine and other Fathers Justice-workers of the old Papacy And M. Wotton in his defence of M. Perkins forbeareth not to censure for this very Point of Merit the undoubted and confessed Writings of Ignatius Disciple of S. John Chemnitius in his Examine par 4. p. 20. affirmeth the Antient Fathers Erred in making Pilgrimages to Relicks of Saints and Osiander with the Centurists Cent. 4. that S. Hierome did foolishly contend that the Relicks of Saints ought to be worshipped For owning Traditions Chemnitius in his Exam. Par. 1. p. 87.89.90 reproves Clement of Alexandria Origen Epiphanius Hierome Ambrose Basil Maximus Damacene and M. Whitaker de Sacr. Script S. Chrysostome as speaking inconsiderately when he admitteth them D. Reynolds in his Concla 1. p. 689. somewhat more moderate leaves the censuring of S. Epiphanius for this to the Church M. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwrights Reply grants Ignatius Disciple of the Apostles to have said of Hereticks They do not admit the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins And M. Beacon in his Treatise the Relicks of Rome says the Mass was begotten conceived and born anon after the Apostles time if it be true what Historiographers write Calvin L. 1. Inst C. 4. confesseth in the Primative Church Confession Pennance and Absolution by the Priests and the Century Writers that in the times of S. Cyprian and Tertullian there was used private confession even of thoughts and lesser sins then so commanded as necessary Where any judicious Reader may evidently see how by chief Protestant Authours both the Primitive Church and the Fathers are censured for many Errours Yea and for the very same which are most objected against the Romish Church a most invincible Argument from the confession of our Adversaries That the Church and Fathers of the three first Ages did teach the self same Doctrine with the present Roman Church and
de Unit. eccl We must obey his Precepts and Admonitions that our Merits may receive their reward And in his Serm. de Eleem. If the day of our return shall find us unloadned swift and running in the way of good works our Lord will not fail to reward our merits 10. Protestants deny the possibility of keeping the Commandements which S. Basil orat in illud attende tibi calls a wicked thing to say S. Hierome on the 5. of S. Matthew Blasphemy S. Augustine serm 61. de tempore a denial both of the justice and holiness of God In the the third Age Tertullian as cited by the Centurists Cent. 3. says No Law could tye him who had not in his power due obedience to the Law This is a maxime in Philosophy wherefore Origen hom 9. in Jos sayes plainly the baptized may fulfil the Law in all things Now not to be more tedious or prolix in ciing either Passages or Fathers whose Quotations could easily make a just Volume of the Sacraments I have spoken in the former Section and of the Pastors of the Church their infallible Authority in a general Council in the third which with what is here said are the main things and most substantial denyed by Protestants but clearly asserted by the Fathers cited who all confessedly did live in the first three ages a very few excepted I have brought of the fourth and fifth age only as witnesses of what was practised in the Church before their time leaving the Canons of the Apostles and many things by Tradition from them conserved in the Church and witnessed by the Fathers with the Decrees of most holy Popes and Martyrs of the first and second Age as these of Anacletus Alexander Sixtus Telesphorus Pius Anicetus Soter c. holding out so many of our Tenets against Protestants and this to shun Cavils and Exceptions which they might take either at their writings or place as they do As for the same cause many other most renouned Authors as Policarpus Cornelius Prochorus Methodius Nilus Agapetus Dorotheus and others upon this only account with the Book of Hermes of whom S. Paul to the Romans Ch. 16. maketh mention called the Pastor which Hamelmanus and M. Hooker both Protestants grant to have been reckoned by the antient Fathers in the number of Ecclesiastical Books and particularly as seemeth to Hamelmanus by no less men then Irenaeus Clement and Origen Yet this Book in such esteem with them he will have to be impure as laying the ground of Purgatory Prayer for the dead Merit and Justification of Works of professed Chastity in Priests and Church-men of fasting from certain Meats at times c. But I hope M. Menzeis will make no exception against most Authors I have produced unless passing from his appeal to the Fathers of the first three ages he pass also from his second ground of Faith as certainly after all has been said he should do seeing I may justly speak home to him here with S. Augustine in his 11. Book against Julian the Pelagian Heretick c. 10. What the Catholick Fathers and Doctors have found in the Church that they hold what they have received from their forefathers that they have delivered to their children Whilest we had no debate as yet with you before them as Judges our case was pleaded amongst them we were not as yet contesting with you and nevertheless by their decree we have the victory over you Neither is this victory imaginary as that of M. Menzeis but real as the three Arguments I have brought make good which by way of recapitulation I set before him in this one Argument the Doctrine of the Church and writings of the Fathers in the first three Ages can be no ground to Protestants for what they teach First if the chief Reformers disown them Secondly if most learned Protestants accuse them of many Errours Thirdly If their own Writings in all controverted Tenets be flatly against Protestant Doctrine but all this is true from the places produced then their Writings can be no ground to them Yet Protestants will needs make up their Religion from the Writings of the Fathers as some Poets from the Centons and broken Verses of Virgil and Homer the life of Christ They challenge the Fathers for their Heresie upon a word or two picked out of places wherein they have an Orthodox sense In so many hundred Volumes of the Fathers writings that some word or passages seem to favour Heresie what wonder Gods own Word if we will stick to the naked Letter seeming to favour so many as we have seen above They oppose Fathers to Fathers and sometimes one to himself so they are possessed with the Spirit of contradiction that all may turn Problematick and be controverted among them They cite the Scriptures against the Fathers as if their new and giddy headed start-ups did better understand them then the most antient and solid Divines they will at times by passages of the Fathers or Scripture strive to condemn the practice of the Church and Decrees of Councils but whoever amongst the Fathers did so doth any one of the Fathers with the first Reformers oppose Scripture as understood by them to the Authority of the Church or to the same Scripture as explained by her Doth any of them attach the Roman Church of Errour To say such a Church so great and glorious in the Christian world did Apostatize and none did remark her Apostacy is like a general Eclipse of the Sun remarked by none The least Errours of particular Hereticks the Fathers have so narrowly sifted so sharply censured so solidly confuted and shall we think they have either not spyed or spared to censure the corruptions of a whole body and Church But let wise men and greatest Shcollars be at variance as they please about some places both of Scriptures and Fathers as surely it will be to the Worlds end God hath given us both a sure and short way promised by the Prophet wherein even ignorants and fools cannot err Christ having left us the present Catholick Church in all ages as the most faithful Depositary of his Doctrine and the Infallible Visible Judge of all that can be controverted in matters of Faith Before I end this Section to give you but a scantling with what sincerity and candor Hereticks cite the Fathers this I borrow from M Menzeis in his third paper where in general he most confidently says That whatever the antient Apologists as Justin Martyr Tertullian and Athenagoras have said for the Christian Religion the same Protestants may say for their own Whereupon having diligently read over the first of these Apologies which is that of Justin Martyr as any may do in an hour I have found him so grosly mistaken in citing this Father that I may justly say he could not more forfeit his reputation This I evidence in four chief Points asserted by us and denyed by Protestants The first is Free Will for which Justin in his Apology
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
have it believed no more For who can prudently believe things not clear in themselves or at least not so to us without some infallible Propunder evidencing by Supernatural Motives as Miracles that such a Doctrine is from God Neither can a Protestant standing to his Principles say any more whence no conversion of Infidels amongst them But no end of their cavelling with us They here urge 1. Suppose the true Church were infallible in her Pastors assembled in a Council yet all we bring in proof of this may be retorted against our private Teachers who are not infallible in propounding But to this it is easily answered that as God most infallibly both by his general Providence and particular Promise directs rules and governs his Church so she by vertue of his special assistance oversees infallibly her private persons in order to our certainty in Faith For in the holy Hierarchy of the Church God hath placed Watchmen most vigilant over their flocks who suffer them not to be misled they have discovered the very least Errors sowen in Corners and branded their Authors as false Teachers Wherefore as unity in belief is the Form and Soul of that great body of the Catholick or Universal Church so whatever Doctrine is commonly taught and received in her without any contradiction from her Pastors is sufficiently known to be infallible 2. They object there is no infallible Propounder of this Article of our Faith The Church is Infallible Answer Yes 1. God shows himself the Propounder of this in the Markes of the Church which we shall presently see 2. As our Saviour Christ calling himself the Son of God and working Miracles did sufficiently yea infallibly evidence to the Jews that it was true what he said So the Church calling her self infallible and working the like Miracles in all Ages doth infallibly evidence to the world that it is true what she says otherwise it would follow that God did employ his Omnipotency and Power to work Miracles in favour of an Impostor thus cheating the world with a lye 3. Therefore I say the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church in which the Doctrine of Christ is infallibly propounded and certainty in Faith and Salvation to be found This Point is of highest concern according to the Fathers For it is only the Catholick Church says Lactantius l. 4. that hath the true Worship and Service of God That is the Well-spring of Truth the dwelling place of Faith the Temple of God into which whosoever entereth not and from which whosoever departeth is without all hope of Life and Salvation Whosoever is divided from her says S. Augustine in his Epistle 152. how laudable soever he seems to himself to live for this only crime that he is separated from the unity of Christ he shall be excluded from life and the wrath of God shall remain upon him And again in his 50. Epistle as a Member cut off wants the spirit of life so a man separated from the body of Christ cannot have the spirit of Justice c. They have not the Holy Ghost who are out of the Church S. Cyprian de Unitat. Eccl. The Spouse of Christ cannot be defiled with adultery whosoever divided from this Church cleaveth to the Adulteress he is separated from the Promises of the Church he cannot have God for his Father who hath not the Church to his Mother S. Irenaeus l. 3. C. 40. in the Church God hath constituted Apostles Prophets Doctors and all the rest of the Operation of the Spirit whereof those are not partakers who repare not unto the Church where the Church is there is the Spirit of God Vincentius Lyrinensis contr haeres C. 1. 2. says That he having very often most diligently inquired of many Holy and Learned men how he might certainly distinguish the true Catholick Faith from all Heresies it was ever answered him by the Law of God and the Tradition of the Church Divinae legis authoritate Catholicae ecclesiae traditione Then making to himself the common Objection of Protestants seeing the Rule of Scripture is perfect what necessity of joyning to it the Tradition of the Church He presently Answers because all take not Scripture one way and in the same sense because of its deepness All the Fathers run upon this out of the Catholick Church no true Religion no Divine Faith no infallible Guide no sure way to Salvation no hope of Heaven no means to attain Eternal Happiness and Life Wherefore God by his Divine Appointment Order and Decree having tyed us and that under no less pain then the damnarion of our Souls to live in the Unity and Communion of this Church in which only he has placed the Chair of his Doctrine and Channels of his Graces I presuppose 1. This Church may be easily known and that by clear Marks in all Ages and by all she being so amply great and Eminently high that the Prophet Isa Ch. 2. calls her The Mountain of the Lords house established in the top of Mountains and exalted above the Hills to which all Nations should flow 2. Tat those Marks be the same now which did evidence her in Christs and in the Apostles time for all things are best conserved by the same means by which they received their being says the Phylosophers Conservatio continuata productio 3. That whatever Church is found to have these Marks should be undoubtedly acknowledged for the true one otherwise they could not have proved her the true Church at first This presupposed that the Catholick Roman Church is the only true Church I most evidently prove in short for this hath been often done in large volumns and that by a very few undoubted Signes and as it were most legible Characters of the Primitive Church in the time of the Apostles paralelling the one with the other Three things are chiefly remarkable in the Apostles and Church under them 1. Their Sanctity and Holiness of Life 2. The great conversion of Infidels wrought by them 3. Their manifold and wonderful Miracles These be the Marks of their mission by which they show themselves to be the servants of God to be sent by God and that God by his Vertue and Power concurreth and cooperateth with them Their Holy Humble Poor and Austere Life makes them like to their Master Christ and fit Instruments for the great Employment they are going about Miracles make their Credential Letters and witness the fulness of their power Conversions are the end of their Embassy which as it was to last till all the Nations of the earth were brought to the Unity of Faith and bosome of the Church according to that Promise of Christ There shall be one shepherd and one Fold so their true Successors are constantly known by the same Signs in all Ages as the undoubted Marks and Badge of the Apostles I begin at Miracles which I call the Apostles Credentials and make the chief infallible Mark of the true Church and all