SCOLDING NO SCHOLARSHIP: IN THE ABYSS OR, GROUNDLESS GROUNDS OF The Protestant Religion, as holden out by M. Menzeis in his Brawling against M. Dempster.  
We have heard of the Pride of Moab (he is very proud) even of his haughtiness, and his Pride and his wrath; but his lies shall not be so,  Isaiah 16. V. 6. According to Protestants Translation. 
The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth,  1 Tim. 3.15. 
Printed for the Author, 1669.   


Sr. William Baird of Newbaith Bart.    

AN Advertisement.  
HAving but a very few things whereof to Advertise the Reader, I address no Epistle to him; Yet one thing I must friendly tell him, being to ask a Courtesy or two at his hands. 1. Then he shall know this short Reply to Mr. Menzeis' greater Book, was offered to the Press at Aberdene within a month after it first appeared; but the Stationer being inhibited by Public Authority (and that as is thought at M. Menzeis' desire) I was forced first to make it to be transcribed, and then fitted for abroad, where it is not easy to us, to have any thing well Printed or returned in haste. 2. I must beg upon this account, the Errata and faults in Orthography may be excused, I not being present to correct them. 3. I desire none would think tedious or superfluous in some Sections, very many Quotations, yea some even here and there repeated; for that in questions of fact, things cannot be otherwise proved; and to remit the Reader either to the first Authors of them, or the places wherein they were cited before, or in other Controversy Books, were to divert his thoughts and attention, and put him to such pains as few will take. 4. I pray that he do not mistake me in refuting M. Menzeis Grounds, for I only take to prove, that the Scripture and Doctrine of the Primitive Church can be no ground to Protestants, denying an Infallible Visible Judge, for both these as infallibly propounded by the true Church, I most cordially embrace, and wish all may do with me.   

AN Answer to a Letter sent from Aberdene, with Mr. John Menzeis his Reply to Mr. Dempster, for Reclaiming a Country Gentleman from Popery.  
SIR,  
YOur Letter showing equally such zeal for the Protestant Cause, and affection to me, hath made me read the Book enclosed, with such a Character of the Writer, as carefully, as if it contained Responses, and as impartially as if I were a Seeker.  
The Question here moved, I ingenuously grant, is the main Point (if solidly answered) could best reclaim me, and most of my Profession, who amidst so many Storms raised against us, have no small motive to comply, if we could look at present to our little Temporal Interest, without making a greater and Eternal loss, whereof there could be no hazard, if Protestants (as is here debated) could show any assured and infallible ground for what they profess.  
This, Sir, is all Mr. Dempster through all his ten Papers requires, and we with him; he propounds and states the Question most clearly and smoothly, though in homely terms, by reason of his long absence from home; he makes no Digression from the main Point, what ever be replied beside: (yet engageth after this Point once decided, to answer what ever is here retorted, instanced, or urged against him) he answers humbly and mildly, however provoked with most bitter and lofty words; Like another Fabius or old Warrior, he keeps his Post, neglecting all the Flowrishes and Skirmishes of his insulting Adversary, who having engaged under his hand, to defend the Protestant Religion (the only occasion of this Dispute) strives still nevertheless (f●de & arte punicâ) that is most deceitfully, to impugn the Catholic Roman Faith with a like success to that of Hannibal, who let Carthage be demolished and redacted to ashes, whilst he insisted in vain to Sack and Ruin Rome. And this is proper to him with most Heretics; all Heresy tending rather to destruction then edification, Atheism rather than Religion, and to question what hath been since Christ and his Apostles constantly believed in the Church of God, rather than to settle their own new wavering and inconstant Faith, upon any solid Principle or Ground.  
Yet Mr. Menzeis most confidently thinking he had got as an unbloody, so an undoubted victory (hearing his Adversary was dead) Petitions the Senate of Aberdene as for a Triumph, that his Papers may be put in Print: His Learning, Loyalty, and Religion most justly deserving it, for as he is of a daring and stirring spirit, so in all things Martially minded, his Learning being most in Polemics, his Loyalty much in debate, and his Religion ever in controversy; nevertheless as Umpire in all, he deserveth well a Crown, as his late late Victory by the Pen a Chariot of Paper. This his Triumphal Chariot is not drawn, but carried in the Air, with high and violent blasts; most suitable to his fierceness in fight with a scolding and railing Tongue, which makes his Adversaries deepest wounds. Before it, go indeed some worthy Persons, at least in black upon white, and in the Paper, follow immediately the flying Colours, wherein his late Arms sent from Edenbrough, (viz. The Bible reversed) do shine, with this new Motto, I take from the present Subject The Grounds of the Protestant Religion. The acclamations of the People are not wanting in the mouths of some sighing Sisters. He is Herald himself, sounding constantly his own praises aloud; nothing is brought into the Treasury, as in Triumphs had wont in old, but some hundred Marks for the charges of the Triumph (that is, the Printing of the Papers) exported. One thing only is wanting, practised in such glorious shows, one Admonitor sitting with the Triumpher, to keep him in mind of humane weakness, lest too great honour should so puff him up, as to think himself above the condition of men. And this defect, Sir, I intent to supply, in perusing his Book, advertising him now and then of some weakness, both in Conduct, Courage and Strength, as his Answers to the Question propounded shall deserve.  
And first, if I should answer his most invective Babbling, Scold, and Rail, with all the Venom he spits out to Cement the Grounds of his Religion, I could easily pay him home, even with the general Applause and Acclamations of most Protestants, amongst whom the more Moderate, and most constant Professors scarce own him, his Religion, or Grounds; as best knowing his Arragant, Proud, Contentious Spirit, his unbridled Tongue, his scandalous Carriage in so many Encounters, his wavering Belief, unsettled Faith; and how oft he hath been Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent: His Pulpit jars with his Colleague in the time of the Covenant, his base compliance with the Usurper in the time of Rebellion, his variance with his Bishop at the time, the Government of the Church was re-establisht; how many living Witnesses have heard him Preach and foment Schism, and Divisions in the Church, Sedition in the State, and even treacherous and Treasonable Sermons against his Prince and King. I instance only that base and perfidious bewraying of God's Word, belying of the known truth; and betraying of his Country and King, in that most unchristian Sermon, upon these words, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, whom I have rejected? Applying them to our most Gracious Sovereign; which I should have been ashamed to relate, if this notorious Impostor, and most absurd abuser of God's Word, had not first in the Preface of a Sermon in Print, and now again so often in this his Book most deceitfully and maliciously cried out, Papists could be no good Subjects, as if their Tenets did tend to Rebellion; whilst all Loyal Protestants in the three Kingdoms, both love and respect our Loyalty, how ever they hate our Profession; and look upon him, with all his Covenanting Fry, as a most fiery Incendiary of Rebellion. Now Sir, if such a man (whom you most cry up for his Eloquence, as, if like another Samson, his strength consisted in his hair) be a Person fitted to give the Grounds of Religion, defend the Protestant Faith, or convert any one to his Belief, for that with a Pharisaical countenance, a Puritanical tone, and a strong voice, colouring some slight Learning and reading of Pamphlets, with plagiary Phrases and Passages, to stuff up a Book in Print, and turn the Glass twice in his Sermons, let any be judge.  
As that Philosopher of old, hearing himself praised by the rabble, who commonly approve nothing but such stuff as is in themselves, did presently make an examen of his actions: I hope Protestants seeing their Religion Defended by such a Writer, will more diligently inquire of its weakness, which they can never better see, then in his Papers, where having undertaken to give the Grounds of the Protestant Religion (the only Subject of this Dispute, either by Word or Writ) in them all has not (as his Adversary well re-marks) so much as ten lines to settle, clear, or defend them in the least; but scraping together objections against Catholics (so often answered by them) borrows some passages to no purpose at present, and heaps up undervaluing words, with such injurious scold, rail, and imprecations against an Old, Grave, Learned, and Modest Man, that after he hath called him an impudent Liar, a Knave, Rogue, Sycophant, Fool, a dull and Lethargick-head, a Neat-herd in Ignorance, a Devil in Malice, and what not? He imprecates in fine (out of his corrupt Bible, changing the word Imperet, with im●re●et) the same curse Saint Michael did in their conflict to the Devil, such is the Pride, Passion, and poison of his heart, so contrary to the Spirit of God. After this, what may we expect of such a person, if we hear the Wise man's saying, In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia: True Wisdom never enters into a wicked and malicious soul; yet Sir, to satisfy your loving and friendly desire, I intent to examine more at length, what Wit and Learning he shows, and first in his two long Epistles Dedicatory, and to the Reader, which could receive no Answer, from Mr. Dempster, as appearing but a twelvemonth after his death: After this, God willing, I will positively refute (which he so urges may be done) First, his great Principle of No Infallible visible Judge of Controversy, and then both his Ruinous Grounds.  

SECT. I.  
Some brief Reflections on the Title of Mr. Menzei's Book, and his two long Epistles Dedicatory, and to the Reader.  
HIs Title being in Latin Papismus Lucifugus, (according to that saying, a strong Thief shall have a strange name,) must needs be explained, and surely understood of that New Gospel Light in the Covenant, for in it Mr. Menzeis was a bright Star of the first Magnitude, or Fiery Comet himself, of which Light, a Prelatic Poet in answer to a Satire, upon the Consecration of a Bishop, Writes thus, 
Your Phoebus from the West did rise  
A light that did put out men's eyes,  
Welcome Confusion.   
This Light indeed Popery shuns, as all other New Lights against old received Christian Verities; but not that either of Scripture or Antiquity, the only true Light of the Christian World, as flowing from Christ the S●n of Justice, and carried by so many holy Popes, Bishops, and Priests in Communion with them, even unto the most remote corners of the Earth, as the conversion of all Kings and Countries to the Christian Religion do testify, which Light Mr. Dempster, no where declines, but constantly holds out to make nothing for clearing the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, except it be in showing them both ruinous and false, so that Mr. Menzeis here, Offendit in Luce & in limine, that is, stumbles both in the light, and in the specious Title of his Book, whereof the very first line is not to the purpose. The Question being only of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, and not of Popery at all.  
He begins with a great show of humility, who am I, the meanest of the thousands of Israel? Answer, Est qui se nequiter humiliate & interiora ejus plena dolo, Eccles.— 19 But let his late Bishop in the Church, Principal in the College, and fellow Brethren in the Ministry bear witness of this, when they have opposed him in the least: Yea, his own Jactancy through all his Papers and Book, with his base revile in every page, and under-valuing of his Adversary. It is those his humble thoughts of his own abilities makes him so boldly assert there was consultation used in the present Dispute, Surprisal intended, and a choice Champion pitched upon to Encounter with him as a Hector. But the known truth is to all them who had a hand in the undertaking (as they did witness in his presence at the Meeting) that they had only yielded to his Importunity in desiring a Meeting, and that they had taken him only who was next at hand for the time, a man most able indeed for a civil Conference, but most unable for a Clamorous Dispute, as being of a very weak Constitution, and of a totally confiscated health. But all this Conference must be set out by him in a disguised Dress; Mr. Dempster proclaimed an Ignorant, Catholics charged with Calumnies, the better to Paint out his Victory and Triumph. As in like case another Conference (as he quotes) by Dr. Prideaux; and Dr. Featly of late, whom he might have spared to name, being as good at Calumniating Inventions as either of them, and no doubt but he will be cited hereafter, as they now, who nevertheless most deceitfully relates both the occasion of the Conference, and what passed in it.  
The clamours of women he speaks of, if any (for it was a most modest person did speak) was only to suppress his clamours heard even at the Cross, and witness to his face, that he had passed from his engagement to them, which was to give and defend the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, as he had engaged under his hand; and this his missive, was the Paper Mr. Dempster kept open at the Meeting (which he would have generally supposed to have been the first exchanged Paper with him) but it is particularly known to us, Mr. Dempster had never then intended to write a line. But Mr. Menzeis' cautious, and conscious to himself, that it had been easy to reverse his Grounds, and Involve him in inextricable difficulties (as shall hereafter appear) if he had answered directly by word, refuses the performance of his promise, or to speak for the Protestant Religion at all, but will only Impugn some Opinions of Authors in the School, which are neither fit for the Pulpit, (where he did first challenge them) nor the capacity of common hearers, and much less that which he chiefly insisted on, any Point of our Faith.  
The first is, That men are not bound presently to repent when ever they have offended God, under the danger of incurring a new sin; Whereupon Mr. Menzeis frameth his Argument, as if this were a Dicision of the Catholic Roman Church; and then says he, Mr. Dempster denied the Major, whence he took witness that the Jesuit admitted the Minor, a rare Inference and quick. He passeth under silence the confirmation of the Major denied, because disgraceful to him, who though he did think it a point of Faith, and that so unquestionable, yet could never prove it by Scripture, contenting himself with a weak comparison, which he is ashamed to set down in his Book. But however Doctors vary in prescribing a limited time wherein we should repent, all hold the shortest delay both surest and best, and public Repentance is generally taught to be necessary for public transgressions, as public Recantations for open Calumnies, like to that of Mr. Menzies against his Sovereign, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, etc. His Penitential Sermon being as yet to make, so well doth he presently repent. Yea, not only his Practice, but Doctrine also (if truly a Protestant) is so far from presently repenting, that Teaching men's best actions to be sinful, he must either confess repentance at no time to be commanded, or else blasphemously avouch, God hath commanded us to sin. Is it not a jeering of God's Commands, and a scoffing of men, to affirm the Commandments to be impossible, and yet urge that even affirmative ones should be hourly, and instanly kept? Forgetting two Maxims of the School, Nemo tenetur ad impossibile, and Praecepta affirmitativa obligant semper sed non pro semper.  
In the second Argument, he both argues and and answers to himself, (Mr. Dempster being silenced by his clamours) concerning the intention of Priests in administering the Sacraments, which if requisite, he will have it to make all Faith uncertain. But in vain, there being greater assurance of their intention, than that Ministers use aright the Elements, and pronounce the words, or that they teach not false Doctrine, and set not out corrupt Bibles. The assistance of God's Spirit promised to his Church, and his particular Providence in Governing and Ruling it, assures us nothing necessary either to Faith or Salvation can be wanting in her; No want of Intention can wrong them who are come to age, they may supply by their own Intentions, Desires, and Acts of the love of God: And for children whom Protestant's▪ will have to be saved by the faith of their Parents, and not by Baptism, Is it not more sure, that public persons in the Church want not a right Intention, than that private men have true Faith? The conferring of a Sacrament is not only Actio Hominis I hope, but also Humana, as the Divines speak. What then if a Mad man in a frolic, or a Comedian for a jeer, (as we read to have been done in derision of Christians) should pour out water on any one, and pronounce the words? yea, what if a Priest showing a new Convert how he is to be Baptised, should do the same? Were these lawful and valid Baptisms, where nothing save the Intention is wanting. It is easy to cavil at the chief Heads of the Christian Religion, but hard to say any thing solidly against them.  
After this; he comes to his Apologies, First, for so much writing on so little purpose; Answer, he should have said, so little to the purpose, there scarce being ten lines precisely to the purpose in all his Papers and Book.  
Secondly, That he was not so speedy in Answering as Mr. Dempster, upon his Incombacy's; and upon deliberating whether he should answer, the emptiness of Mr. Dempsters' Scribble, who antedated his Papers, yet that he might guests with Apelles, at his great haste by his foul work. Answer, his greatest Imcombacy's, as I am informed, are but to dite and declaim Bellarmine's Objections, or such like, out of other Controversy Books: And if it be an empty Question to ask the Grounds of his Religion; Sure it must be an empty Religion, and void of Grounds. Neither did Mr. Dempster Antedate his Papers, but did write back to him as currently as any man could do a missive Letter, never intending they should see the Press, and finding very little solidity in his Answers. He guesses at his great haste by his foul work, but can show nothing foul in it, save only when he resumes his filthy scold: but we may easily guests at his little wit by his Foolish Work and Answers no where to the purpose.  
His third Apology, is for the Acrimony and bitterness of his expressions, which he says had their rise from Mr. Dempsters' Dunghill Eloquence, Repetitions, Praeteritions, Calumnies. Answer, Mr. Menzies scold are the only Eloquence of the Dunghill: most Learned men oftentimes be not very Eloquent in the Vulgar Tongue. As to his Repetitions, he is no good Disputant, who passes from his medium before the Argument be answered. For Preteritions, all wise men pass what is not to the purpose, as most of his papers and Book. And as for Calumnies, I leave to his papers to justify his modesty, however Mr. Menzies most injuriously Calumniate him.  
In his Epistle to the Reader, he continues his Apologies for Disputing, Writing, Printing, granting one might have said more in a very few sheets, for the satisfaction of a lover of Truth, than he in all his Papers, and this is most true; Nay, but he has been constrained to follow the anomalous motions of a tautologizing Jesuit. Answer, These two words set together sound well in a Pulpit, but signify nothing or little: for how can his motion be anomalous or irregular, who steers still to the same point, constantly propounding the same thing? Or how can he be said to Tautologize and use idle Repetitions, who insists still in the same question, till he get a full and satisfactory Answer? as if a man come to require his money from a Debtor, should hear from him many news of the late Wars, and then ask again his money, the Debtor should speak of our new League with many Foreign Princes: But the Creditor still mindful of the main, did reiterate the occasion of his coming, and ask a new, when he could expect his money? were this a tautologizing, and vain repetition? And in this sense I grant Mr. Dempster tautologizes, and in no other.  
But are not rather Mr. Menzies many Instances in this his Epistle against the Catholic Faith, and so many times repeated in his Book, both tautologies and anomalous motions, as altogether false, frivolous, idle, and impertinent to the present Question, concerning the Grounds of the protestant Religion? wherefore I reflect only on the last, viz. That Popish Principles, as improven by the Jesuited party, are highly injurious to Princes, Ergo, The Protestant Religion hath solid grounds; for this should be his Inference in all he says: And this an arch Covenanter is not ashamed to write, who so treasonably, and publicly did preach against his lawful Sovereign; but the love and esteem, so many of the Greatest and Wisest monarchs in the Christian World have for Jesuits, sufficiently vindicate them from all the Calumnies of such a disloyal person.  
After this he says, If he know his own genius well, he takes no pleasure in altercations: Answer He is then of a most austere Nature, who so shuns all pleasure; for it seems Mr. Menzeis lives in altercations, as the Salamander in the fire, all his Preachings and Writings being full of them.  
He delights so to cavil, that he lets not pass Mr. Dempsters' Orthographick trespasses, which should have been at most imputed to his Amanuensis or Scriviner. But, if Mr. Menzeis were as Orthodox as Orthographick, all were well. In his voyage to London to compliment the Usurper, he made himself Orthographick in the English Tongue; but coming down an Independent, he was far from an Orthodox mind, yet thinks to keep up some reputation amongst Protestants, by his Imputations on Jesuits.  
No hope, says he, of prevailing with the Jesuited Faction, whose Design as appears, is to keep up a stated Schism in Christendom, they hinder the conversion of Jews and Infidels. Answer, No Sir, it is only the Hydra of Heresy, and chiefly yours, divided in so many heads, keeps up Schism and Division from the Church, and amongst themselves; which Monster Jesuits strive to suppress, they, yea, one of them, called Saint Francis Xavier, hath converted more Infidels to the Christian and Catholic Religion in ten years' time, than all the Protestants in the World, for a hundred and fifty, if all Records of History be more worthy of credit, than you. The conversion of Jews, Infidels, Heretics as ever in old times, so constantly now, is a mark of the true Church, to which Heretics can no wise pretend, whose business is to pervert Catholics, rather then to convert Infidels, as Saint Hierome well remarks, so that in all prudence, this he should not have mentioned, his younger brethren the Jansenists, (of whom he borrows most of his Objections against Jesuits) speak not of this, being no little ashamed, when yearly the notable conversions of so many thousand Infidels, only by Jesuits, and other Priests in Communion with the Sea of Rome, come out, wherein neither they nor he have any hand.  
Next amongst many controverted points obstructive to the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, he sets down first, the Church's Infallibility, as if the true Church were not infallible, both according to the Scripture and Fathers (as I shall, God willing, hereafter prove at length) or as if the Church being infallible, peace and unity could not be had.  
Secondly, the Pope's Universal Supremacy, as obstructing Unity, forgetting what St. Hierome says, l. 1. in Jovin. That even amongst the apostles themselves, one was made head, that the occasion of Schism and Division might be taken away, Ut capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio: Doth the Pope's Supremacy in the whole Church hinder peace and unity, more than my Lord Archbishop's Primacy in the Kingdom? Is not this a fling at Bishops in their Dioceses, and the Primate in each Nation, to say their Supremacy over inferior Pastors, is a let and stop to Peace and Unity in the Church? So all Covenanting Ministers speak with him, the Unity they aim at being nothing but a Monopoly to set themselves above Pope and Primate, upon the ruins of both Church and State.  
Are not these strong and witty Objections, put in the Frontispiece of his Book, as in the Van? The rest I prosecute not, they being the ordinary controverted Tenets betwixt Protestants and us, answered in every Pamplet of Controversy; but the last is too remarkable to let it pass: Nay, says he, Is it not one of the first Queries wherewith Jesuits do assault our people, how do you know Scripture to be the word of God? As if they would have people rather turn Atheists, then remain Protestants. A very pretty Reply; shows not this his Answer, Jesuits and others have great reason to move the Question, to which so great a Divine can not better reply. Protestants call Scripture their ground of Faith, but can evidence by no sufficient Motive of Credibility, (standing to their principles) this Book they call Scripture, is the true and Authentic Word of God, should not Mr. Menzeis than have settled, cleared, and vindicated from all Objections and Cavils this his ground? but that could have diverted him from Impugning the Romish Faith: no it would have done more against it, than all his Calumnies of Idolatry; being more to the purpose, yea ended, (to the Protestants great advantage) all the present debate, but all Mr. Menzeis can answer, is to call the question Atheistical, and a demand proper to Infidels; as if good Christians might not ask for Instruction, how they may prudently believe, and firmly adhere to the grounds of their Religion and Faith. In fine, he says, Many Romanists have called for Reformation. Answer, true, and do as yet daily call for Reformation in Life and Manners, but not in matters of belief, none of them with Protestants, presuming to correct God's Word, and reform the Doctrine of his Church, or to censure their Pastors, and all the Ancient Fathers, with Pharisaical, and Puritanical pride. This way of calling for Reformation was proper to protestants at their first rise, for reforming the Catholic Roman Church, and again in the Covenant for the reforming their own; They like Foxes indeed, (to use Mr. Menzeis comparison) did raise such dust (not to say worse) with their tails and heads both, that ever since, the very air they breath is infected, and their eyes so blinded, that they cannot open them to see the manifest truth.  
After all this, fearing his Book may have a reply, he desires all things than be noticed he hath said. Answer, No, this his demand is most unreasonable, that at the time one only question is in debate, and that a main one, concerning the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, any thing else should be taken notice of, till this be put to a closure. On this all the Protestant Religion depends; let their grounds be proved solid, and we have done; for by that we look not on his Digressions as Golden Apples, to make us run out of our way in the least; they being scarce like to the Apples of Sodom (in his confused Rhapsody) that is pleasant to the eye, though no less rotten in the heart, as who has best right to the Root and Tree, may justly claim the Branches and Fruit; so whoever proves he hath the true Grounds of Religion, may easily prove all Superstructures on this ground to be true, the accessary followeth the principal; and this is the chief and principal question amongst us; let this be once decided in their favour, and we have no more process with them.  
Secondly, he desires nothing be brought has been answered by Protestants. Answer, if he had given example in this, he had never written a line: However, if any thing has been solidly answered, to what I bring against his great principle, of no Infallible visible Judge of Controversy, or both his grounds, as I most sincerely protest, it never did come to my hands, so let Mr. Menzeis send it me, and here an end.  
Thirdly, That personal Criminations be laid aside. Answer, than these personal Criminations, when he calls Mr. Dempster a dull and Lethargy-head, a Neat-herd, a man of a Prostitute reputation, a Knave, a Sycophant, a Devil, should have been blotted out of his Book. As Infamous persons are not received for witnesses, so Calumnies can be no wise sooner refuted, then by showing that he who calumniates has lost all reputation and credit. If it were not softly insinuated, what a quick wit Mr. Menzeis is, who names Mr. Dempster a dull and Lethargy-head: How learned a Pastor, who calls him a Neat-herd; how famous, who challenges him to be of a prostitute reputation; how honest, who calls him a Rogue and a Knave; how sincere and ingenuous, who terms him a Sycophant: and how great a Saint, who compares him to a Devil, his sole authority in Print might perhaps endanger Mr. Dempsters good name, wherefore he must not take ill a little hath been said of this, not for Criminations, but as Answers to Calumnies, and notorious falsehoods; especially his Apology being the greatest of his wrongs, as if Mr. Dempster had extorted them, he was forced to it, because for sooth, he can suffer no man to withstand him, or not to be satisfied with what he brings: This is all the Injury we read in Mr. Dempsters' papers, which can be no excuse certainly to him, who easily foreseeing what might be replied, dare glory with Job, he takes injuries for a Crown, citing as a Heroic word in Luther, Indies magis mihi placeo, superbus fio, quod video nomen pessimum mihi crescere. I please myself more and more daily, yea I become proud, to see that I have got a very ill name, and that it grows upon me; which if true, his pleasure may be great, and his pride too, for few of his coat after Luther have got a worse name, for changes in Religion, Jars and contentions with his brethren, disobedience to his Bishop, and disloyalty to his Prince.  
Here presently to set up his good name a little, he plays the Prophet, striving to pry into Mr. Dempsters' Intentions and thoughts, why he slighted all the points stated by him, and Instances only that he should prove, there be two Sacraments and no more; but here the Spirit fails him in all his Divinations, the only reason of this being, for that all other controverted Tenets with Protestants are borrowed from divers old condemned Heresies, and this only proper to them.  
However, Mr. Dempster should have proved seven Sacraments. Answer, No, not this, or any thing else (in the present dispute, as not to the purpose) save only, that Protestants for their Religion could show no solid ground, this he sticks to, this he insists upon, and this only whilst Mr. Menzeis like a Bird ever upon wing flies from branch to branch, a mark of no great Constancy, and Solidity, either in Wit or Learning.  
But he will needs bring in the Romish Religion by the head and shoulders upon the Stage, and have Mr. Dempster to decline it be tried by Scripture, and the Doctrine of the Church in the first three ages. Answer, The Romish Religion has no part in the present Scene, neither is Master Dempster acting any thing directly in defence of it, but Impugning the Protestant grounds, and this Mr. Menzeis in his first answer clearly grants; his words are: The Thesis— then which we defend, and you impugn is this: The Protestant Religion is the true Religion; No mention here of the Catholic Roman Faith, and yet Mr. Menzeis in all his papers and Books speaks very little for the Protestant Religion, but always against the Popish, laying aside the Thesis which he sets down himself, as his Text so often in the Pulpit, to rail at random against us.  
And this with a like Sincerity and Candour, as when he says, Quakerism is but Popery under a disguise. Answer, than most men mistake it, thinking it so far from Popery under what ever disguise, that it is nothing but Puritanism, in puris naturalibus, and undisguised. Is the private Spirit our Ground and Guide? Do we allow Laics and Women to preach? or private persons whatsoever, upon pretence of New Gospel Light to reform the Church? This Presbyterians and Puritans in the beginning of the Reformation, and again in the Covenant, did with them: Yea on the same very ground, of adhering to the pure Word, and to the Spirit and Light within them, against all Authority in Church and State; Is not this the Quakers chief Argument against Protestants, when they ask their Power and Call: We are come to Reform you, say they, and all your Hirelings, even as you the Papists and Priests; We ground ourselves on the pure and naked Word; the Spirit speaketh within us; we regard not men; Church, Counsels, Fathers have erred. Which Answer, Mr. Menzeis if constant to his own principles, with all his Needle-headed Niceties (as he speaks) will hardly refute. In fine, he says, Romanists boast his Papers shall have an Answer; these six Months might have done it; Our Reply will discover we apprehend some danger; etc.  
Answer, Few Romanists do think his papers deserve a Reply, yea, nor their pains to read them, as saying little to the purpose; much less do they esteem the enterprise to answer them so high, as it should be called a boast: He who rather contends with us in solidity of reason, than celerity of dispatch, will neverthleess have this expected answer six Months before his Book did appear, at which time he makes the Magistrates command the Stationer under the highest pains, that he should Print no Reply. Yet after his Book has been a twelve month under the Press at home, we may have a Book Printed at a start abroad, neither is there such haste in replying for any danger we apprehend, his rail never having wronged Catholics in the least, but much Protesiants, many whereof have turned Quakers, to hear Tub-preachers professing greater Modesty, Sincerity, yea, and Solidity in belief, than he; who by his frequent changes in Religion, from Prelaticks to Presbyterians, from Presbyterians to Independants, from Independants to I know not whom again, is more like the Weathercock on the Steeple (turning at every wind) than the Member of any one Church.  
His Exclamations wherewith he concludes his two long Epistles, are both ludibrious and childish, in misapplying so many Scripture Phrases to the Catholic Roman Church, whose Faith is so highly commended by the Apostle St. Paul, and holy Fathers in all Ages; who ever amongst them did tax her of Error, fly her Communion, renounce her Faith, decline her Censures, question her Authority, disapprove her Doctrine, or challenge the Supreme power and Headship of her Bishop? In the second age St. Irenaeus extols her Authority; All Churches (says he, l. 3. c. 3.) round about aught to resort to the Roman Church, by reason of her more powerful Principality. In the third, St. Cyprian Ep. 55. calls her St. Peter's Chair, and the principal Church, to which Infidelity or false Doctrine cannot have access.  
In the fourth, St. Athanasius has his recourse, both to her Bishop and her, against all his Adversary Heretics. In the fifth, St. Augustine thinks her Sentence an end of Controversy, Scripsimus Romam, Roma rescriptum est, quaestio finita est, etc. And in following ages do not St. Gregory, St. German, St. John Damascene Venerable Bede, St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Aquine, and generally all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church the same? So that I answer his places of Scripture, as St. Augustine Petilians the Donatist Heretic, l. 2. c. 5. He brings the words of the Law, but takes not heed against whom, as the Devil speaks Scripture to Christ, not discerning to whom. Verba legis dicitis sed in quos dicitis, non attenditis, sicut Diabolus verba legis dicebat sed cui diceret non agnoscebat. And with the same St. Augustine, I answer to all Mr. Menzeis pretended victory and triumph over Mr. Dempster.  
Facile est ut quisque Augustinum vincat, quanto magis ut vicisse videatur, aut si non videatur, vicisse dicatur facile est, St.  Aug. Ep. 174.  

SECT. II.  
Wherein the Question is stated, as propounded by Mr. Dempster, and Mr. Menzeis' great Principle and Grounds set down as cleared by him; with the Design of the Author thereon.  
THe sole Argument that I find Mr. Dempster urges in all his papers, in substance runs thus, in this one Syllogism.  
That Religion cannot be a true Religion, which hath no peculiar principle or ground to prove that it is a true Religion, and conform to the true sense of the word of God.  
But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove itself the true Religion, etc.  
Then the Protestant Religion cannot be true.  
Mr. Menzeis cavils at this Syllogism, as not being in form, both the premises being Negatives, as well as the Conclusion. Mr. Dempster Answers, the second is Affirmative, and only objectively Negative: As if one should say in Latin (wherein the form of Syllogisms best appears) Sed omnis Religio Protestantium est talis, ut nullum habeat peculiare fundamentum quo se probet veram, or else, Est habens nullum peculiare fundamentum, etc. which the least Logician in the College presently sees to be an Affirmative Proposition: And yet what Clamours hath not Mr. Menzeis made for this? as if at the first bout he had disarmed his Adversary: So well this great Professor of Divinity is versed in Logic, that he cannot resolve and answer a proposition, if not set down as to a Bajan: Like to that young man who lately come from the Fencing-School, and hardly put to it, mistaking the thrust, is put off his Guard, and so both wounded and mocked.  
So the Syllogism standing in good Form, the first Proposition in it suffers no debate. The second is denied by Protestants, whereupon they are required to produce this peculiar Ground which proves their Religion to be true. Master Menzeis after many Wheelings, Turnings, and Windings in his Scold, Digressions, Retorsions, at the end brings two grounds for the Protestant Religion. The first Scripture, and that clear in Fundamentals, or things necessary to Salvation. The second, its agreement in Essentials, with the Faith of the purest and most ancient Primitive Church, in the first three Centuries or Ages.  
To clear his first Ground (which in his sixth paper he storms to have called his Achilles or strength, seeing he had given another, which it seems he holds no less strong than it) he sets down, That all Scriptures are not clear: Secondly, that Protestants do not exclude means of Interpretation. Thirdly, by perspicuity, he understands in Terms, or by firm and clear consequence. Fourthly, that by this perspicuity again, he means an External and objective Evidence which is nothing impeached, by the misunderstanding of Heretics or others. Fifthly, that by things necessary, is here understood, whither necessary as means, or as commands. What he citys in his eight paper, as Maxims taken out of George Scholarius a Grecian, is but to the same purpose with what he hath formerly said.  
One only thing I add, which he urges most in all his Book, that though Protestants do not exclude means of Interpretation in explaining of Scripture, and in deducing consequences from it, yet no necessity there is, that we should know that he who gives the true Interpretation and Sense, have the assistance of the Holy Ghost, because forsooth, this savours rankly (says he) of that Erroneous Popish Tenet, concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge of Controversy: whereof he proves in his third paper there is none, for that a Jurist without any such Infallible assistance, may be known to explain aright a Municipal Law, and a Mathematician to demonstrate a Proposition of Euclydes.  
This is the state of the Question, as propounded by Mr. Dempster, and this in substance is Mr. Menzeis' Answer to it, their debate is long; Mr. Dempster constantly putting Mr. Menzeis to it, that he would prove these Grounds to be peculiar to Protestants, and support their Controverted Tenets with us; but this he still declines to bring any Positive proof for either, desiring his adversary should rather Positively prove the contrary. No says Mr. Dempster, make good your Assertion, as he who affirms should prove; I will not be so put off of my medium, I have taken against you: Let us see the Grounds you build on in the sense you take them, and without any Infallible visible Judge of Controversy, assuring you either of the uncorrupt Writings, and sincere Doctrine of the Fathers in the first three ages, or of the uncorrupt Letter, and genuine sense of Scripture, first, to be solid and Infallible, and then to agree peculiarly to you, and the business is done. You confidently assert both; but what Sectary says not the same? their claim to the foresaid Grounds, say ye, is merely pretended; rests to see how your own is proved as just. Many Digressions and Retorsions against Popery are made: Many Protestant Writers spoken of who have done this, but nothing as either borrowed from them, or as laid out by himself is brought in: Many passages of the Fathers are misapplyed; Many Cavils, Criminations and Calumnies are objected: Many strong words, as Logomachies, Vertigo's,— and Needle-headed Niceties, with Prophecies from Poets are used; a great part of Erasmus Chilias spent in Proverbs: Much paper blotted, but what concluded? I shall not here interpose my judgement, as Mr. Menzeis publishes his victory, as Trumpet in the Triumph himself, leaving to each one to read and judge of the papers; adding only of him, what was said of a Prolix and tedious Orator, who on little matter spent much time in many flourishes of words, and frequent Digressions. Nullum vidi qui magis operosè nihil diceret. Multa sed non multum. Magni passus sed extra viam. Seneca. That is, I have seen none take greater pains to say nothing; he says many things, but not much; he walks at a great pace, but out of the way. For me as I mind not here, actum agere, so neither do I presume to add any thing to what Mr. Dempster has said in his way of Disputing, which I acknowledge both the shortest and best, to make Mr. Menzeis prove his Grounds; but he ever declining this, and urging we should show in them any weakness or defect; this I here undertake for Mr. Menzeis further conviction, and happily some Protestants conversion, by the goodness and mercy of God. My design being to prove positively the falsehood and nullity, as well of his great Principle, of no Infallible visible Judge, as of both his Grounds, and that very succinctly, in a few Sections, without Digressing in the least, or meddling with what hath been said.   

SECT. III.  
Wherein Mr. Menzeis great Principle, That there is no Infallible visible Judge of Controversy in the true Church is Positively refuted, as the main Ground of all Divisions, Schisms, and Heresies, and contrary to the Scriptures, Fathers, and Reason.  
AS all Rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths, has its rise from contempt of the lawful Authority of Princes and Magistrates, upon the specious pretence of abuse of Power, against the Laws of the Kingdom, and Liberties of the Subjects: So all Heresies in the Church begin with appeals from the Pastors of the Church, (the only Judges established by Christ) to his Written Word, which is to all Christians as their Law Book. LEX REX, cry out Rebels with their Calipha Buchanan: LEX JUDEX, or nolo verba quae non sunt scripta, Answers the Heretic with an Arian in the Council of Nice. They will believe what they read, and not what they hear; though the Apostle teach us, that Faith comes of hearing, and the reason is, because with Mr. Menzeis, they acknowledge none speaking in matters of Faith and Religion Infallible.  

No Infallible Visible Judge.  
This is indeed that great Principle Protestants did broach to themselves in the beginning of Reformation, and at their very first leaping out from the Church, they would admit of no Infallible visible Judge, stand to no Sentence or Decree of Church, Councils, Fathers. Now this Principle being supposed by them to be solid, and an unquestionable truth, nothing can follow thereon, but what is true. Ex vero nil nisi verum, and consequently any private Protestant reading Scripture with a sincere intention, may, yea ought to adhere to what he thinks to be in Scripture, should all the Protestant Church, with all her Assemblies, Synods, Preachers be of a contrary mind. Upon this, Luther and Calvin leave the Catholic Roman Church, and all visible Congregations in the Christian World at that time, because says Chamiers Ep. 49. (though Mr. Menzeis deny it was so) Then Apostasy averted the whole body from Christ. They made all the Kings and people drunk, from the first to the last, says Calvin, Inst. l. 4. c. 18. and Whitaker, Cont. 4. q. 5. c. 3. No Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church. Duditius apud Bezam; Ep. 1. says more, if that be true which the Fathers have professed, with mutual consent, it is altogether on the Papists side.  
Upon this same Principle, innumerable other Sects and Sectaries, have left again Protestants, and the Protestant Church upon this, and this only Principle; every particular man reading Scripture, and taking it as he thinks both words and sense clear, is made his own Judge, and so as many heads almost, as many sentences, and divers Opinions in Religion: some thinking Scripture clear for this, some for that Sect, some admitting or rejecting whole Books of Scripture at their pleasure: Yea some, and that too too many seeing most clear Scripture tossed and wrested by contrary Sects, suspend their Judgement, renounce their Faith, and quit all Religion, not knowing with what party to side. Others in fine, who think themselves deeper wits, as they are more speculative and searching brains, having run through all can be said, to ascertain any point of Faith (save only the Divine Oracle in the Church) have turned Sceptics in Religion, grounding themselves on mere probability. Which Seed of Infidelity (says the Author of a Treatise, Entitled Faith vindicated from possibility of Falsehood) Sown, when the Infallible Authority of the Church, as the rule of Faith, was renounced, dared, first appear publicly above ground, in the Writings of Mr. Chillingworth, and the L. Falkland, dressed up in a plausible Rhetoric, and set out under a yet more pleasant Title to Protestants, as being against Popery, was most graciously received by many. Yea when it appeared in Mr. Tilletson his Eloquent and Famous Sermon, did begin to get credit, as an Evangelical truth; and all this upon the foresaid great principle.  
Upon it the holy work of Reformation by private men, opposing the Law and Gospel, to the judicial Sentence and Decrees of the whole Catholic Church: Upon it the glorious work of the Covenant by some factious Zelots against Prince and Pastors in the Protestant Church: Upon it Preachers and Pulpits clash at random, Sects and Sectaries multiply, the Christian world is put in confusion with endless Jars and Debates in Religion: And all this because there is no Infallible Judge of Controversy, to give Sentence in favour of any one party silencing all others. In a word for that (according to Protestants) God hath given us a Law without a Judge, however inconsistent this may seem, with Order, Providence and wisdom.  
This one Principle, I say once more with the great St. Augustine, Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. Ruins the very Grounds of Religion. In aliis quaestionibus non diligenter digestis non plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis, ferendus est disputator errans, ibi ferendus error: non tamen progredi debet ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur: Accord to the same St. Augustine, ib. whosoever run their heads, were they never so great, (with Mr. Menzeis) against this Inexpugnable wall of the Church Authority, are crushed. Hoc habet Authoritas matris Eccelsiae, 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 says, 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 for●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 itself, has Christ in St. Matth. 18. v. 17. commanded us to hear a Church not Infallible or subject to error? 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 lo 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 divers Interpretations, who can better judge of their true sense, than 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 than the whole Church of God? any spirit to be trusted, rather than the Spirit of Truth promised to her? or any one better versed in all the places of Scripture, than 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 man's judgement (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. eccls That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresy.  
S. Chrysostom in c. 2. is, That all the Heretics in the World cannot pervert her Doctrine.  
S Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Mist. 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 acknowledgement of all mankind, hath obtained the height of Authority, Heretics 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 Catholic Church practices, is most insolent madness.  
I leave to the Physicians judgement, 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 Apostasy, Schism, and Heresy, as Mr. Menzeis here of Arrogancy and Pride; Odi Ecclesiae illius fastum, I hate says he that Church's Pride, speaking of the Catholic Roman Church, for calling herself Infallible, but let me answer him as Plato Diogen. Calcas Ecclesiae fastum majore fastu, he most persumptuously accuses her of Pride, no lawful established 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 Christ's words and promises in future ages, no less then in the Apostles time, than we are to take them, for all ages, except there be some express limitation made, as to Preach, Baptism, remit Sins, feed his Flock, lead men in all Truth, etc. 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 Sovereign and Infallible Judicatory, what ever Mr. Menzeis standing to his Great Principle, say to the contrary.  
Thus S. Cyril l. 10. de trin. avers Decrees of General Councils to be most Holy and Divine Oracles.  
S. Leo Ep. 37.64. A Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost.  
S. Epiphanius haeres. 77. A Decision not to be questioned.  
S. Athanasius Ep. ad Episc. Afric. The Word of God which endureth for ever.  
S. Basil Ep. 10. The Touchstone to discern Heretics.  
Vincensius Lyrinensis in his Book against Heresies c. 4. says, all who will not be accounted Heretics, must conform themselves to the Decrees of Ecumenical or General Councils.  
S. Augustine Ep. 162. Calls them the last Sentence can be expected in matters of Faith.  
S. Gregory the great l. 1. Ep. 24. Reverences the first four General Councils as the four Evangills.  
And Constantine the great, the first Christian Emperor, Ep. ad eccle. Alex. as witness Sozomenus, l. 1. c. 24. and Socrates l. 1. c. 6. holds the Decrees of the Council of Nice, against Arius, a Divine Sentence flowing from the mouths of so many, and great Bishops inspired by the Holy Ghost.  
Wherefore S. Augustine de bapt. contra donat. l. 1. c. 7. concludes, That no doubt ought to be made, of what is by full Decree established in a Council. Neither is Mr. Menzeis' Objection from him of any force, for when he speaks, l. 2. the bapt. c. 3. of mending Councils by Councils upon further experience, his words are, Cum aliquo rerum experimento aperitur quod clausum est, & cognoscitur quod latebat, clearly showing he means not any Decision of Faith can be mended, which no experience can learn us, but Divine Revelation alone can teach.  
Thus to shun prolixity in Citations, do not all the Fathers who were ever present at Councils, Subscribe their Canons and Decrees, annexing Anathemas and Excommunications against all who oppose them in the least.  
I hear Mr. Menzeis Reply to all this first▪ but where is that Infallible Church the Scriptures and Fathers speak of? Answer, That is not here the question, but that there is one, which is contradictory to his great Principle, That there is no Infallible visible Judge. Only I add the Protestant Church cannot be this, they speak of, she not being Infallible as themselves confess, and consequently cannot be the Church and House of God, which the Apostle calls the Ground and Pillar of Truth.  
Secondly, How many Questions may be moved touching the lawfulness of Councils, now the Fathers speak not of the Council of Trent, but only of lawful ones? Answer, a contentious spirit will question any thing; but St. Augustine above cited, tells you of what is by full Decree established in a Council, no doubt or question aught to be made. Whatever Protestants object against the Council of Trent, did not the Arians against the Nicene Council? Nolo verba quae non sunt Scripta, that is, I will believe nothing but the written Word, which is but the echo repeating now, what was at first cried out then.  
Thirdly, God has obliged no man to hear Church or Council against his express and clear Word. Answer, This is true, but is not the Church the most faithful Depositary of God's Word, best Judge of what is clear, and best Interpreter of what is Obscure? For no Scripture, says St. Peter, Is of private Interpretation; and doth not Christ in his written Word most clearly and expressly command us to hear his Church, if we will not be holden as Publicans and Heathens.  
Fourthly, No Council can be general, where all are not called, and sit with a decisive voice. Answer, Should even Heretics be called to, and have in Councils their decisive voices? What agreement could this make in Points controverted? why not Socinians, Anabaptists, Quakers, as well as Protestants? should Presbyterians sit with Bishops & Prelaticks in Protestant Assemblies? what a pitiful shift is this? If so, let the Covenant be renewed, Bishops again thrust out, and Mr. Menzeis set high, for yielding obedience to them, only through compulsion and fear of losing his place.  
Fifthly, The Church herself when fallen in error, cannot be Judge, being Criminal and Impeached of most heinous crimes, she cannot be both Party and Judge. Answer, This Objection is all Utopian and Chimerical, if we hear the Scripture and Fathers assuring us she cannot err: But giving, and not granting she did; who than her Judge? When Subjects rise against their Sovereign, Citizens against their Magistrates▪ Children against their Parents, leave they to be their Judges, because arraigned by them? Even Heretics, must submit to the Sentence and Censures of the Church, when they fall at variance with her; though they turn Unnatural, she cannot become a Stepmother to them.  
Sixthly, Infallibility in judging is proper to God. Answer, yes, none but God has it Essentially, and by Nature, but none I hope will deny, he may make the Pastors of his Church, as well Infallible in teaching points of Faith, as his Prophets and Evangelists, in penning the Scripture Books, or at least as any Protestant in reading and understanding them.  
Seventhly, The Church of Rome is but a particular Church. Answer, we take it not so, when we say the Catholic Roman Church, but for all Churches in Communion with the Roman, as all Countries under the Roman Emperor, are called the Roman Empire, and all people under the Law of Moses, the Jewish Church, though that name taken strictly, belonged to the Tribe of Juda, because the chief City appertained to that Tribe, where the High Bishop resided. So the Universal Church is called the Roman Catholic Church, by reason of St. Peter and his Successors, her high Bishops residing there, whence Rome is the Centre of Ecclesiastical Communion, infusing unity in the whole dispersed body, as the Form of Universality or Catholickship. Wherefore St. Cyprian Ep. ad Cornel. Calls her, Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est: That is, the Principal and chief Church, the Source and Centre of Unity amongst the Priests of all other Churches, and consequently the people.  
Eighthly, But whereon Grounded this Infallible Authority of the Church? Answer, On the clear places of Scripture and Fathers above cited; It is the Ground and Pillar of truth, therefore cannot err. It hath the promise of God's Spirit to lead it into all truth, therefore cannot err. It is said to be built on the Rock, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, therefore cannot err. Christ hath placed in it Apostles, Doctors, Pastors, and Bishops to the consummation and perfection of the whole body, that we be not carried away with every blast of new Doctrines, therefore it cannot err. It is the House, the Spouse, the Mystic body of Christ, his Lot, Kingdom, and Inheritance in this world, therefore cannot err. On the Authority of the Church the Fathers have received the Originals, Translations, and Sense of Scripture Books, yea some chief Points of Faith, not mentioned in Scripture, as persons in the Trinity, Sacraments in the Church, keeping holy the Sunday, etc. therefore cannot err. Christ has commanded, and that under pain of Damnation, to hear the Church in matters of Faith and Religion, therefore it cannot err. All are obliged to live in Communion with the Church, therefore cannot err. 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 than what is here holden out, that to admit with Mr. Menzeis, of no Infallible visible Judge of Controversy, 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 shown to be no Ground to them; and that they have not reform the Church according to the uncorrupted Scriptures, but corrupted the Scriptures to deform the Church.  
SCripture then is Protestant's 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 Minister's Tradition, and highly Glory both in reading and explaining the Bible. Yet no peculiar Ground to them, as was required, all Heretics for aught 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 sense 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 Subscribe● Doctor Baron our Country man, inferior to no Protestant, I know, either in Loyalty or Learning, Tract. 1. c. 2. p. 46. Laici illiterati, etc. Unlearned Laics, says he, believe only Implicitly, confusedly, and 〈◊〉 upon the Divine Authority of Scripture formerly 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 men's 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) shall they believe only Implicitly, and on other men's report, as D. Baron will have them? But this is the Collier's Faith Mr. Menzeis jeers, 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 itself 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 Christ's descending into Hell, says, as for the Geneva Bibles, it is to be wished that either they be purged from those manifold Errors, which are both in the Text, and at the Margin, 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. Carlisle p. 116. remarkes that the English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from their right sense, and show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than 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 Errors. And in his Advertisement of corruptions to the Protestant Bishops, saith, that their public Translation of Scriptures is such, as it perverteth the Text of the Old Testament in four hundred forty eight places, and that it causeth millions of millions to reject the New Testament, and run to Eternal flames. How many divers and different Translations in Queen Elizabeth's and King James times? how often what was first at the Margin, hath been put in the Text? Now if Translators of the Scripture in English, men furnished with so many helps, endued with so many gifts, so well versed in the Hebrew, and Greek tongues, so guided by all the Rules Mr. Menzeis gives to attain the right meaning and sense of Holy Writ, have fallen into so many, and so gross errors and Mistakes, as to have depraved, detorted, wrested, obscured the Scripture and Word of God, so that it, as Translated by them decieveth the Ignorant, supplanteth the simple, perverteth the Text in so many places, as that it carrieth million to Eternal Flames; What hope can any one have of meaner Talents with fewer helps, and less learning and knowledge, to attain by his own private reading of Scripture, the undoubted Truth, Steadiness in faith and Religion, a full and satisfactory solution of all doubts, or security of Salvation? and yet these very same so corrupt Translations (as their own Ghospellers testify) are read in Churches, expounded in Pulpits, and put in the hand of every one who understands neither Latin, Greek nor Hebrew, as his sole ground of Faith; and Judge of controversy, whereby he is made able to Judge, not only of Popish Errors, the Writings of the Fathers, and Decrees of Councils, but even of his own Pastor's Doctrine, his Church's Faith, and his Country's Religion.  
Secondly, to come to the Originals; Shall they then only be the Protestants Ground of Faith? If so, I ask Mr. Menzeis where we shall find them? Yea we are so far from having all the Originals, that it is doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written. The purity of Originals is sometimes called in Question, and Calvin Inst. l. 1. C. 13. Doth imagine even these the Fountains run not always clear. Luther Enar. in Is. Cries out on the Jews for crucifying the Text, as well as Christ, and upon Gen. C. 24. Says again, he has often told many words there be in the Hebrew Text, which the Hebrews themselves do not understand. And to say true, amongst the Jews, the least of their three Massoreshe's (so they call the Book which contains the many corruptions, and divers Lections in the Hebrew Text) counts eight hundred places disagreeing, ambiguous or corrupt, neither do the most learned Rabbis agree in the Letter of Scripture: In Hebrew itself, some reading according to the Points, or Vowels put in by Rabbi Jacob, and some by these of Rabbi Aron, most different one from another; all the points being added to the Text, Five hundred years after Christ, and that by his professed Enemies the Jews, long after the Vulgar Latin Translation which was made before the Text, and Letter of Scripture was corrupt. But Protestants take in also with these the corruptions of the Greek Text remarked in part by St. Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, and others, says Eusebius, when the ancient Heretics the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, etc. had corrupted and adulterated the Word of God, to support their Errors, as Protestants at present in all their Translations do. I know M. Menzeis will tell me perhaps he hath seen both the Hebrew and the Greek Texts; well but who assures him they are not corrupt? Yes, but the Protestants have corrected them, and that according to the authentics, which never any Protestant did see. The most Learned amongst Protestants have never seen the Original Scriptures which were first penned by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists; Copies are no less subject to faults in the Letter, than Translations to mistakes in the sense. Yea, the Authors of that great & famous Bible that is Printing at London (if not yet ended) in so many Languages, witnesseth in the Preface they have set out, not so much as one Copy could be found they can assure to agree in all things with the Original: their labour may be great in this vast Volume to correct the Copies they find deficient, but their Authority is not Infallible: In a word, no Infallible Authority is admitted by Protestants to judge either of the Letter or Sense, For that savours rankly, says M. Menzeis of that Erroneous Popish Tenet, of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversy. And I Answer, to deny one in all these and such like cases savours rankly of a tottering, wavering, groundless Faith, most like to that of M. Menzeis.  
I say yet further, if no Translations of Scripture can be a ground of Faith, as most learned Protestants grant, so neither any Original it would seem, without some Infallible Judge; for I must ever be sure they are unccorrupted; and again all the defect in Translations coming from the misunderstanding of Originals; I ask who dare say he understands them, better than they who have Translated, and upon this, as he himself reads, and conceives, ground his Religion and Faith.  
Thirdly, before all this, if M. Menzeis will prove it a solid Ground to rely on sole Scripture, as the only ground of Faith, without any Infallible visible Judge, or assurance, that he who tells me this is the uncorrupted Letter, this the true and genuine Sense, has the peculiar assistance of the Holy Ghost: I demand what Infallible Motive can prudently persuade Protestants that the Word of God they rely on, was ever set down in Writing, or is extant at this day? Is it the testimony of Scripture calling itself God's Word, or the Innate Light of the same Scripture, showing itself to be such, to a well disposed Intellect and mind? If the first, do not Nicodemus and S. Thomas Gospels carry the same titles, with these of St. Matthew and St. Mark? If the second, than the Fathers of the first three ages (whom M. Menzeis most owns) were not well disposed persons, who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authority of a Council at Carthage had declared them Canonical; and much less Luther, that holy man, who rejecteth St. James Epistle with some others.  
As Protestants ground their Faith, say they, on God's word, so Quakers on the Spirit: and we deny not but both be equally Infallible, if once known Infallibly to be the Spirit or Word of God. But we demand of each Sect, what Infallible External Rule or Motive they give us, to know either God's Word speaking in Scripture, or Spirit in them? Both answer with M. Menzeis, they both show themselves to all who are well disposed. But this clears not us, the well disposed heart being only known to God; let all then be objectively true, (as M. Menzeis says his Religion is) which they both teach, (as certainly is, what ever by God's Word or Spirit is revealed) we only insist to know Infallibly that God did reveal such Doctrine as theirs, either by his Word or Spirit. For we receive now no Immediate Revelations, as the Prophets and Apostles did in old times, nor have we Evidentiam in attestante, as the Divines call it, that is any Evidence that it is God who speaks; points of faith being only propounded to us by men, who either put the Scriptures in our hands to read, or teach us by word of mouth. The Protestants great Principle, let's own no man or Church as an Infallible Judge; yea M. Menzeis in his sixth paper, offers upon this to turn Papist, if the Infallible assistance of the Propounder can be proved necessary: but never clears what other way we can be Infallibly assured that all which the Protestants do teach, was revealed by God. Unless it be in his third paper, where speaking of the True and Genuine Sense of Scripture, he tells us we may have it as from a Jurist, the Explication of a Municipal Law, or from a Mathematitian, a demonstration of Euclides. But what a weak Answer is this? Do any receive Demonstrations on Authority as Points of Faith? Or is the assent I give to the Law so explained by a Jurist Infallible? If Christ himself had not shown his Divinity by his Works and Wonders, he grants the Jews had committed no sin in refusing to believe him: The Apostles Credentials were their Miracles, both did thus evidence the Infallible assistance they had of God's Spirit to the World; and shall any man trust M. Menzeis boldly asserting there is no necessity of any? was it not for this the power of Miracles was left in the Church, as the marks of her assistance, and seals of her Doctrine, with other Motives of credibility? Notwithstanding Protestant's with M. Menzeis will propound to us the Catalogue of Canonical Scripture Books, assure us of the uncorrupt Copies and Letter, enforce upon our Consciences the sense they give, whilst so confidently obtruding all this, they neither dare, or do say, nor can evidence by any external mark or sign, they have the particular assistance of God's Spirit; As if all this were clear in itself, with Mathematical Demonstrations. But doth Scripture in our Bibles, show itself better to be the Word of God now, then when Christ was speaking in person? Then an external Evidence, God did speak by his Son, is acknowledged as necessary by him, and now shall any man reasonably say, there is no necessity of any, when he speaks by his servants and Church? however this prove efficacious and strong for M. Menzeis' conversion, it would seem to me more than sufficient for his▪ or any man's conviction.  
Fourthly, to claim to Scripture, yet so as they can no wise evidence they take it aright, is common to Protestants with all Heretics, so no peculiar Ground. When Sectaries clash with Sectaries, is not all their babbling out of Scripture? You shall see, says Vincentius Lyrinensis, c. 35. Heretics so abound with Scripture, as they fly through all the Volumes of the holy Law, through Moses, the Books of Kings, the Psalms and Prophets, etc. read the works of Paulus Sam satenus, Priscillian, Eunomius, etc. you shall not find ae page which is not Coloured and painted out with the sentences of Old and New Testament. Nestorius to support his Heresy gloried (as Gennadius reporteth in his Catalogue) in the evidence of threescore Testimonies which he produced, as the Covenant in three hundred, whereof scarce three any wise to the purpose. The Valentinians, Marcionists, Arians, will submit to none but Scripture, as St. Augustine witnesseth of Maximinus the Arian Bishop in his first Bok against him. Neither doth it avail M. Menzeis to say Scriptures are clear in terminis, or made clear by conferring of places, or show themselves clearly to a well disposed mind.  
First, for that though a place of Scripture be clear in itself, yet when divers Sects take it diversely, a man may justly suspect his own judgement, seeing so many of a contrary mind. So that it wanteth not difficulty to determine always what is absolutely clear, there being many clear places as would seem, not to be taken in the clear and obvious sense, as the passages Heretics did most build on, will presently show. As when Martion despiseth Moses and the Prophets upon Christ's own clear words in S. John the 10. How many soever have come before me are Thiefs and Robbers. The Manichees affirmed Christ to be the Sun, upon a like Scripture in St. John the 8. I am the light of the world. The Waldenses taught no man could be put to death, no not by the lawful Authority of a Judge, upon clear Scripture again, Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill, etc. The Devil citeth clear Scripture to Christ, and the Jews against his death, we have heard in the Law the Messias abideth for ever.  
Moreover many seeming Contradictions in Scripture, you shall find in Becan and others, one might think clear. And many things are believed even by Protestants, which be not in Scripture at all: as Persons in the Trinity, Sacraments in the Church, and the Command of keeping holy the Sunday; the Scripture neither naming persons, or telling what a person is, defining Sacraments (as M. Menzeis doth) or setting down their number; abrogating the keeping of the Sabbath, or having for the Sunday any command. Many places of Scripture again are flatly against Protestants, and clear for us, as for the Real Presence, This is my Body, this is my Blood, S. Matth. 26. For Justification not by Faith only, but also good works. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only, S. James 2.24. For Traditions from the Apostles, besides the written Word. Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by Word, or our Epistle, 2 Thes. 2.13. And such like places cited in most Books of Controversy, for all Controverted Tenets, Protestants never being able to bring any one clear place of Scripture against any of our Tenets, not evidently mistaken or confessedly corrupted, as when they make S. Paul say, a man is justified by faith only; Luther above cited, granting he has put in the word only, which Saint Paul hath not; or, Thou shalt not make to thyself any Graven Image, in place of Idol, as is clearly the word Pesel in the Hebrew Text.  
Secondly, as to conferring of places, and explaining the more obscure, by these which are clear, did not Arius boast of this against the Fathers of the Council of Nice, proving the unity in Nature of the Father and Son, out of these words in S. John the 10. I and my Father are one. No, says the Arian, this place as obscure to us, and passing the reach of Humane capacity, must be explained by this other more clear in St. John 17. where Christ prays his Apostles, May be one with him, as he and his Father are one; that is in will and affection, and surely the second place is clearer to us, and consequently according to M. Menzeis' Rule, the Arian Heresy must prevail; neither will he ever be able standing to his Rule, to answer an Arian Cobbler making this Objection, as Learned Writers remark. Eutyches conferring these two places, The Word was made flesh, in S. John 1. and the water was made Wine, in S. John 2. fell in this detestable Blasphemy, That the Humane Nature was changed into the Divine, as the Water was converted into Wine. And without all doubt again, the second is the clearer place to us, the first, that two Natures should be united in one Person, surpassing as the Divines teach, even the Natural capacity of Angels. Manicheus explains the same passage, The Word was made flesh, Figuratively, and in show, as Protestants, This is my body, and that by a clear place of S. Paul to the Phil. 2. v. 7. where it is said, Christ took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Most clear words as would seem in favour of this Heresy, and such that if Protestants could bring any, with as great a show against the real presence, all their Pulpits should sound with them till their hearers became deaf. But there be none in all the Scripture so clear against the real presence I say, as the words quoted have a seeming clearness against the real Incarnation of Christ, the four Evangelists, and S. Paul speaking in so express and formal words for the former, that the Fathers with St. chrysostom, Hom. 6. have recourse to the words for the real presence as clearer, to prove, that giving in the Sacrament his body and blood, he must have taken the Nature of Man. Nestorius on the contrary will have these words of S. John the 2. Dissolve ye this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it again, to be taken Literally, and not Figuratively; and upon this holds out a new Heresy, that the Son of God did dwell only in his Holy Humanity as in a Temple. Valentine and Apollinaris reading in S. John 3. no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from Heaven, gain says the Mystery of Christ's Incarnation, and will needs have his flesh to have descended from Heaven, as his Manhood afterwards ascended thither. And this Heretical Exposition, they confirm by conferring the ensuing places in St. Paul to the Ephesians 4. He that descended, the same is also he who ascended. And in the first to the Corinth's 15. The first man of Earth Earthly, the second Man of Heaven Heavenly. A thousand such Errors in the greatest Fundamentals of Christianity have Heretics drawn out of the clear Fountains and Brooks of holy Writ, by the deceivable, and deceiving search of weighing places; Why not Protestants with them? they sail on the same Sea, and deep of Scriptures with them; they direct their course by the same Card of conferring clearer and obscurer places: the same Rule they apply to all the crooked lines of their Errors and Deviations. What can be answered to all this: M. Menzeis Principle always standing, No Infallible visible Judge, but to have recourse with him to the well disposed mind, wherefore▪  
Thirdly, I say this doth not yet satisfy to the Question, no not with all the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis doth bring, it being as hidden, Intricate, Doubtful and Inscrutable, who performs all these Conditions aright, as to find out certainly and infallibly the true sense of Scripture, without an Infallible Judge. Yea supposing one uses them aright, yet let us learn from no lesser Protestant then Doctor Jeremy Taylor, what certainty of the true sense men can attain by them: His words are so remarkable to my purpose in a Discourse of liberty in Prophesying, Sect. 4. that here I even set them down at length. First then says he, Sometime the sense is drawn forth by the Context, and Connexion of Parts. It is well when it can be so. But when there is two or three Antecedents and Subjects spoken of: What Man, or what Rule shall ascertain me, that I make my Reference true, by drawing the Relation to such an Antecedent, to which I have a mind to apply it, another hath not. Secondly, One other great pretence is, the conference of places, which is of so indefinite capacity, that if there be ambiguity of words, variety of sense, alteration of Circumstances, or difference of Style amongst Divine Writers, than there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people, or may more easily deceive the unwary, or that may more amuse the most diligent observer. Thirdly, Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason, but it is with Reason as with men's tastes, When a man speaks reason, it is but reason he should be heard, &c, yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason, unless other men's understandings were of the same Air, the same Constitution and ability, they cannot be prescribed unto by another man's reason; especially because such reasonings as usually are in Explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute Circumstances and Particularities, in which it is so easy to be deceived, and so hard to speak Reason regularly and always, that it is the greater wonder, if we be not deceived. Fourthly, Others pretend to Expound Scripture by Analogy of Faith. This he says is but a Chimaera, a thing in the Clouds, which varies like the right and left hand of a Pillar, etc. Fifthly, Consulting of Originals, is thought a great matter to Interpretation of Scriptures; but this is to small purpose, for indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek, and rectify Translations: But I know no man that says, that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy, & certain to be understood, and that they are hard in Latin and English. The difficulty is in the thing, however it be expressed, the least in the Language, etc. Then numb. 6. he saith in general, All these ways of Interpreting Scriptures, which of themselves are good helps, are made either by design, or by our infirmities, ways of Intricating and Involving Scriptures in greater difficulty, because men do not learn their Doctrines from Scripture, but come to the understanding of Scriptures, with preconceptions and Ideas of Doctrines of their own, and then no wonder Scripture look like Pictures; wherein every man in the room thinks they look on him only, and that wheresoever he stands, or how often soever he changes his Station. So that now what was intended for a remedy, becomes the Promoter of our Disease, and our Meat becomes the matter of sickness: and the Mischief is, the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it; For there is no Rule; no Limit, no certain Principle by which all men may be guided to a certain, and so Infallible Interpretation, that he can with any Equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of Controversy or ambiguity.  
Osiander in his confutations of the Book which Melancton wrote against him, observes there are twenty several Opinions concerning Justification, all drawn from the Scriptures, by the men only of the Augustan confession. There are sixteen several Opinions concerning Original sin; and as many Definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them. Lastly, He concludes Num. 8. since those ordinary means of Expounding Scripture as searching the Originals, Conference of places, Parity of Reason, and Analogy of Faith, are all dubious, uncertain, and very fallible: He that is the wisest, and by consequence the likeliest to Expound truest in all probability of Reason, will be very far from confidence; because every one of these, and many more are like so many degrees of Improbability and uncertainty, all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such Mysteries, and amidst so many Difficulties.  
Remark well all this discourse from so great a Protestant Doctor, finding no certainty of the true sense of Scripture, by all the means of Interpretation, and reflect with all a little in how hard a condition Protestant's stand, admitting no Infallible visible Judge in Controversy, but boldly undertaking to decide all that which is controverted by sole Scripture, Explained by such fallible means, and yet more fallible men. It is but a Labyrinth of windings and turnings to pass from Scripture as clear in words, to conferring of places, and deducing consequences, after Prayer used, and diligent search made, with a well disposed mind, then to the inward motion, or the private Spirit, against which the Prophets and Apostles so generally exclaim, Ezekiel in his 13. Chapter, woe be to the foolish Prophets, who follow their own Spirit. S. Peter in his 2 Epistle Chap. 1. No Prophecy of Scripture is of Private Interpretation. Neither is the question here, what is inwardly required in every private man to believe Scripture (but what is the external, visible, and infallible Rule of Faith) for that is out of all doubt with us. Faith is a supernatural and infused virtue, to which the pious motion in the will is no less requisite, than the Supernatural light in the understanding to assent to what is revealed by God. But seeing neither this light nor pious motions as they are supernatural, and incline only to believe a revealed truth, do manifest themselves to be such: Therefore many thousands even well disposed persons, and who seek God in the sincerity of their hearts, oftentimes persuade themselves (till they be better instructed) they believe such a thing as a revealed truth by God, which is a condemned Error by him. And this none can deny, who will not maliciously condemn a world of zealous Ignorants, yea some even most learned and holy Fathers, who with St. Cyprian in the Point of Rebaptization, have believed an Error for a revealed Truth, before it was clearly decided by the Church.  
However, whether it be this, or something else M. Menzeis calls a well disposed mind; others the Spirit, or the private spirit, the Spirit of the Righteous man, and so forth; I say, it cannot be either with the holy Scripture, or alone, the Rule of Faith, and Judge of Controversy. 1. Because none without some Particular help can be Infallibly assured of this Interiour Motion, Affection, or Spirit, whether it be Natural, or Supernatural, from God or the Devil, the Spirit of Darkness or Light, now no man, as M. Field confesseth, L. 4. C. 7. Proveth any thing is, or may be doubted of, by that which is as much to be doubted of as itself. 2. We are counselled in the 2 Epistle of St. John Ch. 4. Not to believe every Spirit, but to try the Spirits if they be of God: But if the Spirits must be brought to the Touchstone of Trial, if they must be judged and approved by some other well known and undoubted Authority, they are not the sole Rule and Supreme Judge of Faith and Controversy: Because this Spirit is secret and hidden, our Faith public and evidently credible; this Spirit particular, our Faith Catholic or Universal; this Spirit the gift of every particular man, our Faith subject to no private censure. Wherefore M. Hooker Eccl. Pol. L. 1. Sect. 14. and Whitaker against Stapleton C. 2. C. 4. Ingeniously grant, that the outward Letter of Scripture, sealed with the inward and private Spirit, is not a sufficient Warrant for every particular man to receive or reject Scripture Books, but that the public Authority of God's Church, is necessarily required. Whence I say further with S. Augustine l. Contr. Ep▪ fund. c. 5. That Authority which we obey and believe, testifying the Books of the holy Gospel, the same must we believe, witnessing this to be the sense of the Gospel, that is not the private Spirit, but the same Authority of the Church. Thirdly, This private Spirit is so far from being the Judge of controversy upon any pretence of adhering to Scripture, either as clear in itself, or explained by it, that instead of compounding debates and keeping unity (the chief Office of this Judge) it is the very Root of Dissension, and Fountain of Heresies and Schisms, for as by experience we see it to be different in divers persons, so as the Bell to fools, it speaketh as they fancy, it inclines as they are affected, it points out the Object according to the Colour which is in the eye; It is like a false light which makes the Aspect of best and fairest Figures vary; It is often a blind zeal, or a prejudicated Opinion, which hinders to see what is clear in Scripture, as S. Augustine l. 3. de Doctr. C. 10. well Remarks, If the Prejudice, saith he, of any Erroneous Opinion preoccupate the mind, whatsoever the Scripture hath to the contrary, men take it to be a Figurative Speech. So that it furnisheth to every Sectary reading Scripture, his own Spectacles, in conferring places, his own Rule of proportions: His private Weights to ponder Reasons▪ his particular Forge to coin Opinions, his secret Touchstone to try Doctrines, his own Reed to measure the Temple, Sanctuary and Altar: Makes him his own high Priest, Pastor, and Judge, setting up within himself a Supreme Judicatory, giving ever sentence in his favour, and censuring all the world beside; So that none standing to this Rule, can be compelled to the unity of the Church, and yet none can be accounted Heretics, as the learned Suares, l. 1. de defi. fid. C. 11. most judiciously remarketh, if we take Scripture as men read, who think themselves well disposed, or Expounded by itself according to the Dictamen of the private Spirit, for ground, for who can swarve from Scripture as clear, according to his particular Judgement and Spirit, which he even esteemeth to be the Spirit of God.  
Scripture therefore cannot be Judge of Controversy, as M. Menzeis will have it. 1. By reason the sentence of this Judge must breed a certain and Infallible assurance of all that can come in doubt, which Scripture cannot do. It being infallible indeed in itself, but not to us, who may doubt if such a Book be Canonical, such a Copy conform to the Original, such a Translation Authentic, such a place clear, such a sense genuine.  
2. The Judge of Controversy ought to give a clear sentence, which the learned and unlearned may equally understand, and as the Law, says the Apostle, is not for the just, but the unjust, so the Judge of Controversy 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 Forefathers, 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 enroled 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 Style, 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 taste 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 Heretics with them: therefore very necessary it is for the manifold turnings and byways of Errors, that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation be leveled according to the Square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense, whereof Tertullian de Prescript. gives this reason, for that the sense adulterated, is alike perilous as the Style 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 Lawmaker speak as clear as the Judge? 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 Politics, And Plato in his Republic, prefers good Judges even to best Laws: Judges have been ever established 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 diversely of one and the same thing as their understandings, inclinations, or interests leads them. His Majesty's 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, lest 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church.  
Protestants, as M. Menzeis holds out, ground their Faith on Scripture, which they have corrected, or rather corrupted, as clear in itself, or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers, and (as they imagine) a well disposed mind, that is a Prejudicated Opinion that their own Tenets are right.  
Now let any man judge, which of these two is most conform to Scripture itself 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 judgement, 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 persuasion 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 intolerable 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 enlightened, directed, and assisted by the Spirit of God? What is whymsical, Fanatic, 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 judgement 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 settled 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 the 19 he writes thus, We confess that neither conference of places, nor consideration of what followeth, or goes before, nor looking into Originals, are of any force, unless we find the things which we conceive to be understood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the Rule of Faith, (that is, Tradition conserved in the Church) neither is there any of our Divines that ever taught otherwise. Where you see by Doctor Field, M. Menzeis is discarded from being a Protestant Divine; the Scripture however clear, is declared to be no Rule or Ground of Faith, but according to the sense of them that went before us; as all other means besides Tradition in his 16. Ch. are propounded to be but probable Conjectures, and not infallible grounds. And this most rationally, for what private man, as I have said, can assure himself, that either the finding out the true sense of Scripture, as to him, is tied to the means of Interpretation M. Menzeis sets down, or that he makes a right use of all these means? For as the same Dr. Field judiciously remarks, and ingenuously grants with S. Augustine, contra. Ep. Fundam. and de Util. cred. few men have leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine the particular Controversies, so many, and so intricate in these our days: and that the way to satisfy their Consciences in this most important affair, is to find out the true Church, and rest in her judgement. Ad sapientiam, says S. Augustine, in Ecclesia Spirituales pauci perveniunt; caeteram vero turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit; that is, few, even Spiritual ones in the Church attain to perfect knowledge, the rest being made most sure, not by their quickness in understanding, but by their simplicity in believing.  
2. This the Protestants way is but a trifling losing of time, never having been found able to settle debates amongst themselves, as witness 60. Synods holden in 60. years' time, says Rescius l. de Atheismo, in which all taking Scripture for their ground, without any Infallible Judge, did so little agree, that they parted not so much as good friends. Neque dantes dextras fraternitatis aut humanitatis. How many Examples of this amongst Lutherans, and Calvinists, Prelaticks, and Presbyterians, and even in our confessions of Faith, and Covenant among ourselves? I know M. Menzeis' Answer will be, their Dissensions are not in Fundamentals, (of these I shall speak presently in the next Section) only here I ask, why then so great cruelty, so much blood, so many Excommunications and Curses? If they did not think them so, who moved such troubles, they were either most cruel, or mad, as Tertullian, l. de praescr. most truly says, in Disputing out of Texts of Scripture (that is as every man reads and understands) there is no other good got but either to make a man sick or mad. It is not so in the Catholic Church, what ever M. Menzeis says of Jesuits and Dominicans, neither party having ever contested in any thing, that was once decided by the Church.  
3. The Protestants way is Preposterous, Religion being Established before the Scriptures, and they only written to true believers, whence Tertullian prescribing against all Heretics, says, We do not admit them to dispute from Scripture, till first they can show who their Ancestors were; from whom, by whom, when and to whom, the form of Christian Religion was delivered. Whereupon to conclude all this, I ask at M. Menzeis, is every particular man amongst Protestants infallibly assured by Scripture of what he believes? If so, why not then Catholics, and all the Catholic Church? they receive the Scriptures with Protestants, yea Protestants only from them: their Churchmen read the Scriptures with as great diligence, they be in a far greater number, they have ten for one who have Expouded it; they apply no less all the means for a right Interpretation, they study the Originals, confer Places, pray many hours both day and night, have no Wives, Children, or Family to divert them, most of them have renounced all pretence to Riches, Honours, and all Temporal Interests, wherewith they might be Biased any wise in what they profess: The extraordinary and unparallelled pains they take in the most Barren, Savage, and cruel nations of the Earth, for their conversion to Christianity would seem sufficient to evidence both the good disposition of their minds, and the sincere intention of their hearts, beyond the Preachers, of whatsoever Sect: Their manifold Writings witness enough the solidity and quickness of their wits; and even their Wonders and Mracles in latter ages, in all most Authentic Records of History, would make believe they want not the assistance of the the Spirit, yea, and of the power of God; and yet that we should think that they are blinded, Protestants see clear; they mistake Scripture, Protestants take it aright; they are misled by the Spirit of Error, Protestants directed by the Spirit of Truth; what Reason, Proof, or Probability for this? But why do Protestants pretend it is so? Forsooth chiefly, because they acknowledge one high Bishop in the whole Church, as Protestants a primate in each Kingdom, with the Negative voice to silence all private sowers of Dissension, and keep unity; because they take the Canons and Rules of their Faith from Scripture explained in general Councils, and the Unanimous consent of the Church and Fathers, and not by private Reading; because in a word they reverence Public Authority established by God in his Church, above particular Opinions and Conceits. Why then should Scripture be called a Ground to Protestants, who neither did receive it from Christ and his Apostles (as all Historians, and Chronologues marking the rise of Protestancy in Luther his days do evidence) nor have it uncorrupt, as their own Doctors, and Ghospellers do acknowledge: Nor take it in the true sense upon public Authority, but as they fancy upon private Reading, and Interpretation against the Apostle? And not rather to Catholics, who having received the Scriptures from Christ and his Apostles, as the Word of God, left to his Church, which she is bound to have an Eye to in all her Decisions, Statutes, and Laws; so that none of them be Repugnant to it in the least, neither by adding or pairing in Words or Sense, but all fully consonant and conform to both: In acknowledgement whereof, in all her General Councils, she placeth it above Pope, Prelates, Pastors, who in all the search they make into former Counsels, Fathers, Schoolmen, Tradition or practice of the Church, intent nothing else (generally speaking) then to find out by all possible diligence, the true sense and meaning of what is taught us in General and Particular Terms in the Written Word. Yet Protestants with all Heretics most vainly brag of Scripture as their Ground, and Catholics be calumniated to abandon it; as if Loyal Subjects did less rely on the Acts of Parliament, and fundamental Laws, who receive them, their Sentence, and meaning from the lawful Judges established in the Kingdom; then Outlaws and Rebels pretending to adhere immediately to them, as they themselves read, Think them clear, or expound.   

SECT. V.  
Scripture however clear in Fundamentals, clearly mistaken by Protestants, and clearly making against them.  
LEt us come at last to the Fundamental Points of the Protestant Religion, which Mr. Menzeis holds out to be clear in Scripture. Whereupon his Adversary demands, what things he esteems Fundamental? He Answers, to ask a Catalogue of Fundamentals, is to ask how to make a Coat to the Moon in all her changes. And this his quick Reply he borrows, from a learned Divine, as he calls him, (Mr. Chillingworth is the man, as I conceive, for he has the same words, a mere Sceptic in Religion, and who takes away all certainty in Faith) and to say true, the Protestant Religion is so Obnoxious to Reformations, Alterations, Innovations, that it is most fitly compared by him to the Moon in all her changes. Yea Protestants are of so different Opinions, even in what they call Fundamentals, that scarce two set down the same, Perkins in Cath. Reform. p. 407. and in his Exposition of the Creed, p. 503. will have all Fundamentals included in the Apostles Creed. Duplessis in his Treatise of the Church, C. 5. in the Decalogue. Du Moulin, after Melancton in C. 4. Matt. the Creed and Decalogue. Luther Tom. 7. in Enchir. f. 118. in the Creed, Decalogue, and Lords Prayer. Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 4. p. 340. in the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Sacraments. Sadeel Praef. Resp. ad Turr. to believe Christ crucified, and the Pope to be Antichrist. Chillingworth in his Treatise Entitled, the Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation, p. 408. n. 35. says plainly, Protestants do not agree, touching what Points are Fundamental, and page 166, we know not precisely, just how much is Funtamental: Again page 23. he that will go about to distinguish what was written, because it was profitable, from what was written, because necessary, shall find an intricate business of it, and almost impossible, that he should be certain, he hath done it, when he hath done it. Wherefore he says in the same page, n. 27. that Protestants give not a Catalogue of Fundamentals, it is not from Tergiversation, but from Wisdom and Necessity, and when they had done it, it had been to no purpose, there being, as matters now stand, as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture, which are not Fundamental, as those that are. And yet other Protestants with M. Menzeis, harp upon nothing more than the Distinction of Fundamentals from not Fundamentals, as if those were necessarily believed, these not. I know in other places of the same Treatise, this Author contradicts himself, which shows not only Protestants disagree in Fundamentals, one from another, but even the same man from himself; so well grounded they are in these their Fundamentals and Grounds, wherein, notwithstanding their monstrous Divisions, they vainly brag to agree. But how can it be discerned, whether all Protestants, or a few agree in Fundamentals, unless it be precisely known, what and how many Fundamentals there be? Potter, in fine, extends the number of Fundamentals beyond all his Brethren have said; his words are, page 24. it is Fundamental to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed Truths of God, whereof he may be convinced they are of God. And doth not this diversity of Opinions equal the changes of the Moon? Or is not all this a most clear and manifest Demonstration, however Scripture be clear in Fundamentals (which now I do not dispute) at least it is not so even to the Learnedest and most sharp sighted Protestants, who so little agree in that Point, that scarce two are of the same Judgement and Mind. If others did thus mistake what is perspicuous in Scripture, Mr. Menzeis would presently tell us, no wonder they do so, by reason of their evil disposed intellect. But that Protestants, and these not of the Vulgar sort, but even the Pillars of their Religion, and Defenders of their Faith, by Volumes in Print, should not see what in Scripture is most clear, but so vary and divide in such a multiplicity of Opinions, and yet maintain Scripture in these same things, wehrein they so vary, is clear, what a wonderful thing is this? Or who I pray you, can trust men, both at once saying Scripture is clear in Fundamentals, and yet setting down the same Fundamentals diversely? By this plainly confessing either their own blindness, and so that they are not good Guides, nor to be believed, when they speak of what in Scripture is clear, or else that their Doctrine in this is false.  
What M. Menzeis holds Fundamental, so great a secret it is, that neither will he tell us himself, nor can any other know it, he having so often changed House, and built upon divers Grounds. Yet that he should not seem to say nothing, a mark he gives us, to know what in Scripture is Fundamental, to wit, if we find it commanded to be believed by all, or a Character of necessity to be put upon it.  
Whereupon I reflect first M. Menzeis' Doctrine is here very Incoherent, for both he teaches, it is commanded in Scripture all men believe Fundamentals, as things absolutely necessary to salvation; and nevertheless the Catalogue of these same things, he will have impossible, as a Coat to the Moon. Would not this argue he is ignorant himself, of what all should know and believe? Otherwise surely, he should never have judged this Catalogue impossible, it being easy to a man to call to memory what he knows, yea we know no more than we can call to memory, says the Roman Orator, Tantum scimus, quantum memoriâ tenemus.  
Secondly, I reflect, that rejecting the Infallible Authority of the Church, teaching every particular person what is Fundamental, and what we must necessarily know, and explicitly believe to attain salvation; & pretending all this is clear, and may be found, by the marks he has given in Scripture; he remains obliged to a very hard task. 1. To prove in General, from evident and clear Scripture, that all things necessary to be believed are clear and evident in Scripture. Let him answer then, First where he reads this, and to the Father's teaching the contrary as we shall see below. 2. To prove every Fundamental Point in particular immediately, and clearly from Scripture: And this so, that the words cannot be taken obviously and literally in any other sense. For if they can be so taken, than I have no Infallible Evidence but they should be so taken, without some Infallible Guide, telling me they should not be so taken in the place alleged. As for example, these words, This is my Body, undoubtedly may at least signify, and that most Obviously and Literally, that Christ's Body is really in the Sacrament, as when I say, this is a piece of Gold, this a piece of Silver, these words literally signify real Gold and Silver: Wherefore, if I will take the words 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 than 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, lest 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 ●●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, etc. and yet who will say either of these two is sufficient for working a man's 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 lie. 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 signs 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 descent, from lesser things than these, when they are revealed by God, and propounded to him by the same Authority with the former. For then say Catholics he is equally obliged to believe them, by reason of the form●● 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 itself, 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 tied 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 Error in their Distinction of Fundamentals and Integrals consists) his Assertion is both Erroneous & Heretical, because an Act of Faith grounded on the Motive of God's Infinite and infallible Veracity in revealing, is a Virtual and Implicit Belief of all he has revealed, so that the true Belief of one Article, implies a belief of all. Wherefore S. Athanasius says in his Creed, whosoever doth not hold the Catholic 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 Heretics have been cast out of the Church. Yea, S. Gregory Naz. tract. de fide, says, nothing can be more dangerous than those Heretics, who when they run through all things uprightly, yet with one word, as with a drop of poison 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 embrace any kind of death. And the Church in her Public Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder bolt of God's 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 judge 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 threateneth that he shall be blotted out of the Book of Life, who ever shall diminish any word of the Revelation, Apoc. 22. v. 19 Yet Luther rejecting whole Epistles of Scripture, in M. Menzeis' Book is called a holy man; but so speaketh not Luther of him denying the Real Presence, who in his Book against the Sacramentarians, says plainly, They believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in vain, all these things avail them nothing, for as much as they deny, this Article of the Real Presence, and attach him of falsehood, who said of the Sacrament, This is my Body. And he had reason, for St. Thomas 2.2. q. 5. a 3. with other Divines teach he has no Spiritual Faith, who believeth not every thing little or great, Fundamental or not, Proposed to him by the same Authority. Whereupon they infer, that no Sectary upon his own choice adhering to this or that, believeth any thing. So Tertullian, l. de praesc. speaking against Valentine, says, some things of the Law and Prophets he approveth, some things not, that is, difalloweth all, whilst he disproveth some.  
3. From all this appeareth, how idly this distinction of fundamntals, & not fundamentals in the Protestans sense was brought in by them, it serving to no other purpose, then to palliate their divisions at present, & deceive Ignorants in the pretended succession, they claim to in old condemned Heretics, whose Errors they will have to be no Fundamentals. As M. Menzeis taking Hierome of Prague, John Huss, Wickcliff, the Waldenses, and Grecians, for true Protestants, before Luther, to make up an imaginary Succession in the Protestant Church: which to do with any apparent show of Truth. 1. He should prove those Sects to have been the Catholic Church spread through the whole world, and owned as such by the Fathers of those times. 2. Justify their Doctrine, which we find partly in their own Writings, partly in the most Authentic Records of the Ages wherein they lived, to have been in many things most false, erroneous, and unchristian. 3. Their succession from the Apostles times, finding their Bishops and Pastors in the Registers of the Church History or Fathers. Neither will he make this good by the Authority of Friar Reiner, who speaking of the Waldenses, whom he names Lionists, says at most (even as Illiricus quotes his words) some affirm they have been from the time of Pope Sylvester, others from the days of the Apostles. (M. Menzeis to make the Argument stronger, will have Friar Reiner to say absolutely they were from the time of the Apostles, with his ordinary ingenuity▪) but what I pray you concludes he from this? Those who said so, being Lionists themselves, as witnesseth Pili●hdorphius. So a little before Waldo, there arose Heretics who falsely bragged of the same, even as after them Protestants do now. But if you or they either sir, were in all ages from the Apostles, tell us the Authors in every age who marked the succession of your Pastors, where lived your people, etc. & then refute the great number of learned Writers, who lived when such Sects did start up in a sudden, as a Mushroom in a night, marking their Rise, and noting their Errors, which certainly they had never done, if such Doctrine had been professed before, as that of the true and visible Church.  
But to speak a word in particular of every one of those Sects; with what ignorance and falsehood M. Menzeis calls them true Protestants, you shall presently see. And first in John Huss, to whose name, I am sure, he has a more just claim then to his Religion, if we trust all the most Authentic Records of Huss his Doctrine.  
I cite not for this the Juridick Acts of the Council at Constance, because Popish; not Father Gordon of Huntley, no less eminent for his Learning then Birth, because a Jesuit, though living in Prague in Boheme, where Hussits most abound, and having made most diligent enquiry of their Tenants, he found as he witnesseth, Cont. 3. de Euch. c. 17. they did hold Invocation of Saints, Prayer for the dead, the Fast and Ceremonies of the Catholic Church with free will, confession of Sins, seven Sacraments, etc. But I hope he will trust Fox, a most fiery Protestant speaking thus upon the 2. Ch. of the Revelation. What did Huss at any time teach or defend in the Council, wherein he did not seem superstitiously to consent with the Papists? what did the Popish Faith decree concerning Transubstantiation; which he likewise with the Papists did not confirm? who celebrated Mass more Religiously than he? or more Religiously observed the Vows of Priestly Chastity? Concerning Free Will, Predestination, informed Faith, (that is without Charity) the cause of Justification, and merit of good Works, what other thing did he hold, then is taught at Rome? All this he, and more in his Monuments, that he did acknowledge seven Sacraments▪ and the Pope's Supremacy, p. 216. and 227. And if he should as yet disown Fox as a private Writer, yet must he trust Luther as a man extraordinarily sent by God to Reform the Church, and the 14. Apostle: The Papists burned Huss, says he, (Colloq. Germ. C. de Antich▪) when as yet he departed not a finger's breadth from the Papacy, for he taught the same which the Papists do, only he found fault with their Vices, against the Pope he did nothing. To the same purpose Luther has much more, Tom. 2. in Assert. art. 30. and Tom. 3. in Ps. 2. But in fine, should not Huss himself be trusted better than any, his works are extant, and perusing them, you shall find he did hold seven Sacraments upon the fifth of S. James; Transubstantiation in his Book of the Lords Supper, Ch. 2. and 3. the Sacrifice of the Mass in his Sermon of Funerals; Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead in the same place, confession of sins to a Priest in his Treatise of penance, invocation of Saints in his Epistles 22.30.35. Veneration of Relics upon Ps. 115. yea in his question of believing, the Pope's Supremacy as to his office, dignity and power: though with this Caveat, common to him with Wicliff, that ecclesiastical dignity, as well as Civil, was grounded on Inherent Justice, and so lost by Mortal Sin, which neither Catholics nor Protestants do teach: Nevertheless M. Menzeis is not ashamed to own Huss for a Protestant, so constant is he in professing his Fundamentals, which he will have to be in Scripture so clear. I insist not so much on the rest, yet to say a little of every one. Of Hierome of Prague; Fox. pag. 585. relateth whatever was his Opinion in other things, yet stood he constantly in defence of the real Presence, and Transubstantiation, saying, he did give more credit to S. Augustine, and other Doctors of the Church (who affirmed the same) then to any that denied it. Wikcliff again M. Menzeis is not ashamed to call a Protestant, who in his own Writings so expressly holds against them. 1. Worship of Images in his 9 Ch. of the Eucharist, Images, says he, we adore purely as signs, but God we must adore with all our power: It is therefore granted, that Relics, Images, and the Sacraments be with prudence to be adored. He did also hold Invocation of Saints in his Sermon of the Assumption into Heaven of our blessed Lady, Auricular confession on the 5. Ch. of James, seven Sacraments in his Postscript on the first Ep. and 1. Ch. to the Corinth's. 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 Protestant's, who held the Real Presence, that the Apostles were but Laymen, that all Magistrates fall from their Dignity by mortal sin, that it is not lawful to swear in any case, etc. as witnesseth Illyricus in Catal. Wald. Confess. Bohem. etc. And with these the Grecians upon a private Letter sent (as he pretends) by a Patriarch to the Archbishop 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, etc. 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 judge 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 falsehood and Error.  
The most ancient 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 Errors, than 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, etc. 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 Fast, 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 Relics 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 than these which Protestants call Fundamentals, are necessary to be believed under the danger of incurring Heresy and E●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 Heretics, and condemned by the Fathers even then.  
4. As to that he says all Fundamentals are clear in Scripture, and that according to S. chrysostom, 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 citys, 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 levelly the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation, to the square of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense I grant, to others I deny. 4. With Doctor Field a Protestant in his 4. Book C. 14. to such as be first settled 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 Father's words in the very genuine sense they speak them. See S. chrysostom his meaning in his 14. Hom. on S. John. S. Augustine's contra Cresconium. C. 33. where he says, if any one fear to be deceived in this question, through its obscurity, let him ask Council of the Church, which the holy Scriptures do demonsrate without any ambiguity. That of S. Irenaeus in his 2. Book Ch. 47. and more expressly 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 specify 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 Church's 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, than Scripture itself 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 Judgement? 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 Heretics be silenced, and Unity preserved in Faith. S. chrysostom 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 custom of the Church in baptising 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 Judgement, a Fundamental, hear himself again, l. 3. de Orig. Anim. C 9 if thou will be a Catholic, believe not, teach not, say not, that Infants prevented by death before they are baptised, 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. Martion, and with him the Anabaptists, teach Baptism should be conferred more than once. The Donatists, that Baptism of Heretics, at least should be reiterated. Sabellius, one only Person in the Godhead. Nestorius, two Persons in Christ, and for this are accounted Heretics; yet no clear Scripture is brought condemning their Errors. S. Augustine l. de unitate Eccl. says expressly of the Donatists' Error, 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 Controversy, 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 Errors. Which Definition if good, having its Genus proximum & differentiam ultimam, should distinguish Protestant's from all other Sectaries; but this it doth not, it being common to them with most Heretics, 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, etc. and all protesting against the Church's Errors, and Pope's Authority. For as the sole Roman Church did ever oppose all Heretics, 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 Heretics, Protest, prattle, Preach chiefly against her; turn over all the Writings of Authors, 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 itself to them all, neither did they oppose themselves all to any other company whatsoever. Yea this was ever the distinctive mark of Heretics, 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 Badge 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 Apostasy, Heresy, 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 Errors. 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 Controversy, 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 Commandments? 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 Errors, 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 Christ's 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 tie our Sanctification to Faith only, and his express word in S. James 2.24. Ye see then how that by Works a man is justified, and not by Faith only.  
Is it not to protest against his Divine Appointment again and his Word, to teach that good Works done in his Grace, and by his Grace, merit nothing? when through all the Scripture Heaven is promised as a reward to our Works, and in St. Matth. 10. It is said, Christ shall render to every one according to his Works.  
Is it not to protest against his Divine Authority and Word, to deny the Real Presence? All the Evangelists speaking so clearly, This is my Body, this is my Blood.  
Is it not to protest against his express Command and Word, to forbid Images as Idols? He having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the Ark of the Covenant, Exod. 25.  
Is it not to protest against his own Practice and Word, to deny we should honour his Saints, whom God himself Honours, yea, and glorifies. Them that honour me, I will honour, 1 Reg. 2.30.  
Is it not to protest against his Dispensation and Word, to deny the Power given to his Apostles and their Successors to forgive sins? he having said in S. John 20.23. Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven.  
Is it not to protest against the Satisfaction which his Justice requires for our sins, even after the guilt is forgiven, to deny Purgatory? The Scripture witnessing that he did exact satisfaction of David, and many holy penitent sinners after he had forgiven their sins. And S. Paul▪ 1 Cor. 3. If any one's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire; where we have clearly a purging, and punishing, yet saving fire.  
Is it not to protest against Christ's Eternal Priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech, Ps. 109. and S. Paul, Hebr. 5. to reject the unbloody and unspotted Sacrifice of the Mass, which the Prophet Malachy 1. C. 10. V. calls a clean Oblation to be offered amongst the Gentiles, from the rising of the Sun, even to the setting, and that in every place.  
Is it not to protest against all God commands us and his Word? to take away free Will in obeying, Deut. 30.19. I have set before you life and death, choose.  
To conclude, what Point is there in all the Catholic Faith, which Protestants protest against, which is not either Directly against God's Divine Attributes, Christ's Mediation, and Dispensation, his Church's Authority, his Saints, and Servants honour, some part of Christian duty, belief, or life, or generally not against his express written Word, as it is plain in itself, or expounded, by the unanimous consent of the Fathers? And yet so impudently bold is this spirit of Heresy, as to dare say, that that is contained in Scripture, which Scripture most evidently contradicts; that is only in opposition to Popish Errors, which impugns the very Fundamental, and most substantial Verities of the Gospel and Christian Faith; that by the pure and uncorrupted word, it will reform the Church, when corrupting the Word, and correcting the Church as subject to failings and Errors in Religion, it ruinateth both Church and Word.  

What has been said in this, and the former Section, further instanced in two Particular Controverted Points; The Real Presence, and two Sacraments.  
THE Protestant Religion is, The Christian Religion as contained in Scripture: Sole Scripture is their Ground, and in it all Fundamentals are clear; Sesse M. Menzeis. How false all this is in general, doth evidently I hope appear, by what I have said above. Here I instance only further two particular Points, he handles at length, the better to make see the falsehood of his strong and bold Assertions, in the weakness and nullity of his Proofs. And this first in his refuting one of our chief Tenets, viz. The Real Presence, then in maintaining one of his own, to wit, That there are two Sacraments, and no more.  
1. Then to prove Christ's body is not really in the Sacrament, these most clear words, This is my body; must not, says he, be taken in the literal sense, but Figuratively: why so, doth the Scripture say this? no, no Scripture is brought. What then? a Philosophical Demonstration as he pretends. The word this, in the literal sense is inexplicable, and the Proposition implieth a contradiction, ergo, etc. But why the Pronoun this inexplicable, because let Romanists strain their wits, Answers M. Menzeis; and squeeze their Authors, they cannot tell what it can signify, whether the Bread, Body, or something indeterminately. Who would not laugh here to see Mr. Menzeis, a professor of Divinity take such a weak Argument for a Demonstration? most like in this to a certain Romantic Knight Errand called Don Quicsot, who imagining to himself a Windmill to be a Giant, and then fight with it, as with a Hector, he did both blunt his Sword, and batter his Reputation. For what, I pray you, doth the Pronone this signify in any proportion, but Indeterminately, till it be determined to some particular thing, by the following words. So that let a man say a hundred times this, he determines nothing but by the ensuing words, as here This is my Body, makes a determinated sense, the last words determinating the first, which alone, and of itself signifies nothing determinately, and so to seek what it signifies determinately alone, and before the other words be pronounced, is to quibble and speak nonsense, by seeking a determinate Object under a word, which of its nature hath none. And this is the first part of his Demonstration for establishing, by a Logic Sophism, without any clear Scripture, a main Point of Religion.  
The second part of this Demonstration is, That it implies a manifest contradiction, a true Affirmative Proposition, de praesenti, should produce its Object. Why this, because in the instant of Nature wherein the Proposition is conceived before its Object, as the cause before its Effect: the Proposition should be true as is supposed, and not true, because the Object in that instant is not. The same Argument he urgeth in the instant of time wherein the Copula is pronounced, or Particle is, before the two last words. And for that Catholic Authors give many and divers Solutions of this Argument, as the Custom is in the School, he will be satisfied with none. But because Mr. Menzeis is good at Retortions, I retort his Argument thus: Is not this a true Affirmative Proposition, de praesenti, which produces its Object in St. John 15. This is my command, that ye love one another. Now what difficulty in the former Proposition, either in the word this, or in the Instants of Nature and Time, or that a true affirmative Proposition make its own Object, which is not here? do not these words make a new Command says Christ, as the former his body? what if M. Menzeis could have brought an Axiom of Philosophy against the Real Presence (as that Maxim, so commonly propounded and answered in the School, quae sunt eadem cum uno tertio sunt eadem inter se) proving as would seem, that the three persons being Identified, and the same thing with the Godhead and Divine Nature, cannot be really distinguished one from another. Should a Christian belly Christ, who is the first Verity, upon pretence he speaketh against natural reason? who will so reason with God; let him hear S. Bernard's most Excellent saying, Ep. 109. What is more against Reason, then that one should strive to go beyond Reason by force of Reason. But true it is, no Mystery of our Faith is against Reason, though some there be above the reach of Humane Weakness. Wherefore as the former Maxim, though much stronger, than what M. Menzeis here objects, is shown to have no repugnancy with the distinction of persons by our Divines; So I easily answer him, the Proposition is true in the instant of Nature, the Object being only extant in the instant of Time wherein the Proposition is completely ended, because it affirmeth only its Object to be extant, in that instant of time, and not before. In that instant of Nature, wherein the Proposition precedes its Object, it affirms indeed the Object to be, but not for that instant, as I say truly this day what will be to morrow; In instanti naturae vera est propositio, sed non pro instanti naturae, say they in the School. But M. Menzeis' Argument if solid, would prove against all Philosophy, there could be no Practic Knowledge, which hath no real Object, but what it makes to itself; for that in such conceptions of the mind, the act of the understanding is ever prior to the Object, as its cause; and so in that instant of priority (if his Objection have place) we shall have a knowledge of nothing, because in it the Object is not. Yea it should prove in all these places of Scripture, Let the Light be made, let the Firmament be made, young man I say unto thee rise; I will, be thou healed, and in such like, the Omnipotent Word of God not to be effectual, if the words did not produce what they signify, as these other words, This is my body. So that M. Menzeis here, taking this his trifling, & whimsical Sophism, for an unanswerable Argument, shows not only his weakness both in Philosophy and Grammar, but also manifestly that Heretics contradict Christ's most clear words, and the Authority of his Church upon most insignificant and frivolous objections. And upon such trifling Sophisms shall any Christian refuse to believe, what Christ hath taught in so express terms? what the Evangelists have so accurately set down in holy Writ: what the Fathers have confirmed in so many Volumes: what the Martyrs have subscribed with their blood: what the Church doth testify by her Pastors and practise: what God hath sealed with so many Miracles and Wonders; sometime appearing in the Consecrate Host in form of a man; sometimes (when it has been stabbed by Jews and Heretics) making it gush out in blood; sometimes by its virtue, casting out Devils, or quenching fire, as so many Authentic Records, both of History and Fathers do witness. O boldness and impudence of Heresy so to cavil at Christ's own words, and yet proudly pretend, pure Scripture is its only Ground!  
2. To instance how M. Menzeis again, from Scripture clear in Fundamentals, proves that Fundamental Tenet of Protestants, yea their proper and only Tenet (all the rest being borrowed from old condemned Heresies, as we have seen.) There be two Sacraments and no more. After a huge work in his last Paper, and a whole year spent, before the answer to this Query did appear, instead of clear Scripture (which he was only desired to bring) he gives the following discourse.  
1. To clear the state of the Question, he says, know we do not affirm, that the word Sacrament is to be found in Scripture.  
2. We understand by a Sacrament of the New Testament, a Substantial Visible Sign instituted by God, recorded in the Gospel, to Seal up the Promises of Salvation, which is to endure in the Church to the end of the world.  
3. We do affirm in this sense, there be only two proper Sacraments in the New Testament, Baptism and the Lords Supper.  
4. Then coming to prove there be two Sacraments, and two only; that there be two, he proves it thus, to Baptism and the Lords Supper, agree all the parts of the foresaid Description, for you have, says he, the Divine Institution of Baptising with water,, Mat. 28.19. and of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.23, 24, 25. That they are Seals of the promises of Salvation is no less clear: And first of Baptism, Act. 2.38, 39 and also of the Lords Supper, in so much that the Cup is called the New Testament, which you must acknowledge to be no proper speech, but it is only so called, because it is, sigillum foederis; hence also in the Institution, mention is made of the remission of sins, and of the giving of the Body of Christ, and shedding of his blood for us, holding forth that forgiveness of sins, and all other blessings, purchased by the Death of Christ, and promised in the new Covenant; are by this Ordinance sealed to the people of God. And that these Ordinances are to continue to the end of the word, is no less manifest from Matt. 28.20. and 1 Cor. 11.26. In fine, he proves there be only two Sacraments, by this Argument, more cannot be produced out of Scripture, as shall be proved, solutione objectionum ergo, etc.  
Now to reflect how judiciously, and learnedly M. Menzeis here proves from Scripture there be two Sacraments, and two only.  
1. He doth not affirm the Word Sacrament to be in Scripture.  
2. Of all the Definition or Description he brings, not so much as one Particle is affirmed in Scripture to be Essential to a Sacrament: (I do not dispute at present how much of it is true in itself, or granted by us) I only desire it may be made clear from Scripture, as clearly containing all Fundamentals of the Protestant Religion, which is the only thing in question. But nothing is proved by him, save only that Baptism, and the Lords Supper are of Divine Institution, as many other things be, which are not Sacraments. To prove they are Seals of the promises of Salvation, he citys for Baptism, Act. 2.28, 29. The words omitted by him, I hear set down. But Peter said to them, do penance, and be every one of you Baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. No word here Baptism is a Seal of the promises of Salvation. It is said indeed to be given for the Remission of sins, and that to whom it is given, they receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which both Protestants deny; maintaining there is no virtue in Baptism to confer either of these Effects. It is said further, that to the Jews and their children, yea to 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 Judge; 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 easy task to impugn 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, Counsels, 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 Councils, 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 Ancient 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 Baptising doth give Sanctity, and the Holy Ghost, to the Baptised.  
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 Baptism, Acts 2.38. Be every one of you baptised 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 Penance, S. John 20.23. Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, etc. 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, etc. 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 extreme 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 Oil, in the name of our Lord, etc. And if he be in sins, they shall be remitted him. S. Mark 6.13. And they anointed with Oil 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 Heretics 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 Controversy, 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▪ Penance 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. Extreme 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 show the fathers take not always 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 itself, 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 Catholic 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 practice of the same Church, which is an infallible Ground to us, whilst all Heretics, with M. Menzeis are so intricate in the present Question, by the Diversity of Notions, they either find in Authors, or fancy to themselves, (some admitting not only seven, says Mr. Menzeis, but seventeen Sacraments, some, seven times seven, some seventy seven, yea, and more) that they lie still either in the Lurking Holes of Obscurity and Ambiguity, the better to Palliate their Errors, or wander up and down in their unsettled 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 Ruin.  
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 Protestant's 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 show) 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 Errors, and fearing their Religions both fall and ruin, 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 Duke Plessis, so evidently confuted by the Cardinal Du Peron, pretend to Miracles with M. Pool in his Nullity of the Romish Faith, though falsely, 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 Religion; The Doctrine of the Church in the first three Centuries or Ages.  
The sole reason he gives for the Church's Doctrine, as being a Ground of Faith at that time is, because, if the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Gospel. 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 Scholar without a Master, etc.  
Calvin in an Epistle of his to Melancthon, It doth not a little concern us (says he) that not the least suspicion of any Discord risen amongst us descends to Posterity, for it were a thing more than 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 Leprosy 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 Apostasy 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 Gospel.  
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 Testimonies 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 Protestant's do falsely pretend. Thirdly, that they own no more the diffusive body of the Church infallible than the Representative, seeing no Church professing 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 than 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 fullness 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 than 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 Judge of Controversy, 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 Ecclesiastic 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 than 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 chrysostom, 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 excel all the Doctors of the Church, yea even Augustine himself. Calvin L. 3. Inst. C. 5. It was a custom 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 Error.  
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 ancient Fathers obscured the Doctrine of Justice by Faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised new Worships.  
In like manner, Peter Martyr 1. devotis p. 477. that in the Church, Errors did begin, Immediately after the Apostles; and therefore as long as we stand to Councils and Fathers, we shall be always in the same Errors.  
Whitaker cont. 2. q. 5. C. 7. it is true which Calvin and the Centurists have written, that the ancient Church did Err in many things, as touching Limbo, free Will, merit of Works, etc.  
Chemnitius in Exam. conc. tried. 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 Catholic, 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 Peter's 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 offer. 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, etc. 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 denied, 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 Cen●ury Writers, and Scultetus Tax for the same Clement of Alexandria, S. Cyprian, Justin Martyr, etc. In the third Century, they say, Origen made good Works, the cause of Justification, and in the 5. accuse, S. chrysostom 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 Error, as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin, and to satisfy to God's Justice, in so far as Luther on the 4. ch. to the Gallathians calls for this, Hierome, Ambrose, Augustine, and other Father's 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 Ancient Fathers Erred in making Pilgrimages to Relics of Saints; and Osiander with the Centurists, Cent. 4. that S. Hierome did foolishly contend, that the Relics 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. chrysostom 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 Heretics, 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 Relics 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, Penance, 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, than so commanded as necessary. Where any judicious Reader may evidently see, how by chief Protestant Authors, both the Primitive Church, and the Fathers are censured for many Errors. 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 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 Relics, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, S. Peter's Primacy amongst the Apostles, the Pope's Supremacy in the Church, Mass, Traditions, the Real Presence, Confession, Penance, Absolution, etc. 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 show 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 denied three persons in the Godhead, 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: Martion, 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 show 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 Authentic writings of these Fathers, and upon this engaging to turn Papist. I do not here question further than I have done in my second reflection, how he who admits of no Infallible Visible Judge, can be sufficiently assured of their Authentic Writings, for if he take this only upon their conformity with Scripture, they can make no peculiar Ground to him, rather than other men's Writings, having the like conformity with it, or can they be called properly a distinct Ground from it; But having seen how many chief Protestants disown the most ancient Fathers, challenge them of manifold Errors; 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics: Yet you shall God willing see how clearly the chiefest of them descent from Protestants in all controverted Tenets, and most disgracefully belly 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 Pope's Supremacy, this protestants deny. But in the first Age, S. Denis de divinis nominibus, C. 3. calls S. Peter first Bishop of Rome, the Supreme and most ancient 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 ancient: And again, l. 3. C. 3. all Churches round about aught 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 Apostolic Sea, because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained.  
In the third Age, Origen on the 6. Ch. to the Rom. says, The chief charge of feeding Christ's 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. Peter's Chair. Yea in the second Century, Amandus Polonus, M. Spark, and M. Whitaker, (though Protestants) confess, that Victor than 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 the Fathers of the first three Ages; that Danaeus a Protestant, in his Answer to Bellarmine, acknowledgeth Sovereign 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 Christ's 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 Controversy of the Pope's 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 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 aught to do, and on the 6. Ch. to the Romans, he says, to baptise Infants is one.  
In the third Age, Tertullian de praescr. teacheth Heretics 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, etc. he addeth, of these, and such like things, if thou require a ground in Scripture, thou shalt find none: Tradition did begin them, Custom has confirmed their Practice, and Faith doth observe them.  
In the same Age S. Cyprian l. 1. Ep. 12. says, he that is Baptised, aught 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 judge, whether the Fathers of the first three Ages, in these their most Authentic Writings I know, do make a ground for Protestant or Catholic 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 Heretics, and generally aught to be kept by all.  
3. Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ's 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, says 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 Baptise, nor Offer. Origen hom. 13. in Exod. you think yourselves guilty, and unworthy if any part of the Consecrated Host be lost through your negligence.  
S. Hippolytus, 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. chrysostom, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, etc. 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 ancients) speaking of the Saturnian Heretics, says, They admit not of Eucharists and Oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviour's 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 thyself, and appear plainly unto us.  
In the second Age, S. Irenaeus, l. 4. C. 34. disputing against the Heretics, who denied 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 Chalice, 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, than the Lord entereth under thy roof, etc.  
In the same Age, Tertullian l. 4. contra Martion. C. 40. The Bread taken and distributed to his Disciples he made his body. What can be said more clearly than all this, either for the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation, which is nothing but the change of the Bread in Christ's Body, here so plainly asserted.  
Add to this, for communion under one kind, denied 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, numbereth prayer for the dead amongst the Traditions of the Apostles, and speaks thus, l. de anima C. 58. Seeing we understand that prison which the Gospel demonstrates to be places below, and the last farthing, we interpret every small fault there to be punished, by the delay of the Resurrection, no man will doubt but that the soul doth recompense something in the places below, Ibid. we make yearly Oblations, says he, for the dead. Origen hom. 6. in Exod. he that is saved, is saved by fire, so that if a man have something mixed with Lead, that the fire doth purge and resolve, that all may become pure Gold.  
S. Cyprian, l. 4. Ep. 2. It is one thing to be purged a long time for sins by Torment, and cleansed by a long fire, and another thing to purge all sins by patience and sufferings. What fire is more clear then S. Augustine and others be with S. Cyprian and Origen here for a purging fire? I know Protestants Expound that place of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 3. v. 13, 14. of the fire of Tribulation in this life, but not so, S. Augustine in Ps. 37. where citing the words of the Apostle, he shall be safe, yet so as by fire, says, and because it is said, he shall be safe, that fire is contemned, yet that fire shall be more grievous than what ever a man can suffer in this life; and then entering in a most fervent Prayer continues, Purge me, O Lord, in this life, that I need not that mending fire.  
6. Protestants deny Invocation and honouring of Saints. But in the first Age, S. Denis eccls Hierarch. C. 7. says, I constantly affirm with the Divine Scripture, that the Prayers of the Saints are very profitable for us in this life, when a man is inflamed with a desire to imitate the Saints, and distrusting his own weakness, he betakes himself to any Saint, beseeching him to be his helper and petitioner to God for him, he shall obtain by that means very great assistance.  
In the same Age S. Clement l. Apost. Constit. 5. We command you, that the Martyrs be in all honour among you, even as James the Bishop, and Stephen our fellow Deacon have been amongst us, for God has made them blessed, and holy men have honoured them. In the second Age, S. Cornelius Ep. 1. exhorteth to beseech God and our Lord Jesus Christ, that his holy Apostles making Intercession for you, he would purge you from your sins.  
And Justin Martyr Apol. 2. We worship and adore both God the Father and his Son, etc. as also the company of his followers, and the good Angels, and we worship them both by words and deeds, and in truth even as we ourselves have been taught and instructed.  
In the third Age S. Cyprian l. 4. Ep. 9 The sufferings and days of Martyrs we celebrate with a yearly remembracne.  
And Origen in Lament. I will begin to fall down on my knees, and pray to all his Saints to succour me, who dare not ask God, for the exceeding greatness of my sins. O Saints of my God, with tears I beseech you to fall down before his mercy for me a wretch.  
7. Protestants deny the use of the sign of the Cross, and Images.  
But in the first Age, S. Denis l. 2. Eccl. Hierarch. c. 2. The sign of the Cross is so much honoured, that it is often used both in baptism and other Sacraments.  
In the same Age, S. Martial Ep. ad Burdegal. Remember the Cross of our Lord, keep it in your mind, speak often of it, have it in the Sign, for it is your invincible Armour against Satan. Tertullian l. de Coron. milit. c. 3. In every thing we do, we sign our forehead with the sign of the Cross, of which practice, Tradition is the defender, Custom the conserver, and Faith the observer. And in his time he says l. 2. de pudicit. The Image of Christ bearing a Lamb, was graven on the Chalices used in Churches; And how famous is the memory of many more Images in the first three Ages, as that of our Saviour sent to Abgarus Prince of Edessa, of which see Evagrius l. 4. c. 26. Mataphrastes, in the life of Constantine, S. John Damascon in his book of Images. That which the woman cured of a Flux set up in brass at Caesaraea Philippi; as witness Eusebius in his 7. Book Ch. 14. So Zomenus l. 5. c. 20. and Damascene again, Ibid. a third made by Nicodemus, which being afterward taken by the Jews, and in mockery crucified, was honoured by God with many Miracles, as is related by S. Athanasius, or some other most ancient Author of the Book Entitled, of the Passion of our Lord's Image. Besides these, Theodorus Lect. l. 1. Collectan. maketh mention of one of our blessed Lady, drawn by S, Luke▪ Eusebius relateth, that he did see many ancient Images of Christ placed betwixt S. Peter and S. Paul, as much witnesseth S. Augustine l. 1. De cons. Evan. c. 10. Damasus in the life of S. Silvester, writeth that Constantine in the place where he was Baptised, Erected Silver Images of our Saviour and S. John Baptist, as also others in the Church of S. John Lateran, which the first Christian Emperor had never done, nor S. Silvester permitted, if the practice of the Church from the Apostles had not been such.  
8. Protestants deny Free will, after the fall of Adam, but in the first Age, S. Clement l. 3. recognit. Asketh how doth God judge every man by his deeds according to truth; if he have not in his power to do what is commanded, if this be held, all things are frustrate, in vain shall the study be of following better things; In the same Age S. Ignatius Ep. ad Magn. If any man do wickedly, he is a man of the Devil, not made so by Nature, but by his own free will.  
In the second Age, S. Justin Martyr in Apol. Unless mankind can both fly foul and undecent things, and follow fair and good things of his own free will; it is without all cause and blame of theirs, howsoever things be done.  
S. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 72. not only in works, but even in Faith hath Almighty God reserved liberty of will to Man, saying, be it to thee according to thy Faith.  
In the third Age, S. Cyprian in Deut. & l. 3. ad Quirin. c. 52. The freedom of believing or not believing, is placed in the will.  
In the same Age Origen hom. 12. in Num. O Israel, what doth thy Lord God require of thee? let them be ashamed of these words, who deny free will in man; how should God require of man, unless man had in his power, what to offer to God requiring.  
9 Protestants deny merit of Works.  
But in the first Age, S. Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. says, Give me leave to become the food of beasts, that by that means I might merit and win God. In the second, Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. We think that men who by works have showed themselves worthy, etc. shall by their Merits live and Reign with him.  
In the third, S. Cyprian l. de Unit. eccls 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 Commandments, 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 tie him, who had not in his power due obedience to the Law. This is a maxim in Philosophy; wherefore Origen hom. 9 in Jos. says plainly, the baptised 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 denied 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, etc. 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 renowned 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 ancient Fathers in the number of Ecclesiastical Books, and particularly as seemeth to Hamelmanus by no less men than 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 Churchmen, of fasting from certain Meats at times, etc. 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 Heretic, c. 10. What the Catholic 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. Whilst 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 Errors. 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 Protestant's 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 Heresy upon a word or two picked out of places wherein they have an Orthodox sense: In so many hundred Volumes of the Father's writings, that some word or passages seem to favour Heresy, what wonder? God's 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, than the most ancient 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 Error? To say such a Church, so great and glorious in the Christian world, did Apostatise, and none did remark her Apostasy; is like a general Eclipse of the Sun, remarked by none. The least Errors of particular Heretics, the Fathers have so narrowly sifted, so sharply censured, so solidly confuted: and shall we think, they have either not spied, 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 World's 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 Catholic 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 candour Heretics cite the Fathers; this I borrow from M▪ Menzeis in his third paper, where in general, he most confidently says, That whatever the ancient 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 grossly 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 denied by Protestants.  
The first is Free Will, for which Justin in his Apology is so clear, that having said, If men had not in their Free Will, to fly what is filthy, and choose what is honest, they should be no wise to blame for what ever action; he will have it a Demonstration, That men have freedom to live virtuously, or fall in sin, because we see them by experience to pass from one of these contraries to the other. His words are, ac nisi libero arbitrio & ad turpia fugienda▪ & ad honesta deligenda facultatem habeat mortalium genus, non fuerit in causâ sive culpâ qualiumcunque demum, factorum: Sed enim libero id delectu tum recte per virtutem vivere, cum per peccatum labi, ad hunc demonstramus modum: hominem eundem ad contraria subinde transire videmus.  
The second is Merit of Works, in acknowledging a reward to them, his words again are, Atque hoc etiamsi paucis persuaferimus, maximum tamen inde feremus lucrum; nam ut boni agricolae amplam à domino capiemus mercedem.  
The third is the efficacy of Baptism, in cleansing us by water from all former sins, and making us the children of God, Ut ne necessitatis & ignorantiae liberi permaneamus, sed ●●●ectus & scientiae filii fiamus, ac remissionem ante commissorum peccatorum consequamur in aquâ.  
The fourth the Real Presence, saying of the Consecrated Bread and Wine in so express words; Not as common Meat and common Drink do we take these things, but even as by the Word of God, our Saviour JESUS Incarnate had flesh and blood for our Salvation, so we are taught that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the self same JESUS Incarnate: His words are; Non enim ut communem panem neque communem potum ista sumimus; sed quemadmodum per verbum dei, caro factus Jesus Christus Servator noster, & carnem & sanguinem habuit: ad eundem modum, etiam eam in quâ per preces verbi ejus ab ipso profecti gratiae sunt actae, alimoniam, incarnati illius Jesu carnem & sanguinem esse edocti sumus. Nam Apostoli in commentariis à se scriptis, quae Evangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt.  
Divers other things in the same Apology I pass, these few things being sufficient, to show M. Menzeis ingenuity, and how he with other Heretics dare cite the Fathers, who even most evidently and expressly condemn them.  
But to close this Section (which citations have made longer than I intended) with one Query I ask M. Menzeis where he shall find, so much as in one of the Fathers, any point of Doctrine taught by the present Roman Church condemned of Heresy: as many Protestant Tenets they hold against us, are declared Heretical by so many, as by S. Ireneus l. 1. c. 20. to say with Simon Magus, that men are not saved by good works; by S. Epiphanius haeres. 8. to say with Cerinthus, That children may be saved without Baptism. By the same S. Epiphanius, to say with the P●o●●ma●s, That God has commanded some impossible things. By S. Augustine, l. 20. contr. Faust. to pull down Altars with the Manichees. By the same S. Augustine l. 2. Contra lit. Petil. C. 32. and 34. To say with the Donatists, That the Baptism of Christ, and that of S. John Baptist were all one: by S. Epiphanius haeres. 75. and S. Augustine haeres. 53. To say with the Arians, that Fasts of the Church are not to be observed, nor Prayers, nor Sacrifice to be used for the dead. By Sozomenus l. 5. c. 20. and Eusebius l. 7. C. 14. To forbid with Julian the Apostate, the use of Images, and Sign of the Cross. by S. Hierome l. contr. Helvidianum. To equal marriage with Virginity. By the same S. Hierom l. contr. Vigilant. To say with Vigilantius, Saints are not to be Invocated, nor their Relics to be honoured. By S. Hierome again, l. 3. contr. Pelagian. To brag as the Pelagians did, that they were sure of their Salvation. By S. Augustine to say with Jovinian That such as are regenerate by Baptism, and once received in God's grace and favour cannot finally fall away. By S. Hierome contr. Vigilant. To say Churchmen ought to marry. By S. Cyril in Epist. ad Calo-syrium Episc. of Madness as well as Error. To say with some in these days, Christ's body did not remain in the Eucharist, if it were kept until the morrow. By S. Augustine l. 6. contra Julian. C. 2. & 3. and ad Bonifac. C. 2. & 4. To say with the Pelagians, That the children of the Faithful are born holy, and need no Regeneration by Baptism. By S. Augustine l. de haeres. C. 54. To teach with the Eunomians, A man is saved by Faith only. By S. Augustine l. 1. C. 2. & ult. contra Maximin. To deny Apostolical Traditions in the Church. By S. Cyprian Ep. 55. to say with most Heretics, To Peter's Chair and the Principal Church, Infidelity or false Doctrine can have access. By Irenaeus l. 3. C. 3. to deny all Churches round about aught to resort to the Roman Church, by reason of her more powerful Principality; By all the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. To deny that all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Archbishop of Old Rome. So that the Protestant Religion is not only void of all Solid Ground either in the Divine Scriptures, or Holy Fathers, but also in most clear and express words is condemned as Heretical by both. It being indeed nothing but a new Heresy, patched up of many old condemned Errors, joined to some fresh Notions and Conceits, flowing from the same Spring and Spirit of Pride and Rebellion against all the Ancient Fathers and present Pastors of the Church; It's frequent changes, show it is not from God: It's Monstrous Divisions in so many Sects, that it has not the Unity of Faith: Its inconstancy in Principles, Tenets, Form of Worship and Government, that it is not built upon the Rock, and consequently hath no solid Foundation or Ground.    

Conclusion of all that has been said, wherein also the true Grounds of the Catholic Religion are set down.  
A Little Error in the beginning, turns great in the end, says the Prince of Philosophers Aristotle in his Physics: which as it is most true in the first Principles of all Natural Sciences, so it is in the Grounds of the Christian Faith. The innumerable byways of Sectaries; their monstrous and manifold Divisions from the true Church & amongst themselves; so many Controversies among Christians in our days, such wranglings and jars for Religion, flow all from one Spring, to wit, The mistake of true Principles and Grounds. And this one Error in the beginning, makes them run themselves in so many, and infinite great in the end.  
Pride and Contention (the two Pillars of Heresy) will let them acknowledge no Authority of Councils or Fathers, yield to no evidence of Reason, submit to no Judge. Whence Controversies are driven to nothing, but idle and 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 applied 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: Faith's certainty is changed into probability: a few Fundamentals comprehending chief Mysteries (what or how many they cannot tell) are judged 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 fullness of the Spirit: her Eyes by age are dimmed, she sees not what is manifest in Scripture, they as younger see clear: she 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 Christ's own power, they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue, and make up a new one, changing both the Priesthood and Sacrifice: No more pennances and satisfactions of men to God's 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 easy task: So the straight path is made plain, and the narrow way broad to them: Whilst others strive to work their salvation with fear and trembling, chastizing their bodies with the Apostle S. Paul, lest 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 persuade 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 Judge; 〈◊〉 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 judge of us and what we teach, as you yourselves read and understand: This is the liberty of the children of God, to be tied to no Church's Faith, to no Counsels Decrees, to no Father's Doctrine: The Word as clear in itself, or explained by itself; the Spirit speaking inwardly in our hearts, and every man's 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 Heretics, and settling of every good Christian in his belief. O Liberty, Liberty and Freedom of the children of God, from the Pope's Supremacy, Counsels, Infallible Authority, the Church's 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 ruin Protestant Grounds, and give no better in their place, were rather to destroy then edify, to throw down then to build, and in a Controversy of Religion, rather to set up Atheism, than root out Heresy, (as M. Menzeis continually cavilling at our Tenets, but never once settling his own, with so much labour hath done) I therefore do here for a Conclusion briefly here set down, and clearly prove solid, the Grounds of the Catholic Faith.  
The Ground then of true Faith and Religion Established by Christ and his Apostles, not only solid and infallible in itself, but also clear and perspicuous to all, yet special and particular to us in Communion with the Sea of Rome, to which no Sectary, Schismatic, or Heretic doth or can pretend; removing all Doubts, deciding all Controversies, silencing all sowers of false Doctrine and Errors, keeping Unity, stopping Divisions, quieting men's Consciences, instructing the Ignorant, settling 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 divers 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 cried 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 Author 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 Catholic 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 joined with Scripture; Is 1. proved from clear Scriptures, most expressly 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 yourselves 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, etc. 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 Error of Donatists, etc.  
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 persuade infallibly all sort of persons, that such things are revealed by God, removing all reasonable doubts that can arise, either concerning God's 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 itself (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 persuasive motive, not to appear, and not to be, according to that Maxim, Idem est non esse & non apparere. Wherefore a ground however infallible in itself, 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 than the Earth, and their Demonstration no doubt is both certain and evident in itself, yet never shall persuade a Country clown that it is greater than 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 itself, 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 Catholic 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 ●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. ●. That the Catholic 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 falsely propounded to us, as the first and chief Mysteries of the Christian Religion by Heretics 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, than no infallible means is left. 4. There is no less necessity the Church be infallible in propounding, than the Evangelists in penning, and the Apostles in Preaching, no disparity can be given, God's Word being equally infallible in itself before both, as i● is now. 5. Our Saviour Christ most expressly 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 God's Word, than the Letter you read to be uncorrupted, the sense you give to the genuine, etc. and to all the clear places of Scripture I have brought against most of your particular Tenets. I do not here ask ye 〈◊〉 prove that to be infallibly God's Word which was preached by the Apostles, this they did sufficiently themselves: Neither that the Doctrine of Authentic Scripture is infallibly true, (that was also done before there was a Protestant in the world) but coming from those Generals (which make all the Answers of your best Writers) we desire ye show by some infallible sign that your Bible is God's pure Word; and your Glosses on it conform to the Sense and Letter. To reply, Scripture doth evidence itself by its innate light to be God's Word, so that all may sufficiently know it by this, and all be obliged to believe it, is refuted by Christ himself, presently telling us his own hearers had not sinned in not receiving it as such, if he had given no External Evidence of his infallibility in propounding; for as I have remarked above, Scripture hath no greater Efficacy, Evidence, or Light in our Books, then in our blessed Saviour's own mouth. Neither will the Majesty of the Style, or the purity of the Doctrine do it, both these being as great in the the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which Protestants reject, as in the Ecclesiastes and Canticles, which they receive. Besides that the first of these two is imaginary, as to the Letter, there being less Majesty in the Letter of Scripture, then in the Philosophers and Orators Writings, as is confessed by Paul. And the second is in question chiefly in Protestant Bibles, which do not agree with any Original or Copy that before Luther can be found, if we trust their own Authors whom I have quoted.  
Lastly, If all Councils, all the Fathers, all the Pastors of the Church be fallible, then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture against us, (for we will receive nothing but upon infallible Authority) and all their Volumes of Controversy shall not come to one line. Yea further, could they bring Scripture for what they teach (as they will never be able to do) yet without an infallible Propounder and Judge, well might we dispute, but conclude nothing, wrangle, but agree in nothing to the World's end. For as sole Scripture without an infallible Church propounding, and Explaining it, so a naked Church without infallible Marks, and a Doctrine without infallible Motives, prove nothing.  
Secondly, I say the true Church is this infallible propounder, on whose Authority we must rely. For proof of this, It is to be observed, that in holy Scripture there be three Foundations or Grounds of Faith mentioned by the Apostle S. Paul. The 1. Is our blessed Saviour Christ, 1 Cor. 3.11. Another Foundation no man can lay then that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. The 2. Is the Apostles and Prophets, Ephes. 2.29. Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets. The 3. The Church, 1 Tim. 3. The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth.  
From which clear places of Scripture, I remark, 1. The Foundation of Faith is ever a Living, Visible, and Speaking Ground, to wit, Christ, the Apostles, Prophets, and Church, the dead Letter of Scripture being no where called this Ground. 2. That these three Grounds of Faith, both in the Old and New Law, properly speaking make but one, according to the same Apostle, for another Foundation no man can lay, says he, beside Christ JESUS. So that the Prophets, Apostles, and Church must not be thought different Foundations from Christ, all their Virtue in upholding Faith, and Veracity in propounding Faith (Whence they are called the Foundation and Ground of it) coming from the particular assistance of his Spirit, Strengthening, Inspiring, and Directing them. Hence also is their infallibility, for the Foundation of Christ stands sure, says the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2.19. And consequently is altogether infallible. 3. That the Church here called a Ground which supporteth our Faith, is not to be said the only diffusive body of all true Believers, but more the Representative Church in her chief Pastors, as the Prophets and Apostles in old. Wherefore some few Catholic Authors so often objected, as holding the Canons and Decrees of Councils only infallible, when they are generally received by the whole Church; in my opinion are highly mistaken, and surely to be understood (if any in Express terms speaks so) of Councils not wholly Ecumenical, or not Lawfully convocated, and knownly approved by the Pope, or whereof some rational doubt may be made in things essentially required; in which cases I grant the general belief of the Church could best warrant the infallibility of their Decrees. Otherwise a few particular persons might cope with General Counsels, as Luther and his Adherents at first, Vendicating to himself the Negative voice, as if he had been high Bishop in the whole Church; which were to take away all possible means of preserving Unity in Faith, yea to foment all Schisms and Divisions, every one pretending the whole Church holds no such Doctrine; whilst he who is a Member dissents. So that such Doctors if they should allow no obligation in receiving the Decrees of the Representative Church, to the which they do and must submit even this their Sentence, could neither be thought Catholics or rational men.  
But however some few speak or think, God did promise us an infallible Church, Isa. 2. V. 2, 3. Wherein he should teach us his ways, and judge amongst the Nations himself, not personally, for he never went out of Jewry, but by her Pastors. He has established this infallible Church, in St. Matth. 16. V. 19 Upon the Rock. Christ hath commanded us to hear her, in St. Matth. 18. V. 17. And the persons we should hear in this Church, as well as the end wherefore we would hear them, and rest upon their Authority, is clearly set down in these words, 4. Ephes. 11. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers, for perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, till we all come in the Union of Faith, that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, etc. From all which places of Scripture, it is Demonstratively manifest, that as the true Church is infallible, and we bound to hear her, yea and to rely upon her Authority, as the Pillar and Ground of our Faith; so is it most evidently clear, that as she speaketh only to us infallibly by the voice of her Pastors and teachers united, it is them we should hear, seeing God in her, (not personally as I have said, but by them) both Judgeth and Teacheth, as the infallible Propounders of his Divine Truths (with the Prophets and Apostles in old) and the infallible Judges of our Controversies and Debates.  
2. The same is proven from the unanimous consent of the Fathers, quoted at length in my third Section, for the infallibility both of the Church and Councils; And may be confirmed even by the confession of many Rational and Moderate Protestants, who receive the Scripture, and consequently all, and every Point contained in it, 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 Church's Tradition is the Argument whereby to convince, what Books are Canonical and what not. M. Fulk in his Answer to a Sergeant Catholic; The Church hath judgement 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 speaks of the Representative Church, which only 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 leisure, 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 household of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, that so they may embrace 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 itself 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, says 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 divers way without any means to take up their Controversies, etc. No ordinary way to Assemble a General Council of their part, which is the only hope remaining ever to assuage their Contentions.  
3. Reason evinceth it: The true Church is the School of infallible and Divine Truths, than 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 matte●● 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 than 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, shown 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 persuaded 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 preached 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 itself, for since the Apostles there is in the Church no Judge, 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 Philosopher's 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 cavilling 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 virtue 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 lest Errors, sown 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 Catholic 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 Marks 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 herself 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 lie.  
3. Therefore I say, the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, says Lactantius, l. 4. that hath the true Worship and Service of God: That is, the Wellspring 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, etc. 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 repair 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 Catholic 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 joining 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 Catholic 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 tied us, and that under no less pain than 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 Christ's, and in the Apostles time; for all things are best conserved by the same means by which they received their being, says the Philosophers, 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 Catholic Roman Church is the only true Church, I most evidently prove in short (for this hath been often done in large volumes) and that by a very few undoubted Signs, and as it were most legible Characters of the Primitive Church in the time of the Apostles, paralleling 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 Virtue 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 fullness 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 bosom 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 infallibly credible which is taught in her, as the great Seal God sets to her Doctrine. In the first Age, the Miracles of the Apostles and Disciples are set down in holy Scripture, so need no other Testimony. In the second Age, Justin Martyr quaest. 28. reporteth many wrought by the bodies, and at the Sepulchers of Martyrs, and Irenaeus, l. 2. C. 58. innumerable others for the conversion of the Gentiles. In the third Age many most great ones are wrought by S. Gregory surnamed Thaumaturge, or worker of Miracles, related by S. Gregory Nissen in his Life, and S. Basil de Sp. Sanct. c. 29. divers whereof by the Sign of the Cross. S. Cyprian serm. de laps. relates with many others, three very strange Miracles in this Age, confirming the Real Presence. In the fourth Age, a dead body is restored to Life by the holy Cross, when it was first found by the Empress Helena, as witness Ruffinus, Nicephorus and others. Many other Miracles are wrought by Relics, witnessed by S. chrysostom, orat. contr. gentes, by holy Water attested by S. Epiphanius, haer. 30. by Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament; witness S. Gregory Nazianzen orat. 11▪ by Prayer to our Lady says the same Author, in S. Cyprian, by the Merits of Martyrs, as relateth S. Ambrose Serm. 21. In the fifth Age, S. Augustine l. 22. the civet. c. 8. many by the Relics of S. Stephen, and an house dispossessed of Devils by saying of Mass, S. chrysostom says, by the sign of the holy Cross. Eusebius Cremon. writes, S. Hierome being dead, the blind, deaf, dumb, and sick were cured by touching and kissing his Corpse. In the sixth Age, Miracles are wrought to confirm the Sacrifice of the Mass, witness S. Gregory l. 4. dial. C. 57 by the Relics of S. Martin, as is related by S. Gregory of Tours, de Miracul. S. Martini l. 1. c. 11. Two others says S. Gregory, l. 3. dial. C. 3. by John the first, and Agapitus, both Popes. In the seventh Age, we have Miracles in defence of vowed Virginity, related by Sigibert, an. 670. wrought by Relics, in Bede, l. 5. c. 11. By the Images of S. Anastasius, at the very sight whereof ●evils fled, and diseases were cured, in act. 2. Synod. Nicen. In the eighth Age, divers Miracles are wrought at the translation of S. Augustine's Relics from Sardinia to Ticinum, by Luitprand King of the Long●bards, after he had redeemed it with a great sum of money from the Saracens, witness Oldardus Ep. ad Carol. Magn. A Crucifix in the City of Berith, stabbed by the Jews, bleedeth, and the blood cureth all diseases, witness Crantius with the Magdeburgians Cen. 8. In the same age Pope Leo the third, having his tongue cut, and his Eyes pulled out by the Pagans, had them both restored by the Intercession of S. Peter, as it is Recorded by Anastasius, Baronius, and many others. In the ninth Age, innumerable Miracles are done at the Tomb of S. James, and by a Picture of S. John Baptist, related by Curopalates, Baronius, and other most approved Authors, as also most famous Miracles of three Popes, Stephen the fifth, Paschalis the first, and Formosus. In the tenth Age by S. Romuald, and S. Dunstan to be seen in Surius, Baronius, etc. by touching S. Peter's Chains in Sigibert, an. 965. In the approbation of the single life of Priests, and the exemplary punishment of them who opposed it; see for this Matthew of Westminster, a 975. And Osbert in the life of S. Dunstan. In the eleventh Age, by three Popes, Leo the 9 Victor the 2. and Gregory the 7. the Authors you have in Baronius, who with him confirm them. By S. Edward King of England, for which see Alredus in his life; by S. Anselm Bishop, S. Odilo Abbot, S. Chunegunde Virgin, related by Surius and other Writers of their lives. In the twelfth Age, the Miracles of S. Malachy, Apostle of Ireland, are recounted by S. Bernard (whom even Calvin calls a holy man) one whereof confirmeth Extreme Unction, and another the Real Presence. Many likewise are to be seen in the Life of S. Bernard himself, and one most notable in confirmation of the whole Catholic Roman Faith. In the thirteenth Age, we have the many famous Miracles of S. Dominic, S. Francis of Assisium, S. Antony of Milan, S. Lovis of France, S. Celestine Pope, and S. Clare witnessed by S. Antonine, S. Bonaventure, Petrus Cardin. Camerasc. Baronius and others, all most renowned Writers. In the fourteenth Age, the Miracles of S. Nicholas Tolentine, S. Roch, S. Katherine of Sienna, are Chronicled by S. Antonine, Surius, Baronius, etc. In the fifteenth Age, S. Antonine 3. par. hist. tit. 23. testifieth thirty eight dead persons to have been restored to life, by the Prayers and Merits of S. Vincent. Many sick are also cured by the Intercession of our blessed Lady, at her house in Loreto, and the Turkish Army terrified by Miracles from sacking it, as Reports Tursellin l. 2. hist. laur. In the sixteenth Age, many great Miracles done by S. Francis of Paula, S. Ignatius of Loyola, and S. Terese are Authentically proved in the process of Canonization, and the Authors of their lives. In the same Age, S. Francis Xavier, called commonly the Apostle of Japonie, and the first Jesuit sent to the Indies, raiseth four from death, and worketh innumerable other Miracles attested by the Viceroys, Governors, Prelates, Pastors, and people of those Countries, in which it is reported he Baptised about twelve hundred thousand souls with his own hand. Some moderate Protestan●● even honour his memory, and make mention of his admirable Conversions; and if others should deny his Miracles, we might come to that S. Augustine calls the greatest of all, to wit, that he should have converted so many, and wrought none.  
Many thousand more Miracles are recorded in the Writings of the Fathers in all Ages, in the Monuments of the Church, yea, and in the Histories of each particular Christian Nation; as in France, that famous apparition of our Saviour Christ in the Consecrate Host at Paris, in the time of King Lovys the 9 to which were eye witnesses, most inhabitants of that great City: In Spain, that miraculous Cross placed on the Altar by an Angel, at the conversion of a King of the Moors, desirous to hear Mass, which is kept in the Town of Caravaca, and worketh Miracles to this day. In Italy, the wonderful Translation of that holy house wherein our blessed Saviour lived at Nazareth, to Loreto, at which so many Miracles have been wrought by the Intercession of our Lady, and attested by so great Gifts and Offerings, that of a mean Cottage, it is now the richest Chapel in the World. In Flanders, the miraculous cures at our Lady's Chapels of Hall and Sichem, written in two Books, by that Famous and Learned Author Justus Lipsius, and of which he giveth this Testimony in his first Chapter; Behold, things done in the Eyes of us all, behold them celebrated with the Concourse, Applause, Fruit and Benefit of whole Countries; what truth can there be in Humane Affairs, if no credit be given to these things? In Poland, that most notorious Miracle of a man raised to life after he had been seven years dead, and brought before the King sitting in Justice, to witness he had sold such a piece of Land to the Church. In England we have from their best Authors, how in a public Assembly the opposers of a single life in Priests are all smothered under the ruins of the room, only S. Dunstan and those who with him defended it, being miraculously preserved; where also the many Miracles of S. Winefride, Virgin, to the great good and constant cure of the multitude having recourse to her Chppel and Fountain, continue even in our days. In Scotland, a Miracle makes the arms of one of our chief Cities, others of S. Mungo, S. Fiaker, S. Margaret, etc. are famous in our Chronicles, yea the ever continued Miracles in many places consecrated in old time to God and his Saints, make the people as yet to frequent the very rubbish and ruins of our Chapels.  
Now to reflect a little upon what I have said. 1. The Miracles I here speak of, are for the most part the same, or like to those which Christ and his Apostles did 〈◊〉 as the sudden cure of naturally incurable Diseases, the raising of the Dead, the casting out of Devils, etc. 2. They have been done in all Ages, in the Catholic Roman Church, and in no other. 3. The Workers of them, are Popes, Bishops, Priests, eremites, Monks, Friars, Jesuits, and others, all knowingly opposers of Protestancy; all living in Communion with the Sea of Rome. 4. They are witnessed by the most Learned, Judicious, and Virtuous Witnesses of the Christian World, yea are so notoriously Evident, that Heretics cannot but avouch them, with the Centurists of Magdeburg and others. 5. Many of them are not only Personal Miracles, Witnessing the holiness of the Person that Worketh them (as these which serve for the Cononization of our Saints) but also Dogmatical, confirming our Doctrine against Protestants, as being wrought by Relics and Invocation of Saints; the Sign of the holy Cross, holy Water, saying of Mass, Exorcisms, Pilgrimages to holy Chapels of our blessed Lady and other Saints; by real Apparitions of our Saviour Christ in form of a Man in the Consecrate Host, etc.  
What then can Protestants Answer with any show of Probability, to this first Mark of the Catholic Roman Church? Shall they grant a false Religion to have so many Miracles, and theirs which is the true, to have none? or shall Christ's promise in S. John Ch. 14. made to faithful Believers prove false, that Protestancy may at least seem to be true? They will rather deny these Miracles which I have brought, and all others since the Apostles, for their Negative Faith, Engageth them ever to a strong Denial, as all their New Religion is but a denying of most Ancient and known Christian Truths; Yet shall any man upon their bold denial distrust such a crowd of so Famous Witnesses, and Writers? Shall they say many Miracles have been feigned? so some Gospels; but what maketh that more against these of the Catholic Roman Church, than those of Christ and his Apostles? What has not been counterfeited? Gold, Silver, Jewels, Wines; doth it follow there be none true, or that no man can distinguish things Sophisticated from pure and real? Could not S. Justin, S. Irenaeus, S. chrysostom, S. Basile, and S. Augustine, relating so many done by Relics, and Invocation of Saints, judge of true ones? Or were S. Athanasius, and S. Hierom, relating the Miracles of S. Anthony, S. Gregory of Nisse, and S. Basile, those of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Severus Sulpitius, and S. Gregory of Tours, those of S. Martin, Theodoret, those of S. Nicolas, S. Gregory the great, those of S. Bennet, S. Bonaventure, those of S. Francis, so easily deceived? shall they deny the Workers of such Miracles, to have been Members of the Roman Church, or them to have been wrought in Confirmation of the present Romish Faith? But it is by saying of Mass, making the sign of the Cross, Invocating of Saints, honouring of Relics, they have been done. Shall they have recourse in fine to the false Miracles of Infidels, Heretics, Magicians, the Antichrist or Devil? So did the Arians, Eunomians, and other Heretics, as reports S. Ambrose in his Sermon of S. Gervase and Protase, S. Hierome against Vigilantius, and Victor Uticensis in his second Book of the persecution of the Wandales, and is the same the Jews did say to Christ, but more than either Men or Devils can do. All those things which Heretics, or Infidels have done, or that Antichrist shall do, being but like these of Pharaoh's Magicians, little curious Trifles of a short lasting, and that may proceed from Natural Causes: But so are not the Miracles I speak of, for they are the very same with those of Christ and his Apostles; they are attested by the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who could best judge of true and real ones; and as they have been wrought in the Catholic Roman Church, and in her only in all Ages, so in every Age have they brought in some Nation of Infidels to the bosom of the same Church.  
This is the second thing remarkable in the Apostles, and no less Conspicuous in the Catholic Roman Church. Whosoever then desires to see this second Mark of the true Church verified in the Roman Church▪ Let him but cast an Eye over all the Nations which were ever converted from Infidelity to Christianity since the Apostles, and then but take a view in their respective Histories and Records, who were their Apostles? out of which Church they were sent, and to which Church they did at first bring in their Proselytes and Converts. And he shall find all this great Work to have been done by no other than Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Religious men, all living in Communion with the Roman Church, all acknowledging her Headship over other Churches, all teaching her Doctrine, all submitting to her Authority, and all propagating her Faith. See for this in general, the Theatre of the Conversion of all Nations, Written by Mermannius, and the History of the Church by Baronius, and Spondanus, ●ll in particular, the Records of each Nation; yea and the Magdeburgian Centurists, though Protestants: It being so notoriously evident, that even our adversaries cannot deny it, and if they should, the very Walls of Churches, Chapels, Monasteries, adorned with Crosses, Statues, Images, and other marks of the present Roman Religion, might sufficiently prove it against them. Pope Alexander the 1. is glorious for the conversion of so many of the Roman Senators and Nobles: Pope Sylvester, for that of the first Christian Emperor Constantine the great, the Bulgarians are converted by Pope Nicolas the 1. the Bohemians by Stephen the 7. Norway by Adrian the 4. the Pomeranians by Nicolas the 3. all Popes. S. Elutherius Pope, sends to this our Island two of his Clergy, who convert King Lucius and his Subjects; Scotland owes its conversion to Pope Victor by his Envoys and Legates; Ireland to Pope Celestine, who sent thither S. Patrick, England to S. Augustine sent by S. Gregory the great: Clovis first Christian King of France is converted by S. Rhemigius Bishop of Rheims; the Franconians by S. William; the Thuringians, Hassits, and a great part of Germany, by S. Boniface; the Flemins by Eligius; the Danes and Swedes by Ansgratius; the Sclavonians and Hungarians by the two Adelberts; the Polonians by Aegidius, Tusculanus sent by Pope John the 13. run thus through all the other Kingdoms and Provinces of the Christian World, you shall constantly find the same: And this as in all former Ages, so in ours, witness the Conversions of the Japonians, Indians, Brasilians, Mexicans, Peruans, Canadas, Algonquins, and many other Savage Nations in America, the Coasts of Afric, and remotest corners of the Earth, where the Catholic Roman Church ever like to herself in the Primitive times, and her Pastors and Preachers to the Apostles, continue their Labours to this day, with such success by the blessings of God, that they have converted ten to the Christian Faith, for one Protestants have perverted. But what Kingdom, Province, or Town did ever Protestancy enter in, which it did not find Catholic? Never so many Sects of Heretics, yet not one goes to convert Infidels, all their business is with Papists, and all their Forces employed against the Roman Church, a clear Demonstration she is the only true Church, so generally opposed by them all. But whatever they can do is in vain, she being built on the Rock, against which all the Powers of Hell shall not prevail. Their Disputes serve for n●thing but to clear her Doctrine, their Controversies but to confirm her Faith, their Persecutions but to Crown her sufferings, their unchristian Maxims against the Evangelical Counsels of voluntary Poverty, vowed Chastity, and a retired, humble, devote, austere, and obedient life, but to make more gloriously appear, the incomparable Sanctity, Holiness, and Virtues of her Saints.  
And this is the third thing remarkable in the Apostles and Primitive Christians, which in all following Ages hath so gloriously shined in the Catholic Roman Church, their exemplary holiness in following Christ by renouncing to the World, living chaste, contemning both Riches and Pleasures, their holy hatred of themselves, the hardship of their travels, and labours for the conversion of others, their continual Fasting, and frequent Prayer. This Mark of the Church's Sanctity is set down in the Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church; It is confirmed by Authority of Scripture, S. Paul in the beginning of all his Epistles almost, calling the Churches to which he writes, holy, as in that to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, as S. Peter calls the Church generally the holy Nation, it is also Visible to all; as the goodness of a Tree is seen by the Fruit, so the holiness of the Church, by her Works.  
Now let us see in what Church the greatest Lights of the Christian Religion have shined? what Church hath most Monuments of Christian piety? in what Church the Examples of Christ and his Apostles, have been most narrowly followed? Who have built most glorious and goodly Edifices of Churches to the honour and for the service of God; who so many Monasteries to harbour his more devoted Servants; who so many Hospitals for the poor? who best Evidenced true Faith by good Works? who have most put in practice all the hardest Maxims of the Gospel? who taken greatest pains for the Salvation of Souls? who shown greatest love towards God, and greatest charity to their neighbour? whether Papists giving so liberally to God and his Church, or Protestants taking back what they had given? By their Fruits ye shall know them, says our Saviour Christ, our actions give testimony of our Faith. The holy Fathers writing so many lives of our Saints, witness enough their unparallelled piety, yea and God himself working so many Miracles by them. How many Princes and monarchs in the Catholic Roman Church, have laid down their Crowns at the foot of the Cross, have quitted Kingdoms, renounced pleasures, forsaken the World, taking themselves to a poor, humble, mortified, and austere life? how many thousands, yea millions of eremites, Monks, and other Religious persons, men and women have totally consecrated their lives to the service of God? No Age, no Order, no degree of Persons in this Church wanteth most Eminent men in Sanctity and Holiness: Above 30. Pope's have been all most glorious Martyrs, besides many more Saints, as our Gregory's, Leo's, Celestines, etc. our holy Bishops are in number above the Stars of the firmament, and our Priests and Religious like the Sand of the Sea: S. Henry Emperor, S. Lovis K. of France, S. Edward King of England, S. Malcolm and S. David Kings of Scotland, with S. Helena Mother to Constantine the great, S. Margaret, S. Cunegund, S. Elizabeth, and many others all Kings and Queens, have shown the Sanctity of our Monarches. See the holy Court, and History of the Church for the holiness of so many amongst the Nobility and Gentry, and the Lives of our Saints, and Writings of the Fathers, for the eminent virtues of innumerable ●f others, both amongst the Gentry and Commons. S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Bernard, and other holy Fathers having honoured their Memory, and Festival days with most Eloquent Sermons in their praise, as God by his Omnipotency and Power, hath sealed their sanctity with undoubted Miracles, both in their Lives, and in their Deaths.  
What can all the Sectaries which have ever been, shown like to this, or what can they say against it? shall it be that all are not Saints even amongst our most Austere Religious men? but neither were all Saints amongst the Apostles; and the Primitive Church even in their time wanted not its scandals, which showeth it was not only composed of the Elect: the total separation of the good from the bad, is not the work of men now, but of the Angels at the last day; till then as the Tares grow up in the best Fields of Corn, so shall there be ever many wicked and scandalous in the true Church. But out of it, no Saints, no safety for sinners, no Sacraments that sanctify, no means of reconciliation with God.  
I insist not here any further on the other Marks of the true Church, as their Antiquity, Universality, Unity, and the very name of Catholic, which are to be found at length verified of the Roman Church, in many whole and large Volumes. No other Church having e●er been generally called by this name, or known under it, but all by their private Denominations, as the Arians, Pelagians, Eutychians, Macedonians, etc. in Old; so the Lutherians and Calvinists now. And if we call this Catholic or Universal Church also the Roman Church, we speak with S. Paul calling the Catholic Faith spread through the whole world, theirs. No other Church having constantly appeared visible in her Pastors and people, by a continued succession from the Apostles, which held S. Augustine in her, Tenet me in Ecclesiâ, says he, Successie facerdotum, I am holden in the Church by the succession of Priests, than he reckons out the only high Priests and Bishops of Rome as the lawful Successors of S. Peter, as in his 162. Epistle, he says, in the Roman Church has ever been the Authority of the Apostolic Sea, In ecclesiâ Romanâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit authoritas. No other having unity in Faith, or the means to preserve it by General Councils, which have all been holden in her. No other, and specially the Protestant Church, having either Universality or Antiquity, as is clear from their late Rise, and little Extent.  
Whatever Protestant's and other Sectaries sophistically or Subtly Object against all this, is but weak, and should stumble none, many stronger Objections, Atheists, Infidels, and Heretics have made against God, our Saviour Christ, and the holy Scripture. The first Principles most clear by the light of Nature, suffer their Objections, whence the Sceptics amongst Philosophers, as the Socinians amongst Heretics, those admitting of nothing as unquestionably clear, and these as infallibly true.  
Wherefore to conclude all, I have said: the Catholic Roman Church being so gloriously marked, so generally attested, and so notoriously known to be the true Church established by Christ and his Apostles, ever conspicuous and visible, ever working Miracles, converting Infidels, making Saints; ever holding Councils, deciding controversies, keeping unity, opposing Heretics, and maintaining true Faith upon Solid and Infallible Grounds, having so clear testimony from the Fathers, from Scripture, from God; having charisma veritatis certum, the Gift and Grace of certain and infallible Truth, says S. Irenaeus; origines firmas, sure beginnings saith Tertullian, Veritatem undequaque munitam, verity solidly grounded and guarded, says S. Epiphani●s, haeres. 55. authoritatem stabilissimam, most solid and constant Authority, says S. Augustine, Ep. ●8. may 〈◊〉 not say justly with our Countryman Richard of S. Victor, l. 1. de Trinit. c. 2. Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus. If it be Error we do believe (in this Church, and upon her Authority) it is thou (O God) who hath deceived us, for with such signs this Doctrine is confirmed, that it can be from no other but thee.  
Let the impartial Reader here compare both Protestant Grounds and Doctrine with ours, and see, after all their Objections and Cavils, what they bring for their new, doubtful, and inconstant Opinions, against our old infallible and constant Faith: what against our just claim, our clear right, our long and uninterrupted possession. They come in with the Scripture in hand, as the Fundamental Law against which there can be no prescription, but what Scripture, I pray you, save that they have wrested from us? olim possideo, prior possideo, says Tertullian, it was first delivered to us, we have it of old, and we conserve it whole and entire. But not so Protestants; the many Books they reject shows it is but like a torn bond in their hands, blotted in as many places, as there be things put in of new, or others razed out in their Bibles. And then as they bring it, it is altogether forceless, and can make no security as a rend Charter without Subscription, Witness, or Seal: God's Subsciption would be seen and acknowledged if it were presented by them, as at first by the Apostles with Supernatural 〈…〉 Motives: witnesses, if they could show it handed down from age to age by infallible Propounders; his-Seal in Miracles. But the Protestant Church granting herself to be fallible, and being destitute both of infallible Motives of credibility and miracles, can be no sure propounder of God's Word, neither can it as propounded by her, be any sure ground to us.  
Yea, Examine well all the Principles Protestants build their Pretended Reformation upon, and you shall find them all merely Whimsecal, Paradoxal▪ and improbable. For what Probability can there be, 1. Of what they say against us, that the Popish Church (as they call it) which they grant to be most ancient, should have continued so long, and ever possessed the greatest part of the Christian World holding Councils, condemning Heresies, converting Infidels, working Miracles, and that the Protestant Church which they will have to be the Catholic or Universal, all this time was no where to be found, never once made mention of by any Author; without Councils, Statutes, or Laws published to the World; never converting one Kingdom, opposing one Heresy, having one Writer of note witnessing her Faith and Doctrine, her doings or sufferings, her Pastors or People: That the ancient Congregation diffused through the whole World, should be Heretical, and the new one in some few corners be Orthodox: That corruption of Doctrine did enter so insensibly into the Roman Church, that no Councils, no Fathers did see or censure it, who have observed many lesser things in private men; that all the Fathers I have quoted in my 6. Section, should have unanimously holden ever since the Apostles, what Protestants call Popish Errors, or that so many Learned men in the Roman Church, who have dived into the very depth of most abstract Sciences, could not see before Luther, what in Scripture was clear.  
2. What probability for what they vent of their first Apostles and Reformers? that God did send one Apostate Friar (who in the Monastery as he confesseth lived so mortified, chaste, and devote, but quitting it, is so hurried with his passions of Lust, and stings of Conscience even for this his new Doctrine, as may be seen in the Preface of his Works in Latin, and his Table Conferences) without any visible mark of his Mission, to reform both his Word and Church, in opposition to all her ordinary Pastors at that time: that the Church before him (I mean Luther) as he himself glories, should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture, of true Worship, true form of Government, etc. that notwithstanding so many solemn promises made by God, the Word should not depart out of the mouths of Pastors, nor the true Church be so much as obscured, yet that Christ should have suffered the light of the Gospel to be under a Bushel, and the Cuhrch invisible for more than a thousand years: That his Reformation should be the work of God, and the world ever worse since it: That Protestancy should bring back true Faith, which is divided into so many Heresies, and has caused so many Troubles, Divisions and Schisms.  
3. What show of probability or solidity in Protestant grounds? that the ground of Faith (which they will have to be sole Scripture as every one reads, and understands) should support all the Heresies in the World: That this Ground given us for keeping of Unity, should make all our Divisions in Religion: To deny the Authority and Tradition of the Church infallible, and yet take Scripture on it; that the whole Representative Church in a General Council is not infallible in its Decrees, and yet private men reading Scripture are infallible in what they believe: That what was at the Margin in their first Bibles, would be now put in the Text: That pure Scripture should be a clear Ground for Protestancy, and not one Point specifical, or special to it, to be found in Scripture in express words: In fine, that Protestants should have the pure Word, and rely on the Originals; their best Writers granting they have not found so much as an Authentic Copy any where.  
If you will see what probability at last they have either for their Doctrine or Church, consider amongst Protestants (with the Author of a late Answer in Writ) Faith without Unity, a Body without united Members, a Law without a Judge, a Church without an Altar, Religion without a Sacrifice, Sacraments that do not sanctify, Divine Service without Religious Ceremonies, Preachers without a call, Doctrine without Infallibility, Belief without a ground; Commands impossible to be kept, Exhortation to what is not in our power, Reward without Merit, Reprobation without demerit, Sin punished where there is no free will, new Apostles without Mission or Miracles, Reformation without Authority, the private Spirit against the whole Church, new lights against old revealed Verities, single men's Opinions against the common consent of the Fathers, Scripture received or rejected upon the Catalogue of the Jews; in a word, wavering Pastors, unsettled Government, unstable Faith.   
FINIS.