with it I am sure that work is so clearly for us in this very point that our Adversaries the Calvinists and Calvin denies it to be his St. Aug. and Tertull. are as clear for us and what you bring out of them clearly answered by Bellarm. de Euchar. And you are to know that it is a general rule amongst the Learned that we are to explicate obscure places by those that are clear if we mean to know the Opinion of any Author it being impossible for any man to write so warily but that sometbing may be objected out of him especially if he have writ much as it is our case which may seem contrary to what he expresly teaches And you had need observe this rule in expounding the Scriptures themselves or otherwise you will meet with a thousand absurdities and contradictions Against the Councils you produce that of Constantinople under Constant Copron. as crying down Transubstantiation But this was a factious Meeting never owned for a Council neither by the Greek nor Latine Fathers and expresly condemned in the Nicene Council and the jest is this Mock-Council was so far from condemning Transubstantiation as you affirm that they swore by the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist to abolish the Worship of Images Something should here have been said concerning Bertram who is said to have opposed Transubstantiation but in the transcription of my Third Paper there was an Errata and the Instance is not material so that what is said about him I will expunge in both Papers You say further against the Authority of Councils That they have contradicted each other in their Decrees about the Laityes communicating in one or both kinds But we grant that the Church may vary in Customs of this nature which being indifferent may be altered as she shall think fit according to several circumstances What we deny is that the Church or General Councils ever made contrary Decrees about the belief of any point of Faith It is no wonder that you have a fling against the Pope after you have been so bold with Holy Fathers and General Councils but I must tell you Though many of our Divines hold him infallible when he speaks ex Cathedra as they call it yet is it not the Opinion of all and consequently no Article of our Faith Only we agree in this That for preserving peace in the Church all are bound so far to submit to the Popes Decrees as not to oppose them until a General Council be called from whose Judgment we admit no Appeal What you say of the wicked Lives of some of them is nothing to the purpose for as wicked Caiphas play'd the Prophet so might the Bishops of Rome with the assistance of the Holy Ghost be true interpreters of God's Word for all their wicked lives such Gratia gratis date which are given for the good of others do not argue his Sanctity that hath them To make you a true Prophet I will here cry out What is become of the living voice of the Church since you have done what you can to discredit her by casting all the dirt you can in her face as it is evident unless you will throw out the Holy Fathers and General Councils the Churches Representatives out of the Church BAPTIST I perceive our Judgments differ concerning the living voice of the Church what it is I have told you That I take it for the present Church and her Pastours in those particular Ages wherein they live You take this living voice to be the Decrees of Councils and Books of the antient Fathers And here I cannot but marvel why you should be willing to Appeal to the Books of the Antients and their written Decrees as a living voice and clear way to decide our Controversies and yet appeal from the Books of the Prophets and Apostles as being but dead Letters and senceless Characters Certainly if any Writings now extant may be called the Churches living voice the Holy Scripture doth better deserve that title than any other Nor will it suffice here to object as it is the Papists usual way that our difference is about the Scripture and the Sense thereof c. for the same difference is found amongst us touching the Books and Sense of Councils and Fathers yea I think I may be bold to say That even the Learned are so much divided concerning them in both respects as that they can never be therein reconciled But is it so that the voice of the Fathers c. who only speak in their Writings is a means or way of equal clearing to decide our differences as the voice of a living Judge in a Case of Law amongst men Then what reasonable man can render a reason that the voices of the Prophets and Apostles though only speaking to us in their Books and Decrees may not be appealed to as a clear way to decide our differences Sith all men professing Christianity must confess that the Prophets and Apostles speak with as much Life and Power Certainty and Authority as any that ever writ since their time No-whither now can you turn your selves but to your selves as I have formerly noted and take upon you to be the only living voice that must without controul interpret Fathers Councils and Scriptures too and when you have done sit down as Judge to give Sentence for your selves and against your opposers Well you have assigned us a Judge of Controversies To wit the Fathers and Councils of the Church long ago deceased and this is a clear way you say to agree all But I have noted that it 's a very cloudy way and that because they could not yet agree themselves for they are opposite each to other to this day insomuch as you are utterly unable to reconcile them since as I have shewed you must not make use of the Scripture to that purpose because before the Scripture can have any authority to any purpose according to your Judgment your Councils must deliver it to us as the Word of God which they cannot do till they be found First holy Fathers and Councils of the Church And secondly at unity among themselves and each with himself And I have asked you How you will effect this difficult work To which you Answer First That General Councils have no such Controversies as I talk of Secondly That when there is such difficulty in any one of the Fathers we must look upon the rest what they say and so follow their unanimous consent for say you if we take them singly no doubt they have erred and these errors we know by their dissenting from the rest I answer first That General Councils have erred and that in matters of Faith is undeniable if Records may be credited rather than you As first The Council of Arimi did err so as to conclude for the Arrian Heresie namely That there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God and sure you account that an errour in
point of Faith Secondly The Council of Ephesus did err so as to conclude for the Eutichian Heresie namely That the Body of Christ was not of one Substance with ours and is not this an errour in point of Faith Or will you say that these things were never contradicted and censured by other Councils These things are not denied by your eminent Disputant See the Book intituled Certamen Religiosum So then it appears that General Councils have erred and contradicted each another in very high points of Faith Moreover as to the things whereof I chiefly spake in my last Paper it is manifest that Councils have contradicted one another about the Sacraments for the Council of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the Fifth doth curse the Laity or excommunicate such as receive the Sacrament in both kinds And yet by the Council of Basil the Laity are allowed to receive it in both which Council was also confirmed by a Pope namely Felix the Fifth Sure one of these Councils must needs err But you have a way to salve this errour such as it is and that is to tell me That the Church may vary in customs of this nature Sure this is a corrupt opinion by which it will follow That we have no certainty of nor constancy in any Ordinance of Christ for if the Church have power to take the Cup away she hath power also to take the Bread away for certainly she hath as much to do with the one as the other But truly this your variation as it is clear beside the Institution of Christ and the Doctrine of Paul so it hath in a manner destroyed both Baptism and the Supper of the Lord as is evident by the practice used in divers of your Masses where the People partake neither of the Bread nor Cup. As also your Peda-Rantism hath in a great measure defrauded the Sons of men of the Baptism of Repentance But be pleased to consider that this your sacrilegious division of this Sacrament is condemned by Cyprian Gelasius and others First Cyprian saith How can we exhort the People to shed their blood for Christ if we deny them the Blood of him The division of this Mystery cannot be without great Sacriledge saith Gelasius Again you cannot be ignorant how the Council of Carthage decreed the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Sapience and Maccabees should be received for Canonical notwithstanding they were rejected out of the sacred Canon by the Council of Laodicea and here by the way I may take notice how you would have me walk by such a rule as you your self do not observe for you propose the Judgment of those who lived nearest to the Apostles times as my safest rule to walk by supposing they knew the Mind of God or Christ better than those that came after but then why do you reject the Judgment of the Laodicean Council which is more antient than that of Carthage which yet you follow in receiving the Books of Maccabees into your Canon of holy Scripture Secondly It is marvellous to see what work you make in reconciling the Fathers without the Scriptures And seeing you are so hardy as to undertake this task without Scripture as undoubtedly you see you must or else grant that the Scripture must be that whereby we must decide all Controversies in Religion for certainly if we must decide all the Fathers Controversies in Religion with or by the Scripture it is not then very likely that either we or they should decide ours without them but I say sith you have undertaken to decide the Fathers Differences without Scripture pray tell me before you meddle with their Differences how you know them to be holy Fathers of the Church can you prove them Church-members without Scripture I believe this is as hard a task as to reconcile their Differences without Scripture and yet this also must you do before you can look upon the Scripture as any Rule for either them or your self You tell me if I take the Fathers singly no doubt they have erred yet you say I must follow their unanimous Consent a pretty Paradox Follow their Consent in what why say you in their Interpretation of Scripture Of Scripture Why there is no such thing as yet for them to interpret for you know that by your own direction we have laid by the Scripture and must reconcile these Fathers by themselves Miserable Guide hast thou not led me into a Labyrinth and run thy self into a sufficient Maze I 'le back again and see how these Fathers themselves direct me in this difficult point And first I meet with famous Augustine who tels me how he took notice of the Fathers that were before him Saith he My consent without exception I owe not to any Father were he never so well learned but only to the Canonical Scripture For whereas the Lord hath not spoken who of us can say it is this or that and if he do say so how can he prove it Yea saith he I require the voice of the Shepherd reade me this matter out of the Prophets Psalms the Gospel or the Apostles Epistles Neither saith he ought we to take the dispensations OF ALL MEN how CATHOLICK SOEVER they be or be they never so commendable as we take the canonical Scriptures as though we may not saving the honour that 's due to such men reprove or refuse any thing of their Writings if we find they meant otherwise than the Verity doth allow by the help of God found by us or by others Again he saith I am not moved with Cyprian's Epistles for I do not take the Letters of Cyp. as the Canonical Scripture but I do try his Writings BY THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURE and whatsoever in them doth agree with the Authority of the holy Scripture I do receive it with his Commendation and whatsoever doth not I do by his good leave refuse it And for further testimony of Augustine's integrity hear what he saith of himself Trust not me saith he nor credit my Writings as if they were Canonical Scripture but whatsoever THOU findest in the Word although thou didst not believe it before yet ground thy Faith on it now and whatsoever thou readest of mine unless thou know it certainly to be true give no certain assent unto it Again he thus teacheth We must be partakers of other mens Writings wholly after the manner of Bees for they flie not alike to all Flowers nor where they sit do they snatch all quite away but snatching so much as may serve to their honey-making they take their leave of the rest Even so we if we be wise having gotten so much of others as is sound and agreeable to Truth we will leap over the rest Which rule if we keep in reading and alledging the Fathers words we shall not swerve from our Profession the Scriptures shall have the sovereign place and yet the Doctors of the Church shall lose no part of
their due estimation And saith Origen We have need to bring the Scriptures for witness for our Meanings and Expositions without them have no credit the discussing of our Judgements must be taken ONLY of the Scriptures Thus you see the Fathers were not of your mind that the Readers of their Books should not try them by the Scripture but the contrary and that as we find them consenting to or dissenting from Scripture not one another as you teach accordingly they advise us to believe or not believe them As I have said it is a cloudy way to appeal to Councils and Fathers so you now prove my saying true for I alledged Augustine as being opposite to you and your Church touching the meaning of Matth. 16. Upon this Rock c. and first you tell me I read him not but I must tell you I read him after a Scholar sufficient and though your reading differ something from his yet they both destroy the received Opinion of your Church concerning that Text for if Christ be that Rock as you confess Augustine there teacheth then it cannot be meant positively of Peter and so not consequently of your Popes My quotation out of Chrysostom in Ps 22. you invalidate by telling me that Book was not writ by him And this I find to be the usual way of Learned-men when the passage alledged is clear and convincing then a suspition must be cast upon the Book c. I could instance the best part of a thousand Books Epistles c. which are intituled under the names of the Antient Fathers amongst which as you observe is reckoned the Book of Dynis the Areopagite which I alledged in my Rejoynder And do not these things contribute something towards the proof of my Assertion namely That it is a cloudy way to appeal to Fathers and Councils to decide Controversies in Religion If then your way be cloudy mine must needs be clear unless you can assign a third way opposit to both for undoubtedly there is a clear way to decide Controversies You again prescribe me a way to find the meaning of the Fathers and that is to explicate their obscure places by such as are plain c. But by your leave we can neither know which of their speeches are obscure or plain without some rule whereby to know this And now what can supply this our necessity For example Augustine is sometimes read affirming the Sacrament to be the real Body and Blood of Christ otherwhiles he is read directly opposit to this And how can you or any body else tell which of these sayings is clear or obscure fith none must be permitted the use of his reason by you in this Controversie and how he should judge according to Faith I know not sith you as yet debar us of that by which Faith NOW cometh namely the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles as contained in the Scriptures PAPIST Something you would say for this living Voice of the Church you once had required as necessary to resolve Differences in Religion but this signifies nothing in our present Query for after all your shifting I cannot perceive that you make use of her Authority in point of Faith which is our Qu. but only to take up other quarrels by exhorting reproving c. and in this also it seems you will be your own Judge whether she follow Christ or no. Three things you affirm in relation to the Churches Authority 1. That she is to rule her self according to Scripture which no body denies 2. That the Church in former Ages is not to be a Rule for after Ages to rule themselves by because she could not foresee the Controversies that rise up afterwards What if the same Errors be revived now which in their times were condemned is not the Judgment of the Church in those dayes a safe President for us to condemn the same Errors Besides Is it not evident that the Pastors of the Church the nearer they were to Christ's time were the better able to judge of Christ's Doctrine You say 3dly That the Church is to be no Rule for those that are out of her communion A strange Assertion As if a clear light as the Church is in holy Scripture with so many marks to know her by as Unity Sanctity Universality Miracles c. were not a good means for him that gropes in the dark to find out his way Look well upon these marks and you will find them to agree Only to the Roman Catholick Church and to no upstart Congregation and consequently that you ought in all reason to give her the hearing in matters of Faith and to have recourse unto her as to the pillar and ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. which place you let slip and this under pain of being accounted a Heathen c. Matth. 18. for though this place doth point out chiefly the obedience which Members of the Church owe her in point of Discipline as you say well enough yet hath it no small force in our present Debate since those that will not hear her Voice when she ecchoes out the Voice of God may well be esteemed by her as a Heathen And in your own sence I suppose you will have your proviso That the Church is to be obeyed only when she ruleth according to God's Word of which you will be Judge too So in conclusion all comes to this That you and your spirit must be Judge of all Disputes And then have not I reason to ask again since I or any body else may challenge as large a share in the Spirit and right Reason as you who shall take up the Quarrel And is not my comparison here very pat That there must needs be as great confusion in your Church as in a Kingdom where every one were left to decide his own case This was not the old way as you may see Deut. 17. 8 9. and Malach. 2. 7. which places you had no mind to take notice of and yet you charge me for letting pass your Instance of St. Stephen concerning the Libertines Alexandrians c. which makes nothing at all for your pretended Evidence of God's Word For though his Judgment might be well taken in expounding Scripture as being full of the holy Ghost and confirming what he said by Miracles as the Scripture tells us he did yet this is not your case for I think you will not arrogate so much to your self What you say of Christ and his Apostles vindicating their Doctrine out of Scripture is very true and our Church doth the same but it is not true that either Christ or the primitive Saints were alwayes wont to send their Proselytes to the Scripture to regulate their Faith Did not Christ himself send St. Paul to Ananias for instruction Had you been of his counsel you would have rather wished him to look into the Word of God and see there what he was to do And when there arose a Debate even in the Apostles dayes about
that a Heathen may by the Law of Conscience judge their Church to be more holy than ANY other Congregation of Christians Were they ever Heathens to know this But alas what holiness can a Heathen judge of Surely not that which is an infallible mark of the true Church for this Spiritual matter is foolishness to the Natural man nor can he know it because 't is spiritually discerned It is true there is a Holiness discernable by the Law of our Consciences But this only is not an infallible mark that any Society is the Church of Christ nor did ever any man I am perswaded hold forth such a Doctrine that was a faithful Minister of the New Testament or Spirit Again What of this kind of Holiness whereof a Heathen as such can judge is there found among the Papists which may not be found among the Baptists yea among those that are opposite to both as the Quakers and others yea among the very Jews and Turks may be found as much of this kind of Holiness as among the Papists if any credit may be given to Histories Sometimes the Papists do object the Creed as sufficient to demonstrate a man to be a Member of the Church though he know not whether there be any Scripture But I Answer How shall this be proved to be the Creed it must not be its own evidence for then the Scripture may as well speak for it self which the Papists will not allow nor can the Church of Rome confer any authority upon the Creed till they be found to be the Church So then this is the Conclusion Rome must be found to be the Church before there be a Creed I do therefore humbly desire these few Observations may be seriously thought upon by all sober men but especially the Papists that so men may give to the holy Scriptures that which is proper to them that is That they may speak without controul both for themselves and every thing else of a Religious consideration or else all Volumns of the Antients and Societies of men pretending to Christianity as things stand in our dayes must depart into utter silence The Second Reason The present Papal Church of Rome hath no Baptism Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The Second Reason maintained BY the word Baptism in the Argument I mean only the Baptism of Water in the Name of the Father c. or which is all one the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins Now that the present Papal Church of Rome hath not this Baptism is evident by this Argument taken from their own Confession viz. The Baptism of the true Church is found in the Scripture But the Baptism of the present Papal Church of Rome is not grounded upon nor mentioned in the Scripture Therefore the present Papal Church of Rome hath no Baptism The first Proposition is most clear from Matth. 28. 19 20. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 9. Act. 16. Act. 18. Act. 19. Act. 22. 16. Rom. 6. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 11 12. Heb. 6. 1 2. 1 Pet. 3. 21. And that the Papists Baptism is not found in the Scripture I prove thus Because they themselves do confess that Infant Baptism is not mentioned in the Scripture nor grounded upon the Scripture nor any Scripture for it See to this purpose the Works of Bellarmine and a Book entituled An Antidote written by S. N. a Popish Doctor as also T. B. his End to Controversie In which Books you will find the very words which I have repeated Adde hereunto the Answer which I received from the Author of the Seven Queries when I asked him what Controversies in Religion he could resolve without the written Word of God he assigned Infant Baptism as one that was so to be resolved So then we have it pro confesso from the Papists own mouths That their Baptism which is Infant Baptism is a Scriptureless-Baptism Therefore say I it is no Baptism No Baptism I say because the Church hath but one Baptism of Water and it is mentioned in the Scripture and grounded upon it and much Scripture found for it so is not Infant Baptism which is the Baptism of the present Papal Church Therefore the Papal Baptism is no Baptism How can they defend themselves Will they say the Church hath a Scripture-Baptism and an unwritten Baptism This they must say and prove or else deny their Infant Baptism But secondly The present Papal Church is so adulterated in the manner of the Administration of Baptism as that had they a true subject for Baptism yet they would be found to have no Baptism This will appear as clear as the Light from the Papists own confession for they grant that the antient and primitive way of baptizing was by dipping the party baptized over the head and ears in Water and that it was their Church which changed this way to a little sprinkling upon the forehead This is plainly to be seen in a Book entituled Certamen Religiosum This bold Change which men without any allowance from God have made in this Ministration of Baptism is directly against the Scripture Mat. 3. 16. Mark 15. 9. John 3. 23. Act. 8. 38 39. Rom. 6. In all which places it's evident that our Lord Jesus John Baptist and the other Baptists of those times did so understand the mind of God in respect of the manner of the Administration of Baptism as that they thought it could not be done without so much Water as they might go into both the Person baptizing and the Person to be baptized And now do not all that will presume to satisfie themselves in this thing with a few drops of Water put on the face only from a Man's fingers ends or out of a Glass in the Midwifes pocket lay great folly and ignorance to the charge of Christ and his primitive followers doubtless such as is not less than the folly of that man that hath occasion only for one Gill of Water and he may take it up at the side of the Brook and yet will needs wade into the middle of a River to take it up or a man that hath occasion to wash his hands only which he may perform very commodiously without wetting his foot and yet is so simple that he will needs go into the middle of the River to that purpose especially such a River where there is much Water I say the practice of Sprinkling which the Papists and others use if that answer the mind of God in the case of Baptism doth even thus reflect upon Christ and the Christians in those dayes But let our Saviours practice herein be justified and all such practices as tend to the rendring it ridiculous condemned The Papists only Reserve for the defence of Infant Baptism is this They say it is an Apostolical Tradition that is a Precept delivered by the Apostles Word but not mentioned in their Writings This I shall shew to be utterly false for divers important Reasons First No