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
THE BAPTIST AGAINST THE PAPIST OR The SCRIPTURE and ROME in Contention about the SUPREAM SEAT of JUDGMENT in CONTROVERSIES of RELIGION Together with Ten Arguments or Reasons discovering the present Papal Church of Rome to be no true Church of Christ WHEREIN It is also evinced That the present Assemblies of Baptized Believers are the true Church of Jesus Christ By THO. GRANTHAM a Prisoner for Truths sake Luke 16. 29 31. They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one should rise from the dead Ezek. 20. 18 19. But I said unto their children Walk ye not in the Statutes of your fathers c. I am the Lord your God walk in my Statutes and keep my Judgments and do them Joh. 12. 48. The Word that I have spoken the same shall judge you in the last day LONDON Printed in the Year 1663. THE AUTHOR TO THE READER Courteous Reader NOt because I envy those of the Papal Church or desire them any evil Not that I desire they should be exposed to a suffering condition for matters of Religion or that they should be denied any liberty in that respect which I desire my self nor for any other prejudice God knoweth do I publish this small Treatise But because I judge my self concerned at this time to give my Testimony for the Truth against some Papal Tenents for divers causes As first I am at this time under restraint and though nothing hath been laid to my charge yet it is rumour'd by some that I am a Papist yea in this place of my Confinement have I been told to my face by some of the Protestant Clergie that I am a Roman Jesuite And indeed this is an ordinary aspersion which hath been cast upon those in general to whom I am related upon a religious account viz. That we are all Papists or will turn Papists c. and this not so much to our personal prejudice as to the dishonour of that antient way of Truth by us professed Secondly A more particular occasion of the publication of this Treatise proceeded from the Papists themselves in sending Seven Queries to the Baptized Congregations in this County commonly called Anabaptists To which through the importunity of some Friends I formed a brief Answer little thinking I confess that so much contention would have risen thereupon as since I have met with And I likewise confess that the undertaking is such as that it requireth a more fit Instrument than my self to manage it Nevertheless I hope I may say that hitherto what hath come to pass in this contest hath fallen out rather to the furtherance of the Truth for which cause I have thought fit to offer it to the perusal of others so much of it I mean as I conceive is at present needful and that is the substance of what hath passed about the means whereby we must decide or resolve Controversies in Religion It now wants but few months of a year since I sent my final Answer containing a Review of all that had been said in way of Answer to the Queries before in which I produced the Testimony of divers Antient Dictors as concurring with what I had therein spoken and as being directly opposite to my Antagonist But I have heard of late that he is gone out of this Nation so that I expect no more Reply from him And though for divers Reasons hereafter shewed I have not published the whole Discourse which if need be may in due time be brought to light yet I have thought it meet here to set down all the Seven Queries that so if any Christian of suitable endowments for the Vindication of Truth against the opposition that lyeth in the said Queries shall think fit to lay forth his Talent in that Service he may take hold of this occasion wherein to do it for the Queries were not directed to any particular person however I shall joyn to each Query one Antiquery which may serve at this present to blunt the edge of them as they carry an opposition to the Truth The QUERIES The ANTI-QUERIES Query 1. Antiq. 1. VVHether we are to resolve all Differences in point of Religion only out of the written Word of God VVHat Differences in point of Religion can you resolve without the written Word of God and whether the written Word of God be a perfect Rule for matters of Religion Query 2. Antiq. 2. How know you precisely what is the true Word of God Whether some Book must not of necessity speak for it self and whether the Scripture doth not best deserve this priviledge And whether it be not a bold presumption to say there are no holy Books but them which we or you have received for such sith those which we have tell us there are other holy Writings which never yet came to our hands nor to yours Query 3. Antiq. 3. How know you that your Copies and Translations of the Bible are the true Word of God since the Original Writings are not come to your hands What Copies and Translations of the Bible have you that are more true than ours and where are the Original Manuscripts of the Prophets and Apostles Qu. 4. Antiq. 4. Where we differ about the sense of the Word by whom must we be tryed the dead Letter cannot explain it self When we differ about the true Church and about the meaning of Authors by whom must we be tryed They cannot speak for themselves more than the Scripture and whether the Scriptures compared together do not explain themselves also whether it be not an opprobrious and ignominious speech for you to call the Scripture a dead Letter and whether the true lovers of the Scripture ever vouchsafed it such ill and indeed improper language Qu. 5. Antiq. 5. What clear Text have you out of Scripture for the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father the Son or for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday or prohibiting Poligamy or Infant-Baptism And whether there be not as clear Texts to prove unwritten Tradition Purgatory and the real Presence Whether the Baptism of the true Church be not one and whether that one be not expresly found in the Scripture And whether the Scripture doth not prohibit all beside that one And whether the Papists have not confessed in many of their Books that Infant-Baptism is not found in nor grounded upon the Scripture and then whether it be not clear that all the Texts which speak of Baptism do not prohibit Infant-Baptism Also whether Joh. 15. 26. and 14. 26. and 16. 7. be not clear Texts that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son Also whether 1 Cor. 7. 1 2 3. do not as much prohibit one man for having two Wives and one woman for having two Husbands and whether it do not clearly prohibit the latter Also whether there be any that hold the first day under the notion of a Sabbath
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
avouch the Answer which I have given to this your first Query as will evidently appear to the impartial Reader of the several Quotations which I have before alledged and which do here follow The ANSWER to the FIRST QUERY Avouched sufficient by the Sentence of divers DOCTORS both Antient and Modern VVHether of us be Schismaticks ask not me I will not ask you Let Christ be asked that he may shew us his Church Neither must I alledge the Nicene Council nor you the Arimi I am neither bound to the one nor you to the other let the matter be tryed by the Scripture Augustine saith Let the Scriptures judge let Christ judge let the Apostles judge Yea it is confessed by the Papists that Aug. Optatus and Basil summoned their Adversaries to the arbitriment of holy Scriptures and did allow the sufficiency of holy Scripture to decide the Controversies depending between them In time past saith Chrysostome there were many wayes to know the Church of Christ viz. by good Life by Miracles by Chastity c. but from the time that Heresies did take hold of the Church it IS ONLY known by the Scripture which is the true Church Again he saith The Lord then knowing that so great confusion would come in the latter dayes therefore willed the Christians that would take to the sureness of true Faith to have refuge to nothing but to the Scripture otherwise saith he if they regard other things they shall perish not understanding what the true Church is Thus my Answer is avouched good as it respects the means to decide the differences which are about the Church Next hear what they say touching such differences as are in the Church Iren. If there be any disagreement risen up among Christians concerning Controversies in Religion what better course is there to be taken than to have our recourse into the Most antient Churches which must needs be those planted by the Apostles considering the time when he lived and to receive from thence what shall be certain and manifest Augustine Because the Scripture cannot deceive whoso feareth to be misled in the obscurity of this Question let him ask COUNSEL of that Church which the SCRIPTURE without any ambiguity pointeth out Constantine Mag. There are the Gospel the Prophets and Apostles which do teach us what to hold in Religion wherefore expelling all hostile and bitter contention let us seek the Solution of these Questions out of the Scriptures Thus spake this famous Emperor in the Council of Nice at what time the Bishops had like to have jarred into pieces THus have I given an impartial Relation of what hath passed between the Popish Querist and my Self in our two last Papers which contains the sum of what passed in the other as touching this Question about the Judge of Controversies And now for further satisfaction That the Scripture as aforesaid ought to be admitted the high Prerogative of Judge in our Debates consider that of necessity it must be so My reason is because either the Scripture or some other Writings must be our Judge especially in this important Question WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH For when we contend about her it is very unreasonable that any party contending for that title should be permitted to give Judgment in their own cause As for example The present Assembly of Papists say That they are the true Church and the present Assemblies of Baptists say That they are the true Church Is it fit that either party contending should here give Judgment decissive What then must we do why of necessity we must to some Writings whereby to be decided or agreed in this Controversie These Writings must be either the Scriptures or some other but no other can compare with those so that they do deserve this Prerogative better than any other The Papists ordinary way in this difficulty is to tell us that we must here be tryed by the Tradition of our Fore-fathers in which they say we cannot be deceived which Tradition they say is the only thing that is unquestionable and needs no other ground to stand upon but it self And against the Scripture's being received upon its own evidence or authority they usually do thus object that before we can receive what it teacheth we must be assured of its truth And again they say the Scripture may not be the Judge of Controversie because it may be corrupted translated ill interpreted not rightly understood And by these and other like objections they usually in all their Writings invalidate the Scriptures certainty authority and sufficiency that so they advance the authority of their Traditions But let it be seriously considered whether these Objections have not the same force against what they rest upon which they have against the holy Scripture First then whereas they tell us the Scripture cannot teach us any thing till we be assured of its truth Doth not this conclude against any other thing as strongly Ought we not to be assured of the truth of the Church before we receive her documents Ought we not to be assured of the truth of that Tradition which we receive for the Rule of our Faith But how must we be assured of the truth of the Papal Church and Tradition There is not a man living that can remember when either began and so avouch its beginning to be of divine Institution and the continnance of the same ever since its beginning to have been without any corruption What then must we do Why we must search Romes Records And then I ask are they not as questonable and liable to mis-interpretations as easily mis-understood as the Records of God What is now become of these Objections the force whereof is evidently against the Papal Church and her Traditions of the truth whereof we must be assured BEFORE we can be taught by either of them I say again There is not a man of all the Papists that can evidence Rome to have been a Church two hundred years ago and then much less one thousand six hundred years ago So that OF NECESSITY we must to the Writings of some men whom we never saw write one word to find the Church And then I would know why we may not make enquiry at the Pen of Paul what the Church was at first and what it ought to be now as well as at the Pen of Augustine Cannot the Pen of Peter the Apostle give us as good information in this matter as the Pen of any Pope pretending to be his Successor If the Papists answer That we know not the Pen of Peter or Paul We answer as well as they know the Pen of Augustine or Gregory If they say Paul's Writings may be corrupted and must be interpreted may be mis-understood I return the same Answer of all other Books whatsoever yea those which contains Romes Tradition See therefore what is gained by devising objections against the authority or certainty of the holy Scriptures Such
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
the Church And for their Holiness I have spoken to that before and surely it is but like their neighbours And for their Miracles I have given you a taste of them from Loreto and beside others do claim that mark as well as they Yea the Turks produce Miracles and the Protestants do the like and others as the Quakers the like and the Baptists can say of a truth that God hath done for and amongst them some things which have exceeded the course of Nature And so their Miracles will not more prove them a Church than the Miracles of others will prove the contrary unless they can prove the others to be Illusions And that they have not the mark of Unity is evident if History may be heeded for saith my Author there is an hundred Sects of Monks and Fryars amongst them and some of them so divided as they burnt one another for matters of Religion And for different Opinions there are no less than three hundred See Fox Act. and Monument p. 260. and Willit in his Book called Tetrastilon Papis I know the Papists do make a great deal of noise about their Pastoral Succession as if they could derive it from man to man up to the Apostle Peter But I find the learned Protestants making it a great Question whether ever Peter was Bishop of Rome or not And Jerom is said to have seen some old Books which shew that Narcissus ruled the Roman Church when Paul saluted him and his Family in his Epistle to the Romans No small contention is there likewise among the Learned Whether Linus or Clement were the second Bishop of Rome So that this Pastoral Succession the Papists pretend to meets with shrewd Objections in the very first and second person of that Line Against the uninterrupted continuance of their pretended Succession many things are objected as That there were sometimes three and sometimes two Popes and that for more than twenty years time together so that no man could tell where the true Pastoral Authority lay And then comes in that strange disaster of Joan the female Pope who for almost three years cut the chain of this pretended Succession This thing is famous in History Lastly Although the Papists could prove a continued Succession of persons claiming the Title of Universal Bishop yet this would not justifie them all to be the Pastors of Christ's Church For these two Rules are given us even by the Antients 1. That Peter left his Innocency hereditary as well as his Seat and that he which hath not the one as well as the other is not Peter's Successor 2. That it is not the Chair but the Doctrine that maketh a Bishop Now 3dly add but Paul's Rule in this matter 1 Tim. 3. and Titus 1. and then I am bold to affirm That many Popes of Rome were not the true Successors of Peter in Pastoral Authority For I find it laid to the charge of divers Popes that they were Drunken-Whoremongers Theeves given more to War than Christ rooted in all unspeakable sin furious men prophane Scoffers of Christ Incestuous persons Murderers Poysoners of their own Parents and Kindred open Sodomites or Buggerers Blasphemers incorrigible Hereticks Enchanters callers upon the Devil to help them to play at Dice Drinkers of the Devil's Health and Traitors to Princes These things are so notorious and evidently true of the Popes of Rome as that the Papists do not deny them T. B. End to Controvers and the Author of the Seven Queries as you may see in part before Yea Bernard was not a little moved with the wickedness of the Popes of Rome when he called them Tyrants Defrauders Raveners Traytors Darkness of the World Wolves and Devils And can we think that Succession to be good which is derived from Devils I need say no more See for the proof of all that I have said these Books Fox Act. Monument Willit Synops Prediaux's Introduct The Tenth Reason The present Assemblies of Baptized Believers and they only are the true visible Church of Jesus Christ Therefore the present Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ The Explanation of this Reason or Argument THis Reason or Argument is not so to be understood as if we do shut all men out of Heaven who are not Members of our Church No verily This is the express Doctrine of the Papists for they say that out of the Church is no Salvation and by Church they mean only those that adhere to the Papal Church of Rome and hereupon they teach expresly and so do some Protestants also That without Baptism or the desire of Baptism c. none can be saved And therefore it is that they give power to Midwives to baptize Children sometimes between the Womb and the World That which we teach is this That the ordinary way appointed for men to receive Salvation in is The preaching of Repentance and Remission of sins to all Nations in the Name of Jesus Christ and the administration of Baptism as a pledge thereof to all that give acceptance to these Glad-tydings and upon this account this Ministration is called The Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins And we do teach as a most infallible Doctrine That without profession of Faith manifestation of Repentance and being baptized with Water in the Name of Jesus Christ c. no person can be orderly admitted into the Church or Kingdom of God on Earth And that therefore it concerns every man living to years of understanding and having the Gospel tendred to him only to look for Salvation this way as he will answer it before the Lord for contemning God's ordinary way and presuming to challenge the Grace of Eternal Life in a way of his own devising Nevertheless we do not hence conclude That all persons shall be damned that seek not Life in this way For first No Infant can seek for it in the way which the Gospel proposeth Life to men of years Yet surely it is a most cruel Doctrine to say that any Infants dying in their infancy shall be damned in Hell because as one very well said God will not damn any persons for that which they cannot help Again in Rom. 1st and 2d chapters Paul teacheth That if the sons of men act forth themselves in a way of Love Fear Obedience and Reverence to their Creator according to the means of Light vouchsafed to them that this shall be as much as shall be required of them in the day when God shall judge the secrets of all men by Jesus Christ for God will not gather where he hath not strewed at which time God will not judge them by the Law that never had it Howbeit let all that have it I mean his written Law expect to be judged by it And therefore though we will not presume to judge of the final state of this or that Society of men professing conscionably this or that Form of Worship but leave that wholly to the