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
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
I urged that of necessity the Scripture must decide all our Controversies as aforesaid because as things now stand the Word or Scripture is antecedent to the Church so that inasmuch as it is impossible to find the Church without the Scripture it supposes clearly that the Scripture must be found before the Church and so if the Scripture must of necessity resolve this great Controversie about the Church it consequently followeth that they must resolve all Controversies because all Religious Controversies are involved in this one general Query Where is and who are the Church Something here which the Adversary doth further write is omitted because it may be more fitly taken notice of afterward PAPIST I had reason to take notice of your general saying that the Word was antecedent to Faith and the Church since there was a Church and consequently Faith before the Scripture was written Now it seems you meant not the Scripture by the Word but I know not what Word which was afterward committed to writing It is past my understanding what Word you mean for since it cannot be Verbum Scriptum before it be written It must either be Verbum Traditum and I suppose you will not allow that or Verbum Dei Patris and that cannot be the Word you speak of as committed to writing BAPTIST By that Word which was antecedent to Faith and the Church as it relates to the Church under the Patriarchs c. I mean the Word which God spake to them and by them at sundry times and in divers manners And if you take that term Word to relate to the Church of Christ in its plantation then I speak partly of the written Word of God and partly of that which was at that time only spoken by word of mouth by Christ and his faithful Stewards and if you will call this part of the word Verbum Traditum I say that is the Word I speak of And I do also say this Word was afterward committed to writing which Word together with the former I mean that of the Prophets is that whereon the Church as now considered is founded by which she must be known And in this sense I say the holy Scripture is now antecedent to the Church And therefore well spake that Learned person Chrysostom when he forewarned the sons of men that if they took heed to any thing in order to their knowing the Church in the latter times beside Scripture they would fall headlong into the Abomination which maketh desolate and not be able to know the true Church BAPTIST I Think it meet here to give the Reader some account of my Judgment of these five Texts which I brought to justifie my Answer to the first Query which with my Answer was as followeth Qu. Whether we are to resolve all Differences in point of Religion only out of the written Word of God Answ The Spirit speaking in the Scripture together with right Reason as truely subservient is that whereby we are to resolve all Differences c. For proof I cited Isa 8. 20. 1 Tim. 6. 3. 1 Joh. 4. 6. 2 Joh. 9 10. 2 Thess 3. 2. where note that under the term We ought not to be understood any person but the Papists on the one part and the Baptists on the other who do deny each other to be the Church of Christ Now that the Church is to defend her self against all that come to spoil her of her Church-state by the Scripture onely as that which includes her whole strength is that which I brought these Texts to prove And first for that place Isa 8. 20. The Prophet foreseeing a Judgment coming upon Israel even such as God would hide himself from them and the Law and Testimony should be like a Book bound and sealed up as ver 16 17. compared with ch 29. 11 12. The Prophet likewise foreseeing that when God should hide his face Israel would enquire of Wisards and such as spoke from familiar Spirits as Saul did when under the like judgment as 1 Sam. 28. 6 7 8. wherefore the Prophet that he might warn the remnant of faithful ones whom he foresaw would be as wonders amongst the rest commands them as from the Lord that WHEN men should say unto them Seek unto such as have familiar spirits c. to go to the LAW as being their way to go to God himself for saith he Should not a People seek unto their God To the LAW c. and certifies them that by that they should know Deceivers for saith he If they speak not according to This Word the Law there is no light in them So that I infer thus much that when such as are enemies to the Church come to invade the Saints with their deceit the only infallible way to know them to be Deceivers is to enquire of God's Law and Testimony I know that Israel had the Testimony or standing Oracle beside the written Law And the Church now hath the new Testimony open in the Church beside the Law Prophets hereunto I say the Church is only to apply her self as aforesaid to find out the deceit of those who would rob her of that inheritance which she holdeth by the deeds of God's Law and Promises contained in Scripture by these as the only infallible Rule she knows those to be lyars who say they are the Church and are not And to this agrees the next three Scriptures the very reading whereof sheweth that when the Controversie is between the Church and such as pretend falsly to that Title the onely infallible means to refel them is the Spirit speaking in Scripture c. For thus saith the first of them If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholsom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness he is proud knowing nothing but doting about questions c. Thus saith the second He that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of Error The third saith thus Whoso transgresseth and abideth not in the Doctrin of Christ hath not God He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son If there come any unto you and bring not this Doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God-speed From these Texts it appears that unless the Papists can produce something which they can infallibly prove to be Christ's Doctrine beside what is contained in holy Scripture or that the Apostles may be heard as infallibly by some other means as by the holy Scripture or that the Saints received some Doctrine for Christs that is not contained in the Scripture I say unless they can infallibly shew something of this nature my Answer is good But if they can produce any other thing of such authority then I acknowledge my Answer to be deficient Howbeit if any man or the Church her self
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
God service by compelling Families Towns Countries Nations or many Nations to be of one mind in matters of Religion I say it is in vain because the Scripture foresees and also foreshews that the contrary effects must follow the preaching of the Gospel and yet they may yea and ought to live in one form of Civil Government for that is the will of God concerning every soul Rom. 13. 1 to 8. 3. The Gospel-Church cannot be National because that takes away from her Persecution for the Gospel-sake makes her become a Persecutor For it is impossible for a Church to be National without penal Laws whereby to force men to that kind of Worship which the greater part approveth which may as possibly be false as true But the true Church must not look to be free from Persecution if she live godly in Christ Jesus nor is any thing more uncomly for her than to punish or persecute men into a Conformity to her Faith or religious practice John 15. 19 20. Mat. 10. 22. 2 Tim. 3. 12. Luke 9. 56. And the greatest part of the Revelations do shew that the Church was to be in a suffering condition and are therefore bid to be patient until the coming of the Lord Jam. 5. 4. A National-Church cannot observe the discipline of the Church of Christ for in the case of withdrawing from disorderly persons they do not only separate men of disorder from the Church both in Civil and Religious concerns but they cast them wholly out of the World from all Markets and Fairs yea quite out of their Livelihoods c. which kind of Excommunication the Scripture foresees to be proper to the Churches Adversary Rev. 13. 16 17. 5. If the Gospel-Church ought to be National then she was imperfect in point of Power in the Apostles dayes for she had not then any Power to put Hereticks to death for their Heresie But to say that the Primitive Church wanted any Power to punish any sin as it concerns the Church to punish it is to disparage the Apostolical Churches and is also contrary to the Scriptures which plainly shew they had Power then to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 4 5 6. The Fourth Reason The Papal Church encreaseth her self more by the Carnal Sword than by the Spiritual Word Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The fourth Reason maintained THat such Churches as are National do most encrease their numbers and keep them also when they have them by the terror of Death and Penal Laws both Experience shews and Reason tels that it cannot be otherwise How often hath our Nation changed their Religion with the breath of a Prince sometime to Popery and otherwhiles to Protestancy and under O. Cromwel to a compound of half Presbytery and half Independency according to the temper of those that sat at the Stern of Affairs And now how are they turn'd again to Prelacy Of which last change I say if any have conformed as judging it their duty to God so to do those though this doth not justifie their way to be good yet are honest men But if any for self-interest have done it they are the very dregs of men and will be any thing and so nothing 2. I remember a notable saying of Hillary who lived about the 4th or 5th hundred and in his dayes the Church was a degenerating from her Regeneral Constitution into a National Form where he saith Ambition doth aid it self by the Name of CHRIST the Church doth fear and compel the People through Banishments and Imprisonment to believe her in those things which she had received through being imprisoned She that could not be beloved of Christ if the World had not hated her now glorieth to be extolled and beloved of the World c. And that the Papal Church hath ordinarily encreased her self more by terror of the Carnal Sword than the Word of God doleful Histories do declare namely these Sleidan Comment A Book entituled The Indians Tears or Inquisition for Blood as also Fox his Acts and Monuments And here I think it meet to give an instance from one of their own Historiagraphers namely Fabinus He tells us that after Austin the Monk had gotten a considerable settlement in England it happened that there was a Council assembled in this Nation where Austin proposed several things to which the other Bishops could not consent but by your leave when Austin could not prevail by the Word or rather his words he told them If they would not submit they should be compelled by the wasting that should be made in their Country through War and Misery This was not Paul's way 2 Cor. 5. 20. The Fifth Reason The present Papal Church of Rome labours to keep the World in darkness and the Church also Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The fifth Reason maintained THe Consequence of this Argument no man can deny for there is nothing more opposit to the true Church than to love or cause darkness to seize upon any And that the present Papal Church of Rome labours to keep all men in darkness is thus proved 1. She forbids almost all men to reade the Scriptures and thereupon hath greatly withstood the Translation of them into every Tongue as is evident partly from what History declares and partly from that which themselves do say To omit History hear what they say themselves In their Preface to the Reader in the Rhemist Testament thus they speak Order was taken by the Deputies of the late famous Council of Trent in this behalf and confirmed by supream Authority That the Scripture though truly translated into the vulgar Tongues yet may not be indifferently read of all men nor of any other than such as have express Order thereunto of their lawful Ordinaries So that we see the Liberty here given is unlike the Liberty given by Christ to his enemies whom he commanded to search the Scripture John 5. 39. And the rich Glutton's Friends are said to have the Prophets and Moses Luk. 16. 29. Israel was of old indifinitly required to lay up the Book of the Law in their heart to talk of it as they sate in their houses as they went abroad they must teach them to their children and write them upon the posts of their doors Deut. 6. 4 to 9. Notwithstanding all this and much more liberty given by the Lord both to his Enemies and Friends to reade his Word you see the Council of Trent will have none permitted but whom the Ordinaries permit to reade the Scripture and they are only such as they judge discreet c. Pref. Rhem. Test Is it not strange that men pretending to be Christ's true Followers should thus contradict him He allowed that to his Enemies which they will not allow to his Friends Sure they have neither heard his Voice nor seen his Shape or at least not learned of him Miserable is the Gospel-Church by the Council of Trents Doctrine they have not