among the Baptized Churches and yet whether there be not clear Texts for the religious observation of it Act. 20. 7. Also whether it he not absurd for you to ask for clear Texts to prove unwritten things Also whether Rurgatory and the Real Presence as you hold them is not plainly destructive to some Articles of the Christian Faith Qu. 6. Antiq. 6. VVhether Universality both for time and place be not an evident mark of the true Church What Church can you name that hath that mark And whether the Woman that John saw was not Rome And whether her Cup was not universally received so that all Nations were drunk thereby Qu. 7. Antiq. 7. Whether you have really this mark that is whether you can fetch out of all Ages and Nations Professors of your Religion in particular you are desired to name but one or two in the first six hundred years after Christ of your Profession for example such as held the sole-sufficiency of Scripture for deciding Controversies and denied the lawfulness and usefulness of Infant-Baptism Whether any man can shew this mark as it is here call'd for without the help of humane History and whether humane History be a rule or ground for divine Faith And whether humane Histories especially those of the first three hundred after Christ were not most if not all burnt which concerned the Church and whether those that remain are not contradictory one to another Also whether Infant-Baptism was so much as heard of in the first hundred and then how could any be named that denied the usefulness thereof Also whether a Church whose gathering constitution and government is answerable to the Scripture be not the true Church of Christ And whether the Churches of the Baptists do not therein exceed all other whatsoever Thus Reader I have given thee some account of the causes why I publish this Treatise I desire thee to peruse it diligently If in any thing the Truth be dishonoured through any Error maintained by me of which yet I do solemnly profess I am not conscious to my self then do not forbear to blame me in a christian sort only if thou perceivest me deficient in point of Language and Method I desire thee to bear with that for I am one that gets my bread by the labour of my hands and never saluted the Schools to gain the knowledge of their Arts. From the Common-Goal in the Castle of Lincoln the 10th of the 11 month commonly called January 1662. Farewel TO THE Nameless Author OF THE VII QUERIES And in him to all the SONS of PAPAL ROME In the County of LINCOLN HItherto the things pertaining to Religion as they concern the Baptized Congregations commonly called Anabaptists and you that are commonly called Papists have been very little controverted And whether it shall ever please God to try his Peoples Faith and Stedfastness by your open opposition as he hath done it by others I may not presume to determine nor doubt I but if it shall so fall out he will advance his Truth thereby It is most certain that of those many wayes whereby the antient path of the Gospel hath for a long time been opposed there is not found any more potent than yours and the rather because your subtilty is utterly unknown to the generality of Christians in this Age and Nation where your Religion hath as it were lain dormant for many years The most dangerous stratagem wherewith you usually assail your opposits is your denyal of the Scripture c. the high doom of Judgment in matters of Faith and ascribe that dignity to your selves under pretence of your being the Church wherein if you conquer any one your work is as it were wholly accomplished Whereupon I have here presented to the world somewhat of your skill in this important Question Whether we are to resolve all Differences in point of Religion only out of the written Word of God yea I have faithfully transcribed your last Reply to my Answers which contains the sum of what you said in all your other Papers Whereby the Reader will discern if I think right wisdom used to the hurt of them that have received it I have forborn at this time to publish all that hath passed between us about the seven Queries partly for that one thing is oft repeated in our several Papers and partly and indeed especially for that it is to little purpose to controvert any particular point of Religion till we be agreed about the Judge that must determine our Differences Now whereas you do ascribe this Prerogative to your selves under pretence of your being the Church of Christ I have therefore laid down several Reasons by which it may appear that you are not the Church and so not that Judge whereunto you pretend to be so willing to adhere I have likewise shewed that we your opposits have the true claim to the title of Christ's Church that so if you will appeal to her you must then appeal to us which yet we believe you will not be perswaded to nor indeed do we desire you should whilst this is the Question Whether we or you be the Church No we are content to say with Augustine Ask not us in this case we will not ask you but let this matter be tryed by the Scripture yea saith he let the Prophets Christ and his Apostles be Judge Yea we say further in his words Let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason counted by authority of the Scriptures not proper to any but indifferent Witnesses to both parts My final Answer to the first of the seven Queries I have here published with as little alteration or addition as possibly I could to give the Reader a true understanding of the matters in difference And if you publish any thing hereupon I desire no fairer dealing from you than you have in this case from me I have seriously considered what should be the design of your Queries and hitherto it appears to be chiefly to exalt the authority of mens Traditions above the lively Oracles of God the Scriptures For though it should be granted which you can never prove that there hath continued a true Church at Rome ever since it was there planted yet would it not follow that all which your Church holdeth under the title of Ecclesiastical Tradition must needs be obeyed by us for it is certain that the Jews did retain the state of a true Church when yet their Traditions however by them accounted were but the Traditions of men which both the Prophets and Christ himself termed vain Worship especially such of them as made void the Commands of God as we are sure many of yours do and therefore as Christ said to them Why do you transgress the Command of God by your Tradition the same we are humbly bold to say to you when you ask us why we transgress your Traditions for surely of none can it more fitly be said than of you that laying
of Lots in the election of Ministers If it here be objected That Christ might give laying on of hands in Precept when he was with his Apostles I Answer So also might he give them the other to be used when there might be persons found of seemingly equal fitness to serve the Church 2. You reckon the use of Lots Acts 1. amongst Miracles as your other Reason why we may not use them to decide any Controversie but why you should so do I see no more reason than to say Josh 22. mention'd any Miracles towards the composure of the difference between the two Tribes and Israel where in truth no such thing can be found though you seem to affirm it PAPIST In my last Paper I took notice how you sent us to Heaven for Miracles to take up our Quarrels after the Example of Moses whose cause was cleared that way Here you deny you brought in the Instance of Moses to this purpose which how true it is every one that can reade must needs see For are not these your words But you say Reason is on my side c. and demand by whom we must be tryed who must take up the quarrel I answ Even the same that took up quarrels of this nature in times past Exod. 7 c. Do you not here tell us plainly That God must take up our quarrels AS he did those of Moses And truly otherwise I might as you foresaw very possibly tell you that your Allegation was nothing to the Question Who must take up the quarrel It is pretty to see what stuff you make of it and then how you digress to rail at our Baptism and Pastours I say rail for you bring no proof at all BAPTIST I have said enough to satisfie any reasonable man that it doth not follow from my alledging Exod. 7. that I send you or any body else to Heaven for Miracles to decide our Controversies For at the first I shewed that in the case of Moses there was Miracle against Miracle only God gave a note of distinction between those signs insomuch as the Serpent that came of Moses Rod devoured the other from whence I only noted That it's God's way to give some powerful note of distinction between the Witness of his Servants and Deceivers And now is not this my Observation very pertinent to our case You say you are the Church We say we are the Church Here is Testimony against Testimony as there was Miracle against Miracle and if the Lord do not now give some powerful note of distinction between our Doctrine and yours concerning the Church as he did between Stephen's and the Alexandrians I pray who must take up the quarrel between U S Is it fit that you should be Judge in your own case here If so why may not we If the Councils and Fathers were of the Papal Church then it is not any more reasonable that you should summon us to their Arbitriment than it is for us to summon you to the Judgment of our Predecessors but forasmuch as you and we are agreed that the Prophets and Apostles were infallibly assisted to write the Mind of God for us to observe therefore it 's most reasonable that we should both appeal to them If you object the Prophets c. are not alive to interpret their Writings and that our difference is about the sense thereof I Answer This objection is every way as forceable against the Decrees of Councils and Volumns of Fathers for their Writings must be interpreted expounded c. and we differ about the meaning of them Secondly the way you assign us to agree them is to consult them together c. Now I would know why we may not be allowed this way to seek out the meaning of the Prophets and Apostles In a word there is not one Objection which yet I have met with levelled against our appealing to holy Scripture c. as the only infallible means to decide all Controversies between YOU and US but the same objections are more forceable against all that you appeal to for decision of the said Controversies PAPIST You except against our Miracles because we bring them to prove our Church by but if it appear as it doth that God works Miracles upon those that actually call upon his Blessed Mother and his other Saints or whilst they are performing some of our Religious practices which you abhor is it not an argument that God approves them It is God then and not we that brings Miracles to prove our Church BAPTIST You will still have your Miracles to be an infallible mark of the truth of your Church especially those of the Blessed Virgin you mean the Image so called at Loreto or as you phrased it in your third Paper The Lady of Loreto But let me tell you that there is small cause you should refer me to what is done there as an infallible mark that your Church is the Church of Christ For by the relation of two eye-witnesses which I have read it is a place of most gross Idolatry blind devotion and deceit One of which Authors was once a Teacher of your Church who before his separation from you travelled to Loreto to see if the Image of the Virgin would inform him of the truth or falshood of the Roman Church as it is now constituted for he was doubtful in this matter and had been informed that if any person were guilty of Mortal sin which if the Papal Church be the Church of Christ he concluded he must needs be guilty of in questioning her at least in the Judgment of the Fryers who waited there upon that Image he had been informed I say that if such as were guilty of Mortal sin did but pray before the Lady of Loreto the said Image would either blush or fall into a sweat and so resolve the Petitioner in the affirmative But if we may believe the Lady of Loreto and this Informant then it is no Mortal sin to think that the Papal Church is not the Church of Christ For this doubtful man prayed earnestly and beheld the Lady as stedfastly but no sweat nor change befel her at all Therefore according to the Fryers rule it is no Mortal sin to think the Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ But this one thing is especially observable here That whereas you would perswade your self and others that I send men to Heaven for Miracles to decide Controversies it is manifest that you are the man that is herein guilty For the Controversie is Whether the Papal Church of Rome be the Church of Christ You affirm I deny To decide this Controversie you refer me to Miracles as the special means or chief mark whereby I may be resolved in this matter as is evident in this and your two former Papers So that what you would cast upon me falls clearly upon your self save that instead of sending me to Heaven you send me to Loreto In my Rejoynder
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
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
the necessity of Circumcision Act. 15. did they not assemble the Church and so pronounce Sentence conciliariter with a visum est Spiritui sancto nobis BAPTIST It is here worth noting how you dispute beyond the due bounds of the Query which as it concerns you Papists and us Baptists hath no relation to the Differences which arise in the Church as such and indeed you go amiss in this matter throughout the whole Discourse Here you seem to acknowledge that the Church ought to rule according to Scripture but you will allow me to judge whether she do so or not But I answer that there is a Judgment of Science as well as a Judgment Authoritative the latter I know cannot be exercised by me nor any other Member of the Church because this Power lyeth in the Church as imbodied together but the former to wit a Judgment of Science or Knowledge is particular to each individual and so my self if a Member of the Church am allowed the exercise thereof even in matters of Religion 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak to wise men judge ye what I say The Apostle doth not here give any wise man at Corinth leave to judge of that which he said so as to censure what he had delivered yet he must exercise his understanding to judge of what Paul had said thereby to find out the verity of what was spoken But yet I do confess that our case and the case of Christians then do differ for Paul was a Foundation-layer a Master-builder so that the Members might not so well judge then as now yet the Church now is to build upon the Foundation which is laid already and you know that I have in my Rejoynder acknowledged that it very nearly concerns particular Members of the Church to have great regard to the Judgment of the Church when after serious debate they deliver their Sentence in any point disputable And further as touching your Church you tell me anon that even a Heathen may judge of the holiness of your Church by the Law of Conscience and then why may he not by the same Law judge your Church concerning her unholiness nay verily he must be able to speak both wayes or else he hath no Judgment And if a Heathen have this priviledge and ability then why not a man professing Christianity who hath not only the Conscience-Law but also the written Law of God by which he understands things more excellent Rom. 2. From all this I only conclude that each particular ought to have the free exercise of his Judgment in what he chuseth or refuseth sith without this he cannot chuse or refuse any thing with confidence nor to his comfort And concerning Controversies in the Church I do not see that in these dayes we are bound to follow the sentence of a multitude though assembled in Council SO as to hold their Sentence absolutely infallible for the promise of infallibility is not made to a certain select number of Bishops but to the Church taken collectively and we may remember that a great Assembly of Prophets in the old Church erred in Judgment with unanimous consent when yet the Lord had one Micaiah at home which understood the truth of his Will Wherefore I here conclude although the Members of the Church ought to weigh with great respect the things concluded of by their Pastors yet so may it be that they may swerve from the Truth whilst God clears it up by some particular rather than by such an Assembly And to this agrees very well a saying of Gerson If it should so happen that there should be a General Council assembled in which such a man were present as is well instructed If the greatest part should decline through Malice or IGNORANCE to the opposition of the Gospel such a LAY-Man may be objected against the said General Council And saith Panormitan In matters WHICH CONCERN FAITH the saying of a LAY-Man ought to be preferred before that of the Pope if his saying be more probable by better authority of Scripture than that of the Pope You often tell me that to appeal to the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures c. is not a sufficient way to decide OUR Controversies and that because you may challenge them to be for you c. To which I answer by retorting your Argument thus That which you call the living Voice of the Church to wit Volumns of Fathers and Decrees of Councils is therefore insufficient to decide OUR Controversies because your opposites do say they are for them and against you and now you must answer your own Query viz. Who must take up this Quarrel You answer that we must explicate them one by another the places which are obscure by such as are plain And then I still ask you why we may not as well agree our selves this way by the Volumns of the Prophets and Apostles I shewed before how you misapply that Text Matth. 18. and though the case is so plain as that you cannot defend your self yet you seem loth to decline your error and would fasten a very gross passage upon me namely that I should say That the Church is no Rule for those that are out of her Communion as not to be a light for such as grope in the dark A manifest wrong I only say and prove That those that are not of the Church are not within the power of her Discipline nor can she reasonably desire unconverted ones to appeal to her Judgment-seat in Controversies between them and her And I asked you If you would not scorn us if we should call upon you to appeal unto us as your Judges Whether we or you be the Church and not doubting but you would I concluded that it is equally absurd for you to desire us to appeal to you as our Judges But you may find it plain enough in my Papers That I do believe the Church SO to be a Rule to the world as to shew them the way of Life and so a good means for their Illumination and Conversion As for your three Texts 1 Tim. 3. Deut. 17. 8 9. Malachi 2. 7. As they do your cause no good so they do mine no harm I grant the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth and that she hath Power to hear and determine all Controversies among her Members as aforesaid and that it is the duty of the Members to enquire of their Pastors what is the way of God concerning them But what of all this Ergo The Papal Church of Rome is the only infallible Judge and Moderatrix of all Contention about Religion Ergo we must all appeal to the Papal Church of Rome as our Judge in this Question Whether we be of the Church or not though we be in doubt Whether she her self be a true Church or not yea though we are satisfied she is not Are not these Monstrous Consequences Be it here observed That I do believe the Church of
doings do only tend to the destruction of all Faith making every thing doubtful and the effect is the ushering in of all uncleanness on the one hand or if men miss this snare they are catched in another viz. to walk at random as their own or other mens fancy leads them This is evident by what we have seen in the Ranters on the one hand and the Papists and Quakers on the other Let us trace this matter a little further thus The Papists Traditions most if not all of which have been committed to Writing several hundreds of years ago must speak for themselves are unquestionable of themselves must challenge no ground but themselves to stand upon But the sacred Scripture which hath especial Promise from God for its preservation Psal 12. must have none of these high priviledges allowed it Is not this a most peccant Assertion Again Peter and Paul must be no Judges of Controversies in Religion as they speak to us in their Epistles but the Popes of Rome dead long ago and now only speak in their Writings yet they must be our infallible Judges in these Controversies The great Council of Apostles Elders and Brethren Acts 15. can be no Judge of any Controversie though their Decrees are yet extant among us but the Council of Trent who only speak in their Decrees must be our Judge and that so as from their Judgments no appeal can be admitted The Apostolical Council sends forth their Decrees in the Name of the holy Ghost and themselves and in those their Decrees they prohibit the eating of blood and strangled things c. But the Papal Councils will send forth a Decree directly opposite to this and yet sign'd with these powerful words Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis If we appeal in this matter to the Apostolical Council they may not be permitted to pronounce a Sentence decissive But from the sentence of the Papal Council we must in no wise appeal Can any thing be said more unworthily Thus then First the godly Reader may perceive That whether he be able to answer all the cunning Objections that men by reason of the long experience they have had in the wayes of deceit have found out yet he hath an Argument of NECESSITY wherewith to oppose their subtilty And Secondly he hath the advantage of all their own objections against themselves yea against their Church Tradition and all that they stand upon Being seasonably retorted upon them Wherefore I shall conclude with the Psalmist's words Psal 64. 5 6 7 8 9. They encourage themselves in an evil matter they commune of laying snares privily they say Who shall see them They search out iniquities they accomplish a diligent search both the inward thoughts of every one of them and the heart is deep But God shall shoot at them with an arrow suddenly shall they be wounded So they shall make their own tongues to fall upon themselves all that see them shall flee away And all men shall fear and shall declare the work of God for they shall wisely consider of his doings THE SECOND PART SHEWETH That the present Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ for divers important Causes or Reasons VVE have heard of how dangerous a Consequence that Papal Opinion is which leads them to set up their own Authority under pretence of their being the Church above the holy Scripture insomuch as they allow it no Authority till it be delivered to us for God's Word by their Church so that by this Doctrine we must find their Church before we can find the Word of God as it is contained in the Scripture Upon which Consideration we shall endeavour to shew That the present Papal Church is not the true Church of Christ and therefore what Power soever the Church hath yet they cannot have it Because they are not the Church of Christ The First Reason The present Papal Church of Rome cannot possibly prove her self to be the Church of Christ Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The First Reason maintained THe Consequence of the Argument no understanding man can deny for unless a party pretending to be the Church of Christ can some wayes sufficiently prove that they are his Church they cannot reasonably blame any body that refuses so to account of them And for the Antecedent namely that it is impossible for the present Papal Church to prove her self the Church of Christ it is evident from this ground viz. They make both the Scripture and all other Writings depend on their Church for their Authority and therefore they must prove themselves to be the Church without the help of any authentical or authoritative Writings which thing is impossible for them to do Being thus divested of the help of all Records as is more fully shewed above there remains now nothing for them to lean upon but their own Evidence or the Tradition of their Fore-fathers not that which is contained in any Records but only that which hath been delivered by word from man to man c. But alas what Tradition is this they speak of Not the Tradition of the Church to us till the persons delivering the same be found to be the Church which as before they cannot be found to be without the Scripture And for their own Evidence that may not prove them to be the Church to those that contend with them it cannot avail them sith each party contending in this case will and may as reasonably as the Papists look that their own Testimony should be as available for these as the other for those It is as vain here to tell us they are the Church because the true marks of the Church do agree to the Papal Church and none else For first the true marks of the Church are confessed by the Papists to be found in the Scripture which Scripture they receive not but from the authority of their Church yea their present Church so that till the Scripture can tell us authoritatively which be the marks of the Church no Church can be found by those marks nor can the Scripture tell us of those marks authoritatively till Rome as a Church give it us for God's Word So then Rome must be found the Church before there be any marks to find her by which is impossible As for example To clear this matter further the Papists say That Holiness is a mark of the true Church But now set the Holy Scripture aside and how shall I know holiness from unholiness without the Scripture Here the Papists being in a strait rather than they will let the Law of God or the Scripture have the preheminence do Answer thus That we have a Law in our Consciences which dictates what is good and what is otherwise and by this Law even a Heathen may judge our Church holier than any other Congregations of Christians What a miserable plunge of Heathenism or Quakerism are they brought to here How do they know