aside the Commandments of God you hold the Tradition of men THO. GRANTHAM THE BAPTIST AGAINST THE PAPIST The FIRST PART sheweth the SCRIPTURE and ROME to be in Contention about the SUPREAM SEAT of JUDGMENT in Controversies of RELIGION THe first of all Controversies is founded upon this Query What is the authoritative Judge of Controversies And indeed till there be some agreement in this point there can be no expectation of any fruitful issue of any Controversie Now all Controversies amongst the sons of men are reduceable to one of these two heads namely things humane or things divine things precisely pertaining to this life or things which only pertain to that which is to come concerns of a secular consideration or concerns of a religious consideration And according to the nature of these Controversies such ought the Judge for decision thereof to be Concerning this Judge of Religious Controversies there are divers opinions Some say that the Light or that of God in Every Man is this only infallible Judge of all Religious Controversies But if this be admitted a multitude of inconveniences must needs follow of which this is not the least That there can be no end of Controversies because if every man have this Judge of all Debates in himself and he aver that what he saith and doth is according to the voice of this Judge or that of God in him no man can take in hand to judge contrary thereunto without becoming the Judge's Judge and so violate the Rule proposed For this opinion refers not doubtful matters to that of God in some men or a select number of men but to that of God in every man There is another Opinion which saith That amongst all men which pretend to own Christ and challenge to themselves the title of his Church and yet do deny each other to have an interest in that title That amongst all such parties of the sons of men the only infallible and authoritative Judge of their Controversies about Religion is the LORD Himself as he speaketh by his Spirit in the holy Scriptures together with right Reason or thus which is all one The Apostles and Prophets as they speak in their holy Writings are the onely infallible authoritative Judge in these Controversies Yet three things are in this Opinion allowed first That the living voice of the Pastors with the Church in their respective Ages wherin they live are of great importance in order to the terminating strife in the Church as a Church Secondly That Records of Antiquity are of some usefulness for the resolving some Controversies and for the better discovery of some Errors yet not so absolutely necessary but that the Church may sufficiently resolve her Controversies without them Thirdly That there is a Judgment of Science to be allowed every man as touching all things which he chuseth or refuseth in matters of Religion to be used with moderation and discreet subjection And this is the Opinion to which for my part I do adhere There is another Opinion which saith That the Papal Church of Rome is the Supream Judge and Catholick Moderatrix of all Disputes in matters of Faith and that All are bound to hear and obey her Voice under pain of Damnation and that the Scriptures as taken in the second Opinion is not the Judge of Controversies Now this is the Opinion which at this time I am to examine which in much seriousness I humbly purpose to do and leave it to the sober consideration of all men And for the better discharge of this duty it is meet we should understand what the Papists mean by the Church of Rome And this I find that under that title they would involve the whole Church of Christ from the Apostles dayes until this present time at least all the Faithful since the time that Paul declares the Roman Church to have been famous as Rom. 1. 8. But this is the very thing denied by us for though we willingly grant that there was a very famous Church at Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to them yet it followeth not that there is such a Church there now or that all that ever from that time to this have walked in the steps of true Faith must needs be supposed to have been Members of the Roman Church or rather of the Church of Rome so called especially since it was Papal So that in this Controversie they must be content to define the Church of Rome on this wise viz. All that in any Age since Christ was of the same Faith and Practice in things religious which is at this day found in the Papal Church of Rome and those only are the persons of whom the Papal Church of Rome doth consist And indeed this is as much as they can reasonably desire for if those holy men who lived in times past were of a Faith and Practice contradistinct to that which Rome hath now received Then may not the present Papal Church without wrong challenge them to be of their Church As for example Paul who bore witness for Christ at Rome and the Christians there in his dayes was of the Church of Christ at Rome yet we deny that they were any part of the Papal Church of Rome The Church of Rome therefore defined as before I do deny to be the infallible authoritative Judge of all Controversies about matters of Faith or Religion And I do further say That the Scriptures and right Reason as laid down in the second opinion much more deserves to be received for this supream Judge of Controversies than the Papal Church of Rome and that there is not an other Umpire that can so effectually decide the Controversies of Religion which depend between such parties of men as lay claim to the Title of Christ's Church and yet deny each other to have an interest therein And how far forth the truth in this Point hath been evidenced in that pro and con Discourse so far as it relateth to the first of them which hath been occasioned by the writing of the Seven Queries I have before spoken of is here offered to the Consideration of all sober men that profess to own the Glorious Gospel of the blessed God and our Saviour Jesus Christ The first Query of the Seven was this propounded by the nameless Papist PAPIST Whether we are to resolve all differences in point of Religion only out of the written Word of God BAPTIST To which Question these ensuing Answers were given before I received the Adversaries last Paper which with the Answers thereunto I will transcribe verbatim I say the Answers were That the word Controversies being understood of such Controversies only as depend between those parties of men who deny each other to be the Church that then there is no other way whereby WE can resolve those Controversies but by the assistance of God's Spirit speaking to us through the undoubted Prophets and Apostles and Primitive Churches in the lively Oracles of God the Scriptures of
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
Truth together with the help of right Reason in a way of subserviency to those divine directions Or if the word Controversies shall relate only to all such Controversies as fall within the compass of the Church that then to the former means we are to joyn the living Voice and Authority of the Church in present being assembled with her Pastours as the ordinary means appointed of God to terminate strife in the Churches But if the Division in the Church be so great as that it be not this way decissive or the Doubt so secret as not this way to be resolved there is not then a better way than for both Parties to reason it out till Truth and Innocency do prevail as the two Tribes and an half did with the other Tribes of Israel and prevailed Joshua 22. or in some doubtful cases the use of Lots may be admitted for the resolution of them Acts 1. PAPIST It is worth observing how many windings and turnings you have to avoid the difficulty of this Query Whether we are to resolve all differences in point of Religion only out of the written Word of God First you leave out the word only in which lay the very knot of the difficulty 2. Then you give me a piece of an Answer and keep in the living voice of the Church as a reserve for your Second Paper 3. When you are shewed how you for sake your old fort the sole sufficiency of Scripture as if you were afraid to come too near us you give back again and do your worst to discredit this living voice of the Church so that in effect it stands but for a meer cipher as I foresaw it would when it came once to the scanning 4. Upon second thoughts finding your error by putting the Query What is become of the living voice of the Church you shuffle again and would gladly make something of it but this something in the end falls to just nothing as I shall make it further appear by ripping up the particulars of this your last Answer BAPTIST I have used no windings to avoid the difficulty of the first Query but you are to know that when I first answered it I took the word Controversie to relate only to such Controversies as depend between such persons as deny each other to have any present right to either the Name or Priviledges of the Church And indeed I do not see how any other sense can be made of this Query for under that word WE I suppose you included no more but your self and Church on the one party and us to whom you sent the Queries on the other party and we well know that you account us no members of the Church and you likewise know that we have the same opinion of you but when your Observations or Second Paper took into the Query all Controversies which fall within the compass of the Church as such I could do no less than tell you that my Answer did not exclude the living voice of the Church in such cases but that my Answer doth only exclude every such voice as exalteth it self above the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures And whereas in your Third Paper you told me That to appeal to Councils and Fathers is a clear way to agree all our differences I told you that this is a very cloudy way and that because they are contrary to themselves and one another 2. Till they be agreed they cannot agree us 3. And sith you take not the Scripture as being of any authority till they as the Church give it you I demanded by what you would agree them in their divisions 4. And to shew you how they are divided I gave you divers Instances concerning their divisions as also touching the corruption which hath been found in divers Popes PAPIST 1. I had no reason to take notice of your excluding from the living voice of the Church every voice exalting it self above the voice of Scripture because it was a very needless Exception since the Church arrogates no such power but only to interpret the voice of Scripture 2. Why this way of taking the sense of Scripture from the living voice of the Church should be so cloudy as you say it is I do no more understand than that the living voice of a Judge should be a cloudy way to understand the Law by As for your Riddles how we are to reconcile the Fathers and Councils when they seem to clash with their own Assertions but by having recourse to Scripture I Answer briefly That General Councils have no such contradictions as you speak of And as for the holy Fathers when there is any such difficulty in any one of them we must look upon the rest what they say and to follow their unanimous consent for if we take them singly no doubt they have erred and these errors we know by their dissenting from the rest for otherwise certainly the authority of any one of the antient Fathers when he expounds Scripture or relates the Christian practice of his time and is not censured or contradicted by the rest or condemned by the Church in a General Council is of greater authority to decide Controversies in point of Religion or to know the true meaning of Scripture than any thing you have alledged as we shall see by and by when I have first examined what you bring to discredit the Fathers and Councils Against the Fathers you first bring St. Aug. retract 21. contradicting himself by saying that Matth. 16. Christ built not his Church upon Peter but upon Peter 's Faith sure you read not St. Aug. for he there expounds that place of Christ himself and not of the Faith of St. Peter nor doth he recal his expounding it elsewhere of St. Peter but leaves both Expositions as probable concluding thus Hunc autem sententiam quae sit probalitur eligat lector Is this fair dealing Again you bring in St. Aug. contra Petil. c. 2 3 4. as contrary to himself and me because he teaches That the Church is to be found out by the words of Christ But though I doubt you cannot make this appear in any of these three Chapters yet were it nothing to the purpose for we deny not but the Church is to be found out by these clear marks whereby the holy Scripture hath deciphered her Next you alledge St. Chrysost in Psal 22. and St. Ambrose de Sacrament calling the Blessed Sacrament a similitude or figure of Christ's Body and Blood I Answer 1. That it is the Opinion of the Learned that neither St. Chrysost nor indeed any Grecian could be Author of that work 2. I say the Sacrament may be truly called the similitude of Christ's Body and Blood because it is not given in the form of flesh and blood of which men would have a horror as the same St. Amb. observes but under the Forms of Bread and Wine The next is St. Dinis Eccl. Herarch but quoting no place I have not yet met
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
Christ to be the Pillar of Truth so as that she was never so over-clouded with error but that she hath enjoyed the fruition of that Promise Matth. 16. in some good measure ever since it was made Nor shall she ever so close with the gates of Hell as by general consent and full authority to dissert that Faith which having Christ for its object is the Rock she is built upon and therefore you see I hold the Church cannot err in some sense and indeed he that holds the contrary must for ought I see raze out that Promise Matth. 16. and many other And yet nothing from all this accrues to the Papal Church of Rome I alledged Stephen as defending the Truth by the authority of Scripture Only c. Nor can it be groundedly imagined that had it been the mind of God that such as are not of the Church should be summoned to her Tribunal Stephen being full of the holy Spirit the leader into all truth would have omitted the use of that means but he knew that such authority the Church had none as I shewed from 1 Cor. 5. What have I to do to judge them that are without do not ye also judge them that are within And therefore he could not mention any such power And though Stephen did many wonders among the People yet at this time when he so powerfully vanquished his adversaries he did none at all but only overcame them by the assistance of the Spirit speaking in the Scripture c. I desired you to shew me but one Instance where ever any of the Primitive Saints did appeal to the Church of which they were present Members as Judge between them and such as never received their Doctrine but you have not done it nor indeed can it be done As I shewed that Stephen appealed to Scripture ONLY c. so I also shewed That it was the way of Christ and his Apostles frequently to vindicate their Doctrine against such as were not of their Church by appealing to the Scriptue especially amongst such as owned the Scripture this you confess and also you tell me that your Church doth the same But this cannot be true of All your Doctrine because you have told me That many Points of your Faith are resolved without the written Word of God or else you never answered my first Antiquery which demandeth What Controversie in Religion you can resolve without the written Word of God And in your Answer you assigned The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son Sabbath Infant-Baptism and MANY OTHER POINTS OF FAITH and I shall shew anon that we have it pro confesso from your Champions that there be some Points of your Faith which is not GROUNDED UPON nor MENTIONED IN the SCRIPTURES and therefore your Church cannot vindicate such Points of her Faith and Doctrine by the Scripture Although Christ sent Paul to Ananias for instruction yet it followeth not that we must take Romes instructions without Scripture Is there no difference between the time that now is and then was Much of the Scripture if not all the New Testament was then unwritten Again Ananias was immediatly sent of God If you are so sent prove it to us as Ananias did by shewing the Miracle of restoring Paul's sight If you are not so sent to what purpose do you alledge this Text I believe I might form you a monsirous Consequence here PAPIST You that will not trust the Churches Judgment lay down four wayes of resolving Doubts The first To argue it out till Truth prevail But if we must argue only out of Scripture and be our own Interpreters of it there can be no end of arguing as I have often shewed The second To appeal to God as the two Tribes did Josh 22. A rare way to end Controversies to look for Miracles in our Disputes The third To appeal to Scripture and right Reason But if I challenge them to be on my side who must take up the difference The fourth To cast Lots But though the Apostles did it who certainly were inspired to do so yet must not we presume to tempt God or to look for the like Miracles or to build our Faith upon such doubtful events BAPTIST You here wrong us to say that we will not trust the Judgment of the Church for the Church truly and universally taken we do credit as her that is appointed of the Father to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth of which Church we take the Prophets and Apostles to be the principal Members and so in all Points of Faith to be credited in the first place But if by Church you mean the Papal Church of Rome I confess we dare not trust her Judgement at least not in all that she saith for example these following 1. Your Church tells us That it is not needful for the Scriptures to be read to or by the Laity in a tongue which they understand and that though they Pray after another in Latine though they understand not what they say yet such prayer is sufficient Rhem. Test Annot. in 1 Corinthians 2. Your Church tells us That the Sacrifice of your Masse is available to take away or obtain remission of sins by the work wrought Con. Trident. Sess 22. That the whole Masse is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and whoso saith it is only a commemoration of Christ's Death c. is accursed Con. Trent 3. Your Church holds That such as deny that the real Flesh and Blood of Christ is in the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament ought to be burnt to death 4. Your Church holds and tells us That Images and old clothes of Saints ought to be worshipped with religious Worship 5. That men are AS FULLY Justified by good Works AS THEY ARE DAMNED BY evil Works 6. That it is unlawful for Ministers of Christ to Marry 7. That the Scripture doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation To omit many other these are Points of your Churches Judgment which we dare not trust till by you or some other proved to be Truths I assigned the use of Lots as lawful in some doubtful cases to end Controversies and for proof I quoted Acts 7. and this you will not allow for two Reasons 1. Because you say the Apostles were inspired to use them but were it so as that you cannot prove yet it cannot be denied but we may do some things which they were inspired to do for the Holy Ghost was to lead them into all Truth and they were to lead us into the same Truth by their Example and Doctrine Joh. 16. 13. 1 Cor. 11. 1 2. And be it here observed That the Holy Ghost led those our Teachers to ordain the Ministry by Prayer and laying on of Hands Acts 6 and Acts 13. which practice of theirs is a good president to act by a president I say for this practice is not expresly commanded in Scripture no more than the use
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
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
do decide a Controversie by insisting upon the Scripture this is no more than my Answer included for I do not imagine that the Church must not pronounce what is contained in the Scripture but if she hath power to speak as from the Lord in these dayes when yet the Scripture saith no such thing then I profess my self short of understanding the power of the Church 2 Thess 3. 2. I only made use of this Text thus far that in Religious Controversies the Apostle gives Reason her place and therefore desired to be delivered from unreasonable men PAPIST ONce more you offer to justifie your Consequences drawn out of the five Texts But I ask once more To what purpose did you bring them was it not to prove what you had said in your Answer to my Query That the Scripture so we took right Reason along with us was sufficient to resolve all Controversies in matters of Faith No rational man can reade your first Paper but must think so and indeed otherwise you must have brought them to prove something that was not under debate which had been impertinent Must not that very Assertion of yours be the Consequence to these five Texts and them have I not reason to cry out that there never appeared such Monstrous Consequences But to avoid this inconvenience you fall into the other and will have some of your Texts brought to prove certain Propositions which you had not mentioned in your Answer Howsoever let us now see what you make of them Isa 8. 20. God's People are commanded to have recourse rather to the Law c. than to superstitious Oracles Ad Legem magis c. And they have a sign given them to convince such Oracles of falshood if they speak not according to the Word or Prophesie of Isaiah This is the clear sense of that place out of which you draw this strange consequence Ergo the Scripture c. is to resolve all matters of Faith A strange Consequence I say as will appear if we turn your Euthymeme into a Syllogism thus Recourse is to be had rather to the Law than to false Oracles whose falsehood appears if they speak not according to the Word or Prophecy of Isaiah But if this be so the Scriptures c. are to resolve all points of Faith Ergo c. What a prodigious minor have we here How doth it follow that because God's Word is to be more credited than superstitioas Oracles or that such Oracles are not to be credited when they speak against God's Word Therefore the Scriptures c. are to resolve all points of Faith I know you have not the word rather in your English Translation as we have in ours but the clear sense of the place bears as much 1 Tim. 6. 3. saith they are proud that teach contrary to the Doctrine of Christ Ergo you infer that the Scripture is to judge whose Doctrine is of pride This is as mad a conclusion as the last for when there is no clear Text of Scripture for either side as it often happens or Scripture brought on both sides How can the Scripture judge whether party be proud or how can it be judge of its own sense when it is alledged on both sides who both pretend to have the Spirit and Reason on their sides 1 John 4. 6. Those that hear not the Apostles are not of God nor have his Spirit Ergo say you the Scripture resolves who are religious Doth it follow out of this Text that when parties contend that they hear the Apostles the Scripture can resolve the difference and pronounce who are religious c. Not at all 2 John 9. 10. Gives Judgement against those that follow not Christ's Doctrine You infer ergo the Scripture must try whether men bring this Doctrine Strange Logick for unless your Text proved that the Scripture containes all Christ's Doctrine which it doth not your Consequence must needs be faulty 2 Thess 3. 2. you say proves that Reason is some wayes necessary to decide Controversies in Religion I will not examine the goodness of this Consequence but I am sure you need not have brought Scripture to have proved so manifest a Truth which cannot be denied by any but such as pretend to have so much of the Spirit that me-thinks they should have little need of the use of Reason BAPTIST Concerning my five Texts and what I infer thence I need not speak much here yet it is worthy observing how apparantly you miss the clear sense of Isa 8. 20. whilst you restrain the relatives this word to the Word or Prophecy of Isaiah whereas it is as clear as the Sun at noon that they ought to be referr'd to the Law and Testimony for thus I read To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to This Word Having thus missed the sence of the Text then in all that you say further you discover a taunting spirit endeavouring to bespatter me with what dirt comes next to hand I did not quote any one of the five Texts as taking it singly to prove the whole Assertion and therefore you did injure my understanding to argue from them apart as brought to prove the whole Position but I brought them to prove such Propositions as being laid together do amount to so much as my Assertion as I explicate it doth contain For the first four Texts do all of them shew how God's People ought to try and defend themselves against such as oppose the Church and Truth of God as I shewed in my Rejoynder and the fifth gives Reason her place in Religious Contests But there is not one of the Arguments which I formed from my five Quotations but you deprave and abuse it by both adding terms of your own and omitting mine yea sometimes whole sentenoes and when you have so done you flout at the Conclusions Which dealing is too bad for a sober Disputant It were a very easie thing to turn all your Objections here against the Scripture as insufficient to resolve differences in Religion upon the Church as therefore insufficient to resolve them For whereas you say That when both Parties pretend to have Scripture and Reason on their sides then the Scripture cannot decide the Controversie Might not I as well say when both parties pretend to have the Church on their side as that 's the case between us the Church then cannot decide our difference Again where you seem to say that when both parties contending do say they hear the Apostles that then the Apostles cannot as they speak in the Scriptures decide the Controversie Hath not this the same force against the Church when both parties contend they hear the Church See how you can defend your self and I doubt not but therein you will defend my Arguments for the Scripture And because you do cry up the Fathers c. for so clear a way to decide all our Controversies I will therefore shew you that they do clearly
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
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
Apostolical Tradition tends to the making null or void any Apostolical Writing But Infant Sprinkling makes null and void all that is written in the Scriptures concerning the subject and manner of Baptism in all that part of the World where the Papists or such as they get the Civil Power on their side yea we see that by this means the sons of men are great enemies to the way of God in this matter How long have many Nations lain destitute of the knowledge of the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins by reason of the interposition of this cloudy Tradition of Pedo-Rantism How have men pretending to be Ministers of Christ never in many Generations preached Peter's Doctrine Repent and be baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins Note this Observation well for although the Baptism of Repentance c. hath not been cryed down in the Nations of Christendom by such as counted themselves the only Preachers of the Gospel yet it was not for that these Nations had no need of the practice of Baptism for they daily have practised something under that notion which is rheir Infant-sprinkling So that it 's plain Infant-Baptism makes void the Apostolical Writings Therefore Infant-Baptism is no Apostolical Tradition Secondly Infant-Baptism is not an Apostolical Tradition because no mention is made of it in the first hundred of years after Christ Although I am not much read yet I have used the utmost of my diligence to know the Truth in this Point and I have attained to sufficient satisfaction that the greatest favourer of Infant-Baptism that yet I have met with durst not say that ever he saw any Record of Antiquity that mentioned such a thing and that the Scriptures do not mention it the Papists grant And because the Papists make such boast of the consent which they have in this matter from Antiquity I will therefore here put in something by way of Evidence to the contrary For it is certain that Infant Baptism as it was not heard of in the first hundred so neither was it generally received till above half a thousand years revolved from Christ as is undeniable for that it is plain that the most famous or at least very famous Christian Parents brought up their Children without having them baptized such were the Parents of Greg. Nazianzen Ambrose Augustine and others yea the Emperour Constantius born of Christian Parents was not baptized till he was about thirty years of age See also these ensuing Testimonies I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves unto God in Baptism After that we are renewed through Christ such as are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them being to live according to the same we admonish to fast and pray and we fast and pray with them then they are brought to the Water and there calling on the Name of the Father c. they are washed in it So saith Erasmus paraphrase on Matth. 28. If they believe that which you teach them and begin to be repentant of their former life then dip them In Water In the Name c. The Lord commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct all Nations and afterward baptise those that were instructed for it cannot be that the body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism unless the soul have received before the true Faith Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all he said teach and then baptize that true Faith might come by teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo saith In this place Matth. 28. is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith Teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive For as Faith without Works is dead so Works if they have no Faith are nothing worth Beda saith All they that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed of them and when they were instructed concerning the Sacrament of Baptism they received the holy administration thereof Tertullian who lived about the time when Infant-Baptism began to appear did dispute against it as an unnecessary practice for divers causes 1. For that it is not meet to commit heavenly things to those who are not capable of keeping treasure of an earthly nature 2. For that the Sponsors might be endangered 3. For that it became them that were to be baptized to fast pray and confess their sins 4. Because they that receive Christ must ask him let them that is little ones come therefore saith he while they are youths whilst wherein they come they are taught c. Augustine saith We spend much time in exhorting those whom we baptize Ludovicus vives commenting upon this place saith Lest any man should mistake this place of Augustine let him know that in old time it was the custom to baptize NONE except they were of full age and did desire Baptism in their own persons and that several times and did understand what that Mystical Water meant which we see resembled in our baptizing of Infants Lo here your Pedo-baptism is not the old custom of the Church The Third Reason The present Papal Church of Rome is a National Church Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The third Reason maintained 1. TO make the Gospel-Church National consequently destroyes the Doctrin of Conversion as it is a principle of the Doctrin of Christ appertaining to the beginning of a Christian man For if men can regenerate or beget persons to God in their infancy then the Word of Regeneration or new-birth is needless in order to our admission into the Church of Christ and so the preaching of Faith and Repentance must cease as it is a Principle pertaining to a Christian man in all those Nations which are called Christendom which is a great part of the World And indeed Experience hath long ago proved this Conclusion to be most true for since the Church as they term it was National the Word or Work of Conversion hath been little known in the life and power of it nay verily the very term Conversion is become a reproach among our National-Churchmembers But thus to make the Word of Conversion unnecessary in order to persons admission into the Church of Christ is contrary to the Scripture John 3. 5. Luke 24. 47. Matth. 20. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. Heb. 8. 10 11. Gal. 3. 26 27 28. Matth. 3. 8 9 10. 2. To make the Gospel-Church National puts an end to the Doctrine of Christ touching that Separation and those Divisions which for the Gospel-sake must be in Nations and Families as appears from these Scriptures John 15. 19. and 17. 14 16. Acts 2. 40 47. 1 Cor. 6. Luke 12. 49 to 54. And therefore in vain doth any person think to do
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
that priviledge which Israel under the Law was allowed and yet they are as strictly bound to bring up their Children in the admonition of the Lord which they cannot do unless they have the Law in their heart that so they may talk of it to their Children But surely those that will not let the Law come within the sight of our eyes have no mind it should ever come in our hearts So then they labour to keep us in the dark What can they say against mens reading the Scripture which hath not the same force against the hearing of it preached Did not some conceive as gross opinions concerning Christ's saying men must eat his flesh as some have by reading them The Jews thought they were so to be understood as that they might eat his real flesh and that was not a greater nor a lesse Error than is found in the Papists who read the same word It is doubtless a shrewd sign that those who will not suffer us to see the Law of God do not intend that we shall hear very much of it peradventure such Points as talk of Tythes c. Yea it is evident that they intend not to let us hear much that shall profit us for they have devised that the very Prayers and Services of their Church be said and sung in a tongue which the People understand not Yea they tell us That it is enough for the People to understand that the Prayer is made to call upon God in all our desires and more than this is not necessary they say So that the poor People in the Papacy know not what are the things desired only they are told The Prayer is made to God in all that is therein desired Are not these People kept in darkness But saith Paul How should the unlearned say Amen 1 Cor. 14. That which is most strange is That the Papists should deliver this dark Doctrine from 1 Cor. 14. then which no Scripture more requireth an understanding in those that pray and in those that joyn with them nor doth any Scripture more clearly shew us to how little purpose it is to perform any Service in the Church in an unknown tongue Read the Chapter saith Paul If I come unto you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you but in the Church I will speak five words with my understanding that I may instruct others also rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue These are Paul's words as the Papists themselves translate them Another way whereby they keep men in darkness is this They cumber mens minds with such a MULTITUDE of Ceremonies and Repetitions in their Prayers that the mind is sufficiently charged to remember how many times over they must say some two or three words nay it 's evident this is no wrong witness their Beads which serve to supply the defect of their memories As I remember there is not less than fifty Orations and Postulations c. which the Priest is to make and act before the Bread be Consecrated when they say Mass and the like doings they have in the most of their Services which I can more desire the Lord would deliver them from than mention The Sixth Reason The present Papal Church is generally if not only at this day gathered of persons unregenerate or not new born as the Scriptures do require new-birth in that case Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The Sixth Reason maintained 1. THe Scripture saith That except a man or any one be born again SO as to be like the winde THAT BLOWETH and that bloweth in such sort as the sound thereof IS HEARD he cannot enter into the Kingdom or Church of God But the many millions of Infants whereof the Papal Church consists mostly if not only in respect of her Members Initiation are not thus regenerate So that the Papal Church is gathered generally of such Persons as are not so regenerate as Persons ought to be and must of necessity be before they be admitted into the Church of Christ The Seed of the Woman or Gospel-Church are all such as have the Faith of Jesus and keep the Commandments of God at least in Profession for that is the thing that is absolutely necessary in order to any Person 's admission into the Church of Christ John 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. Rev. 12. ult Gal. 3. 26 27 28. 2. All the Children of the new Covenant or Church of Christ do DIFFER from the Church under Moses SO as that they each individual do so know the Lord as that they need not in some sort teach one another saying Know the Lord Heb. 8. Jer. 31. But either all or the generality of the Papal Church differ nothing from the Church under Moses in respect of their KNOWLEDGE when admitted into their Church Being such as are not capable of the first or least degree of the knowledge of him 3. There appears no more sign of Regeneration or new-Birth in the Infants or Members of the Papal Church at their admission than there appears in such as the Papists say are not regenerate Now where the Spirit of regeneration is it is not without some demonstrable operation for saith Christ The wind bloweth c. and thou hearest the sound thereof c. SO IS EVERY One that is born of the Spirit So that I conclude That the Infants whom the Papists say they baptize are not born of the Spirit unless they can give some demonstrative sign of it 4. There can be no Regeneration in an ordinary way without preaching the Doctrine of Christ Rom. 10. But the Papal Church is generally if not only gathered without the Word preached in order to the regeneration of the Members before their admission Therefore they are not regenerate in an ordinary way And if they have an extraordinary regeneration let them shew it The Seventh Reason The present Papal Church of Rome maintaineth the Doctrine of Devils and that so violently as that they punish the Non-observation thereof with Excommunication and Death Therefore she is not the Church of Christ This Argument maintained THis Reason or Argument may seem to be harshly laid down yet if it be true there is necessity to propound it And for the truth of it I desire you weigh what followeth 1. To forbid Marriage and to command to abstain from Meats which God hath created to be received of such as believe and obey the Truth this is the doctrine of Devils But it is well known that the Papists do forbid the whole Calling of their Clergy to Marry and thousands beside of those that live in their Monasteries and Nunries c. and this under pain of Cursing and Death You shall hear them speak their own words wherein they do not only prohibit Marriage for ever to such as enter into the Ministry but if any be married and afterwards come into the Ministry they wholly deprive such of the enjoyment of their Yoke-fellows Thus they speak The
cause why the Church requireth chastity in the Clergie and forbiddeth not only fornication but all carnal copulation even in lawful wedlock is to the end that God's Priests be not divided from him by the clogs of Marriage but be clean and pure from all the fleshly acts of copulation And this doctrine they teach from 1 Cor. 7. where if you reade the 4 5 6 7. verses you may easily learn the quite contrary Doctrine Again They teach from 1 Tim. 3. 2. That none shall Marry that come into holy Orders And that if any of the Clergie in other Countries had been permitted in times past to enjoy their Wives yet they now declare it to be against the Apostles Rule And this they say is the Sentence of the Council of Nice But surely Paul's words are clear contrary for he saith A Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife having his Children in subjection c. In further proof of this matter it is upon Record That Greg. 7. An. 1070. did enforce Ministers by Excommunication to leave their Wives And Vrban 2. Anno. 1066. Decreed That it might be lawful to make the Ministers Wives bond-women And Fox recordeth That it was made Felony by the Act of the Six Articles for Ministers to marry Wives Fox p. 1135. And this cruelty Bellarmine defends by a saying of Jerome That a Bishop begetting Children shall be condemned as an Adulterer Now whereas I say they forbid Meats c. I do not mean that it is not meet for the Church to Fast and Pray and in such a sense to forbid meat But for their Church to forbid one kind of meat above another as that we may not eat Eggs in Lent and divers other creatures which God hath created to be received of such as believe For the true way of Fasting is a total fasting for the time unless necessity deny And truly the Papal Fast of Lent is in a manner no Fast which allows the drinking of Wines and the eating to the full of such delicacies as do inflame the flesh as much as Eggs c. which yet the Papists by no means will permit men to eat For my Author tells me That they make the eating of Eggs in Lent a damnable sin Fox p. 1043. I might fill much Paper about their forbidding meats But to proceed The Eighth Reason The present Papal Church of Rome is Mystery Babylon Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The Eighth Reason maintained 1. I Know that generally all that dissent from Rome do account her as in her present state to be Mystery Babylon And truly for my part I have considered of this matter and I find it is so clearly meant of Rome that even the Papists do not wholly exempt her from this Name Yet they deny that Rome as now considered is Mystery Babylon only say they it is to be referred to Rome in her Heathenish estate But thus I reason 2. If the present Papal Church of Rome be not Mystery Babylon then either the Papists or some body else can shew us a People which better deserves that title But this no man can do so far as yet I have learned and therefore as yet I must say The present Papal Church of Rome together with her Daughter Churches is Mystery Babylon And for further proof in this Point I thus reason 3. The present Papal Church hath the Marks of Mystery Babylon therefore she is Mystery Babylon I prove it thus One Mark of Mystery Babylon is a Regiment over the Kings of the Earth Rev. 17. The Woman which thou sawest is that great City which reigneth over the Kings of the Earth This Mark the present Papal Church of Rome hath above all other Witness the Papists own Books T. B. End to Controv. chap. 26 27. where he sets up the Pope above all Kings and Emperors and plainly calls the Popes Kings and Monarchs and the Papal Church he terms an invincible Empress c. Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is great Riches and wordly Pomp. That Rome in her present Church-state hath this Mark her Doctor T. B. is my witness So is Helen Geog. p. 192 193. and Napier Rev. 9. which Authors shew her Riches even of the Clergy only to be quite out of the reach of the best Arithmaticks to pass an Entrado upon it Add to all other witnesses that of Expeperience and it will shew us That when their Church had her domination in this Land they knew where the best Ground lay as the Ruins of their Abbeys do evince Compare all these with Rev. 18. and see if they do not agree Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is She sits upon Nations Tongues and Peoples Rome hath this Mark T. B. in his End to Controversies chap. 26 27. Another Mark of Mystery Babylon is She enslaves the Souls of men and is drunk with blood Now that the Papal Church of Rome hath this Mark I need only to refer my Readers to those large Histories of Sleidan Fox and Benzo the Italian Lastly As I noted it is confessed by the Papists That Mystery Babylon Rev. 17. 18. chapters is meant of Rome only they think to free themselves from the force of that blow by telling us That it 's meant of Rome in her Heathenism and under the persecuting Emperors But this is but a poor shift as may appear by shewing That the Antients do write against Rome as Mystery Babylon after the persecuting Emperors were down for the Papists say That Constatine put an end to the Persecution when he was converted which was about the year 300 and a few odd years at which time the Papists say That Rome was given up to the Pope 1. Jeroms who lived about the fourth hundred writing to Eustoch Marcelus doth apply these words to Rome viz. Fly out of Babylon let every man save his own Soul for Babylon is fallen and is become the Habitation of Devils Yea he saith further as he is quoted by the Protestants That Rome IS the Babylonical Harlot according to the Revelation of St. John appointed for the birth of Antichrist which there should arise and exercise all tyranny and from thence should deceive the whole world with his wicked Wiles And Augustine is most clear in this matter in his Book of the City of God where he calls Rome another Babylon in the West And Babylon in the East first Rome and Rome of Italy second Babylon Willing men to consider That in the beginning of the City of God which was in Abraham's time the first Rome that was Eastern Babylon was builded in Chaldea And about what the first Babylon was destroyed lest the City of God should want her Enemy the second Babylon which is Rome in Italy was erected Chrysostome saith Antichrist shall invade the vacant Empire of Rome and assay to draw unto himself the Empires both of God and man Thus it seems that Rome was accounted Mystery Babylon four or five
hundred years after Christ and if she be not now what she was then in that respect I desire to be informed where that blood-drunken Fornicatrix mentioned Revelation 17. is now to be found The Ninth Reason The present Papal Church hath not those Marks which they themselves assign as the Marks by which the true Church can only be known infallibly Therefore the present Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ Those Marks are 1. ANTIQUITY 2. SUCCESSION 3. VNIVERSALITY of Time and Place 4. VISABILITY 5. SANCTITY 6. VNITY 7. MIRACLES c. These are the Principal The Ninth Reason maintained THat the present Papal Church cannot have the true Mark of Antiquity is thus evidenced viz. The Papal Church is a National Church But no Gospel Church was National in the first Age Therefore no National Church hath the true Mark of Antiquity The strength of this Argument lyeth in the clear difference of the state of the Church under Abraham and Moses to what it was under Christ and his Apostles For The Jewish Church which was to be National took its form in a National way even in the very first Family where it began as appears Gen. 17. where Parents Children and Servants too must all be brought into that Church-state forthwith or not be suffered to co-habit together Which order must be kept in all the Families of the Jews as well in respect of their Servants such as they bought with money as their Children or any other And so the Jewish Church both in its beginning and its continuance acted forth it self in a way suitable to it self But when the Gospel Church began it is very evident that it took its beginning in the division of Families and that by vertue of Christ's Doctrine who affirms That he came to send fire on the Earth not Peace but rather Division For saith he From henceforth there shall be fixâ—â— in one house divided three against two and two against three the Father against the Son and the Son against the Father the Daughter against the Mother and the Mother against the Daughter c. and all this for the Gospel sake Here a man must leave Father Mother Wife and Children For this cause ye shall be betrayed both by Parents and Kinsfolks For this cause the unbelieving Husband will put away his believing Wife And for this cause the Servant may refuse to follow his unbelieving Master being Christ's freeman and yet dwell in his Service as a Servant notwithstanding Thus it 's evident That the Gospel-Church took its beginning in a way quite contrary to the Form of a National Church even by turning the World or Church of the Jews up-side down which caused the Jews to cry out MEN OF ISRAEL HELP This is yet more evident by that thundring Doctrine of the Baptist when he said Think not or begin not to say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father No saith Paul We meaning the Gospel-Church which are of Faith are the Seed of Abraham and Heirs according to Promise For the Promise which chiefly is enjoyed in the Gospel was not made to such as were born after the Flesh but such as are born after the Spirit Whereupon he saith We henceforth know No man after the Flesh or because he descends from the loins of Abraham or any other For if any man be in Christ so as to be a demonstrable or visible Member of his Gospel-Church he is a new-creature Old things are passed away yea the old priviledge of standing in the Church by the Father's interest though the Seed of Abraham himself is now passed behold all things in this respect are become new Whereupon Peter contributeth his sentence and saith Of a truth I perceive God is no respecter of Persons but the Persons accepted upon a Gospel-account so as to be his Church are such as in every Nation fear him and work Righteousness which no Infant can do But what Hath God rejected Infants wholly that now he will not shew them so much favour as afore-time God forbid He hath not shut up his tender Mercies from them wholly or in part For as they are such and dying in their infancy through Adam's transgression so in Christ shall they be made alive Wherefore look how far soever they fall in the first man of the Earth so far they shall be restored by the Lord from Heaven yea the Gift to them by Christ shall exceed the Loss they had by Adam But if they live to years of understanding and become actual sinners against God then the way appointed for the remission of their sins is to repent and be baptized every one of them that they may receive the holy Ghost and so be by it led into all Truth and attain at the end the salvation of their souls through Jesus Christ our Lord. Another Argument whereby it appears the Church of Christ cannot be National is this No man is bound to become a Christian under pain of corporal punishment as Death c. but living peaceably as men no man hath power to compel them to be baptized or to walk in the Christian Profession as is clear from the Texts before recited Now take away Force in matters of Religion and a National Church cannot stand in an absolute National Form this all experience can testifie Again That the Church of Christ at the first or in the first Ages was not National in the first method or way wherein a Church beginneth to be so namely by the admission of Infants into the Church is very evident because it is utterly incredible that the many thousands of Infants of such as in those dayes believed should be admitted into the Church and not so much as the whisper of such a thing to be found in all the holy Writings of the Apostles And beside I have shewed from the Testimony of Vives Augustines Commentor That the Church had not the custom to baptize Infants in old time It is likewise certain if History be true That the Gospel-Church used no compulsion in matters of Faith for more than three hundred years after Christ About which time Constantine ordained grievous punishments for such as spake against Christ and allowed the Christians to use the Unbelievers hardly But God did not bless these doings for Constantine became an Arrian Heretick and persecuted the Bishop that baptized him as also others that continued faithful Hence then I conclude That seeing the present Papal Church of Rome hath not the true Mark of Antiquity Therefore they lose at once the next three Succession Universality and Visibility For Antiquity being wanting no true Succession can be found because the Root of Succession if good must be the Antiquity of it So take Antiquity from them and then wanting that first Age they cannot be found in every Age and not being found in every Age especially the first Age then they lose Visibility as themselves propose it for a Mark of
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