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
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
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
THE BAPTIST AGAINST THE PAPIST OR The SCRIPTURE and ROME in Contention about the SUPREAM SEAT of JUDGMENT in CONTROVERSIES of RELIGION Together with Ten Arguments or Reasons discovering the present Papal Church of Rome to be no true Church of Christ WHEREIN It is also evinced That the present Assemblies of Baptized Believers are the true Church of Jesus Christ By THO. GRANTHAM a Prisoner for Truths sake Luke 16. 29 31. They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one should rise from the dead Ezek. 20. 18 19. But I said unto their children Walk ye not in the Statutes of your fathers c. I am the Lord your God walk in my Statutes and keep my Judgments and do them Joh. 12. 48. The Word that I have spoken the same shall judge you in the last day LONDON Printed in the Year 1663. THE AUTHOR TO THE READER Courteous Reader NOt because I envy those of the Papal Church or desire them any evil Not that I desire they should be exposed to a suffering condition for matters of Religion or that they should be denied any liberty in that respect which I desire my self nor for any other prejudice God knoweth do I publish this small Treatise But because I judge my self concerned at this time to give my Testimony for the Truth against some Papal Tenents for divers causes As first I am at this time under restraint and though nothing hath been laid to my charge yet it is rumour'd by some that I am a Papist yea in this place of my Confinement have I been told to my face by some of the Protestant Clergie that I am a Roman Jesuite And indeed this is an ordinary aspersion which hath been cast upon those in general to whom I am related upon a religious account viz. That we are all Papists or will turn Papists c. and this not so much to our personal prejudice as to the dishonour of that antient way of Truth by us professed Secondly A more particular occasion of the publication of this Treatise proceeded from the Papists themselves in sending Seven Queries to the Baptized Congregations in this County commonly called Anabaptists To which through the importunity of some Friends I formed a brief Answer little thinking I confess that so much contention would have risen thereupon as since I have met with And I likewise confess that the undertaking is such as that it requireth a more fit Instrument than my self to manage it Nevertheless I hope I may say that hitherto what hath come to pass in this contest hath fallen out rather to the furtherance of the Truth for which cause I have thought fit to offer it to the perusal of others so much of it I mean as I conceive is at present needful and that is the substance of what hath passed about the means whereby we must decide or resolve Controversies in Religion It now wants but few months of a year since I sent my final Answer containing a Review of all that had been said in way of Answer to the Queries before in which I produced the Testimony of divers Antient Dictors as concurring with what I had therein spoken and as being directly opposite to my Antagonist But I have heard of late that he is gone out of this Nation so that I expect no more Reply from him And though for divers Reasons hereafter shewed I have not published the whole Discourse which if need be may in due time be brought to light yet I have thought it meet here to set down all the Seven Queries that so if any Christian of suitable endowments for the Vindication of Truth against the opposition that lyeth in the said Queries shall think fit to lay forth his Talent in that Service he may take hold of this occasion wherein to do it for the Queries were not directed to any particular person however I shall joyn to each Query one Antiquery which may serve at this present to blunt the edge of them as they carry an opposition to the Truth The QUERIES The ANTI-QUERIES Query 1. Antiq. 1. VVHether we are to resolve all Differences in point of Religion only out of the written Word of God VVHat Differences in point of Religion can you resolve without the written Word of God and whether the written Word of God be a perfect Rule for matters of Religion Query 2. Antiq. 2. How know you precisely what is the true Word of God Whether some Book must not of necessity speak for it self and whether the Scripture doth not best deserve this priviledge And whether it be not a bold presumption to say there are no holy Books but them which we or you have received for such sith those which we have tell us there are other holy Writings which never yet came to our hands nor to yours Query 3. Antiq. 3. How know you that your Copies and Translations of the Bible are the true Word of God since the Original Writings are not come to your hands What Copies and Translations of the Bible have you that are more true than ours and where are the Original Manuscripts of the Prophets and Apostles Qu. 4. Antiq. 4. Where we differ about the sense of the Word by whom must we be tryed the dead Letter cannot explain it self When we differ about the true Church and about the meaning of Authors by whom must we be tryed They cannot speak for themselves more than the Scripture and whether the Scriptures compared together do not explain themselves also whether it be not an opprobrious and ignominious speech for you to call the Scripture a dead Letter and whether the true lovers of the Scripture ever vouchsafed it such ill and indeed improper language Qu. 5. Antiq. 5. What clear Text have you out of Scripture for the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father the Son or for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday or prohibiting Poligamy or Infant-Baptism And whether there be not as clear Texts to prove unwritten Tradition Purgatory and the real Presence Whether the Baptism of the true Church be not one and whether that one be not expresly found in the Scripture And whether the Scripture doth not prohibit all beside that one And whether the Papists have not confessed in many of their Books that Infant-Baptism is not found in nor grounded upon the Scripture and then whether it be not clear that all the Texts which speak of Baptism do not prohibit Infant-Baptism Also whether Joh. 15. 26. and 14. 26. and 16. 7. be not clear Texts that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son Also whether 1 Cor. 7. 1 2 3. do not as much prohibit one man for having two Wives and one woman for having two Husbands and whether it do not clearly prohibit the latter Also whether there be any that hold the first day under the notion of a Sabbath
with it I am sure that work is so clearly for us in this very point that our Adversaries the Calvinists and Calvin denies it to be his St. Aug. and Tertull. are as clear for us and what you bring out of them clearly answered by Bellarm. de Euchar. And you are to know that it is a general rule amongst the Learned that we are to explicate obscure places by those that are clear if we mean to know the Opinion of any Author it being impossible for any man to write so warily but that sometbing may be objected out of him especially if he have writ much as it is our case which may seem contrary to what he expresly teaches And you had need observe this rule in expounding the Scriptures themselves or otherwise you will meet with a thousand absurdities and contradictions Against the Councils you produce that of Constantinople under Constant Copron. as crying down Transubstantiation But this was a factious Meeting never owned for a Council neither by the Greek nor Latine Fathers and expresly condemned in the Nicene Council and the jest is this Mock-Council was so far from condemning Transubstantiation as you affirm that they swore by the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist to abolish the Worship of Images Something should here have been said concerning Bertram who is said to have opposed Transubstantiation but in the transcription of my Third Paper there was an Errata and the Instance is not material so that what is said about him I will expunge in both Papers You say further against the Authority of Councils That they have contradicted each other in their Decrees about the Laityes communicating in one or both kinds But we grant that the Church may vary in Customs of this nature which being indifferent may be altered as she shall think fit according to several circumstances What we deny is that the Church or General Councils ever made contrary Decrees about the belief of any point of Faith It is no wonder that you have a fling against the Pope after you have been so bold with Holy Fathers and General Councils but I must tell you Though many of our Divines hold him infallible when he speaks ex Cathedra as they call it yet is it not the Opinion of all and consequently no Article of our Faith Only we agree in this That for preserving peace in the Church all are bound so far to submit to the Popes Decrees as not to oppose them until a General Council be called from whose Judgment we admit no Appeal What you say of the wicked Lives of some of them is nothing to the purpose for as wicked Caiphas play'd the Prophet so might the Bishops of Rome with the assistance of the Holy Ghost be true interpreters of God's Word for all their wicked lives such Gratia gratis date which are given for the good of others do not argue his Sanctity that hath them To make you a true Prophet I will here cry out What is become of the living voice of the Church since you have done what you can to discredit her by casting all the dirt you can in her face as it is evident unless you will throw out the Holy Fathers and General Councils the Churches Representatives out of the Church BAPTIST I perceive our Judgments differ concerning the living voice of the Church what it is I have told you That I take it for the present Church and her Pastours in those particular Ages wherein they live You take this living voice to be the Decrees of Councils and Books of the antient Fathers And here I cannot but marvel why you should be willing to Appeal to the Books of the Antients and their written Decrees as a living voice and clear way to decide our Controversies and yet appeal from the Books of the Prophets and Apostles as being but dead Letters and senceless Characters Certainly if any Writings now extant may be called the Churches living voice the Holy Scripture doth better deserve that title than any other Nor will it suffice here to object as it is the Papists usual way that our difference is about the Scripture and the Sense thereof c. for the same difference is found amongst us touching the Books and Sense of Councils and Fathers yea I think I may be bold to say That even the Learned are so much divided concerning them in both respects as that they can never be therein reconciled But is it so that the voice of the Fathers c. who only speak in their Writings is a means or way of equal clearing to decide our differences as the voice of a living Judge in a Case of Law amongst men Then what reasonable man can render a reason that the voices of the Prophets and Apostles though only speaking to us in their Books and Decrees may not be appealed to as a clear way to decide our differences Sith all men professing Christianity must confess that the Prophets and Apostles speak with as much Life and Power Certainty and Authority as any that ever writ since their time No-whither now can you turn your selves but to your selves as I have formerly noted and take upon you to be the only living voice that must without controul interpret Fathers Councils and Scriptures too and when you have done sit down as Judge to give Sentence for your selves and against your opposers Well you have assigned us a Judge of Controversies To wit the Fathers and Councils of the Church long ago deceased and this is a clear way you say to agree all But I have noted that it 's a very cloudy way and that because they could not yet agree themselves for they are opposite each to other to this day insomuch as you are utterly unable to reconcile them since as I have shewed you must not make use of the Scripture to that purpose because before the Scripture can have any authority to any purpose according to your Judgment your Councils must deliver it to us as the Word of God which they cannot do till they be found First holy Fathers and Councils of the Church And secondly at unity among themselves and each with himself And I have asked you How you will effect this difficult work To which you Answer First That General Councils have no such Controversies as I talk of Secondly That when there is such difficulty in any one of the Fathers we must look upon the rest what they say and so follow their unanimous consent for say you if we take them singly no doubt they have erred and these errors we know by their dissenting from the rest I answer first That General Councils have erred and that in matters of Faith is undeniable if Records may be credited rather than you As first The Council of Arimi did err so as to conclude for the Arrian Heresie namely That there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God and sure you account that an errour in
their due estimation And saith Origen We have need to bring the Scriptures for witness for our Meanings and Expositions without them have no credit the discussing of our Judgements must be taken ONLY of the Scriptures Thus you see the Fathers were not of your mind that the Readers of their Books should not try them by the Scripture but the contrary and that as we find them consenting to or dissenting from Scripture not one another as you teach accordingly they advise us to believe or not believe them As I have said it is a cloudy way to appeal to Councils and Fathers so you now prove my saying true for I alledged Augustine as being opposite to you and your Church touching the meaning of Matth. 16. Upon this Rock c. and first you tell me I read him not but I must tell you I read him after a Scholar sufficient and though your reading differ something from his yet they both destroy the received Opinion of your Church concerning that Text for if Christ be that Rock as you confess Augustine there teacheth then it cannot be meant positively of Peter and so not consequently of your Popes My quotation out of Chrysostom in Ps 22. you invalidate by telling me that Book was not writ by him And this I find to be the usual way of Learned-men when the passage alledged is clear and convincing then a suspition must be cast upon the Book c. I could instance the best part of a thousand Books Epistles c. which are intituled under the names of the Antient Fathers amongst which as you observe is reckoned the Book of Dynis the Areopagite which I alledged in my Rejoynder And do not these things contribute something towards the proof of my Assertion namely That it is a cloudy way to appeal to Fathers and Councils to decide Controversies in Religion If then your way be cloudy mine must needs be clear unless you can assign a third way opposit to both for undoubtedly there is a clear way to decide Controversies You again prescribe me a way to find the meaning of the Fathers and that is to explicate their obscure places by such as are plain c. But by your leave we can neither know which of their speeches are obscure or plain without some rule whereby to know this And now what can supply this our necessity For example Augustine is sometimes read affirming the Sacrament to be the real Body and Blood of Christ otherwhiles he is read directly opposit to this And how can you or any body else tell which of these sayings is clear or obscure fith none must be permitted the use of his reason by you in this Controversie and how he should judge according to Faith I know not sith you as yet debar us of that by which Faith NOW cometh namely the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles as contained in the Scriptures PAPIST Something you would say for this living Voice of the Church you once had required as necessary to resolve Differences in Religion but this signifies nothing in our present Query for after all your shifting I cannot perceive that you make use of her Authority in point of Faith which is our Qu. but only to take up other quarrels by exhorting reproving c. and in this also it seems you will be your own Judge whether she follow Christ or no. Three things you affirm in relation to the Churches Authority 1. That she is to rule her self according to Scripture which no body denies 2. That the Church in former Ages is not to be a Rule for after Ages to rule themselves by because she could not foresee the Controversies that rise up afterwards What if the same Errors be revived now which in their times were condemned is not the Judgment of the Church in those dayes a safe President for us to condemn the same Errors Besides Is it not evident that the Pastors of the Church the nearer they were to Christ's time were the better able to judge of Christ's Doctrine You say 3dly That the Church is to be no Rule for those that are out of her communion A strange Assertion As if a clear light as the Church is in holy Scripture with so many marks to know her by as Unity Sanctity Universality Miracles c. were not a good means for him that gropes in the dark to find out his way Look well upon these marks and you will find them to agree Only to the Roman Catholick Church and to no upstart Congregation and consequently that you ought in all reason to give her the hearing in matters of Faith and to have recourse unto her as to the pillar and ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. which place you let slip and this under pain of being accounted a Heathen c. Matth. 18. for though this place doth point out chiefly the obedience which Members of the Church owe her in point of Discipline as you say well enough yet hath it no small force in our present Debate since those that will not hear her Voice when she ecchoes out the Voice of God may well be esteemed by her as a Heathen And in your own sence I suppose you will have your proviso That the Church is to be obeyed only when she ruleth according to God's Word of which you will be Judge too So in conclusion all comes to this That you and your spirit must be Judge of all Disputes And then have not I reason to ask again since I or any body else may challenge as large a share in the Spirit and right Reason as you who shall take up the Quarrel And is not my comparison here very pat That there must needs be as great confusion in your Church as in a Kingdom where every one were left to decide his own case This was not the old way as you may see Deut. 17. 8 9. and Malach. 2. 7. which places you had no mind to take notice of and yet you charge me for letting pass your Instance of St. Stephen concerning the Libertines Alexandrians c. which makes nothing at all for your pretended Evidence of God's Word For though his Judgment might be well taken in expounding Scripture as being full of the holy Ghost and confirming what he said by Miracles as the Scripture tells us he did yet this is not your case for I think you will not arrogate so much to your self What you say of Christ and his Apostles vindicating their Doctrine out of Scripture is very true and our Church doth the same but it is not true that either Christ or the primitive Saints were alwayes wont to send their Proselytes to the Scripture to regulate their Faith Did not Christ himself send St. Paul to Ananias for instruction Had you been of his counsel you would have rather wished him to look into the Word of God and see there what he was to do And when there arose a Debate even in the Apostles dayes about
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
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