the promise for which belonging of the promise Peter was willing to confer Baptism upon some Converts as we may see out of the fore-mentioned place Act. 2.38 39. Act. 2.38 39. as against the Papists denying to the Children albeit they be under the promise and the Covenant of Grace dying without being baptized the life everlasting by reason he that is in the Covenant of Grace or under the promises is in Christ he that is in Christ Eph. 2.12 Act. 4. must necessarily be saved Therefore he that is under the promise of life or in the Covenant of Grace as Children are must necessarily be saved But they have an argument against us Obj. Verily I say unto you except a man he born of water Joh. 3.6 and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Out of which words they conclude that baptism is of that efficacy that none can be saved without it But I answer Resp It is a vain exception because by this water and spirit is nothing else to be understood but the Holy Ghost himself who is of the same nature as water is as to the ablution of our sins Another like expression is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the Holy Ghost who is of a fiery nature in cleansing as Gold seven times refined in the fire Therefore such expressions are metaphorical or figurative and improper and are call'd Hendiadis a like expression there is in Virgil Poculis libamus auro Virgil. We drink out of Cups of Gold Aeneid 1. Arma virumque cano id est armatum virum Joh. 3.3 that is out of golden Cups so that to be born of water and spirit is nothing else but to be born out of a watery or out of a fiery spirit Hence what Christ saith here by way of Hendiadis he expresseth the same in its own proper words a little higher Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. So that hence we may inter by the authority and explaining of our Saviour himself in this place to be understood only the spiritual Regeneration and not the external Ablution of the water As to the second we do utterly deny the Baptism performed by Women to be lawful and irrevocable They have nothing else to alledg only the example of Zipporah Obj. that circumcised her Son Exod. 4.25 26. and so they think a Woman may as lawfully baptize as circumcise I will not answer according to the usual answer of some Divines Ans that Zipporah sinned in doing so because I believe the Almighty God doth never bless men for sin as he did Moses for that doing of Zippora But I answer thus that in the Old Testament circumcision was indifferently performed by any byreason it was not so strictly joyned with the office of Preaching as Baptism is in the New Testament made so by Christ himself Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any one to administer the holy Baptism besides him who is ordained for Preaching Now we are minded to speak of the second Sacrament for we will not regard their assertion of the rest of their five Sacraments which have no ground neither in Scriptures nor in the ancient Fathers which is the Lords-Supper This according to the true Doctrine is nothing else but only a visible sign of an invisible grace by which visible sign that is Bread and Wine 1 Cor. 10.16 17. we receive the body and blood of our Saviour as a seal of the Covenant of Grace tending unto our salvation We do not deny the body and blood of Christ to be really present in this holy Sacrament But we deny the same 1. To be there corporally because the body of our Saviour being circumscriptive and in heavens is not everywhere And then 2. We deny this Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice for the living and the dead Which is my greatest point in this case and I accordingly will endeavour to declare it As to the first the Papists do urge very much their Transubstantiation It is a question and a Controversie very well known but I hope to add some light to it I go on By this Transubstantiation they understand nothing else but the corporal presence of the body and blood of our Saviour under the accidents of Bread and Wine So that they think the substance of those Elements to be turned into the first nothing out of which they were formerly created and the accidents only to remain which acts in the senses of our sight feeling and taste This is the description or 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation upon which we say the same to be quite false and erroneous 1. The name of it nor the matter in it contained is not to be found in Scriptures 1 Cor. 10.17 by reason after the consecration it is still called bread of which we are partakers where not only we are said to be partakers of bread which could not be if it was annihilated but likewise no Papist will admit this Sacrament to be call'd bread after Consecration which nevertheless the Scripture doth 2. The name of it is newly come up nor was it ever heard before the Council of Lateran when Berengarius was forced to recant the truth and fall into a most abominable error as to say that Christs body was eaten and bitten with teeth c. Atteri dentibus in alvum demitti 3. It is a most improper name to a thing yea it is as much to be called Transubstantiation as creation could be called annihilating because Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation of one substance into another as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into water but here the Papists say that one substance doth not become another but that the one which is the bread and wine is annihilated and the other which is the body and blood of Christ is induced under the accidents or species of bread and wine although here likewise they have a thousand distinctions about the introduction or adduction of the body of Christ underneath the accidents which I will pass over so that by this way it must be call'd annihilation of one and introduction of another substance rather than Transubstantiation but because the thing is false the name must be of that same nature Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis 4. There can be no Transubstantiation where the thing that is given in the distribution of the Sacrament is call'd by the ancients a sign a figure because none can be a sign or a figure of himself as Christ should be if he should be given as present corporally or bodily under the accidents Austin Now Austin saith Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum â—um daret figuram corporis sui The Lord was pleased to say This is my body
by all surely the Catholick Church it self must be this which was everywhere always and was or will be found amongst all Nations of the World by reason the thing ruled cannot be narrower than the Rule nor Faith cannot be found but in Believers I cannot but confess that there are many particular Congregations many Provincial or National Churches amongst which one may be and is sounder than the other yet notwithstanding this none of these Churches can be call'd Catholick if we take this word in a strict signification Being they are only parts or members making up one general body none of which can be call'd without a contradiction Universal except one would grant unto a hand or a foot the name of a whole body From hence we may see that the Roman Church being it is a particular one albeit it should be sound and Orthodox as it is not cannot appropriate unto it self exclusively to other Churches professing Christ the name of a Catholick or Universal Church I confess I am not so rigid as to cut off the Roman Church it self from the latitude of the Universal Church because besides that people living in that same Communion yet not formally Papists which in the simplicity of their hearts do profess God and our Saviour and believe in him and in order to that do work out their salvation as well as they can although many of them neither understand the matter nor the circumstances of it by reason of their unavoidable or invincible ignorance can arrive to eternal salvation being it is truth That God is no respecter of persons Act. 10.34 35. But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him We do likewise yield that the Roman Church may be called a Church although not in the moral yet in the physical sense just as an Adultress doth not lose the name of a Wife albeit she loseth the name of an honest Wife But now because the Court of Rome will have their Church to consist either in the Pope or in the Council or else in them both therefore we will speak of it as it is considered in that kind and consequently shew and declare the same to be false and erroneous It is true that the Church taken in that kind cannot be but as they say in Schools a representative one nevertheless because the rest of that communion are bound to obey it as an infallible one therefore we take the denomination a potiori and so affirm the same to be false and non-Catholick yea none at all It was not enough for the Papists to pronounce all those Churches that hold no communion with them Hereticks and so to shut up the Gates of Heaven before them but they were and are so bold as to affirm their Church to be infallible and without error It is indeed a great postulatum which is not only false in it self but also a great cause why the rest of the Churches will not nor can hold communion with them And that I may pass it by that no particular Church as the Roman is can be call'd infallible likewise it is as sure that they according to the way of the Athenians do not know whom they worship and so erect an Altar To the unknown God. Act. 17.23 In vain do any dispute about the propriety or priviledg of a thing when they can have no certain knowledg about the subject it self In vain do they affirm their Church to be Infallible when they cannot tell where and which this Church may be because in this matter we may see Pares aquilas pila minantia pilis one contradicting another Some of them as namely the Sorbonists do place it in the Council others as Jesuits only in the Pope some again say that it doth consist in them both jointly that is in the Pope and Council Chuse any side you please and take hold either of one or of the other sentiment you will find your self to stagger and being set in the midst of doubtfulness with Masius of Sylvaducis you shall not know where to turn you May be you will perceive from whence you have declined but not whither you should go because after you have made choice of either of their meanings you will find your self intangled with many difficulties out of which you shall not be able to free your self and so you will find your self to offer a sacrifice unto an unknown god This I will endeavour to shew briefly Suppose now you should yield that the Church doth consist in the Council only there you shall find presently some of that same Communion contradicting that But having past over this I may ask such a man Who can know this Council to be infallible Because first Ex partibus homogeneis nihil heterogeneum potest constari out of things which are of that same nature nothing can be made of a diverse nature All the members making up the Council were fallible How can it be then that they should become infallible when they are gathered into one Synodical body And if this infallibility came but then to the Council when it came to be a Council I pray Where was it before in what part of the World did it uphold it self By what Tubus opticus or by what insensible transpiration did this good infallibility come down upon the Fathers of the Council or what shall become of that infallibility after the Council is dissolved into what place shall it betake it self to rest None can give an account Then how shall you know that all they that were gathered in the Council have been lawfully baptized or baptized at all because you are not certain of the Ministers or the Priests intention upon which hangeth the efficacy of the Sacraments how that they are canonically ordained and not per saltum how that they have not intruded themselves by Simony all which thou must believe with a Divine Faith before thou canst embrace the decrees of the Council for infallible ones Moreover if the infallibility of the Church do consist in the Council then of necessity there should be always extant a general Council so that the diffident parts might have a free entrance in order to make a disquisition of their quarrel and likewise a determination and so live in peace But where is there such a one And suppose there should be always a Council in esse which nevertheless is impossible yet how should you know this Council not to be partial and not such a one as the Council of Ariminum neither subject to correction by reason many former Councils have been mended by the later as Austin tells us May be you will make this exception Christ promiseth unto his Disciples Joh. 16.13 and so consequently unto his Church That the spirit of truth shall guide them into all truth and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. 16.18 Well said Christ did promise the holy Spirit unto his Disciples but
think he could be perswaded of the authority of Scriptures not by the authority of the Church nor by the perswasion of Moses or the Prophets but by the internal truth speaking in his heart Which is the holy Spirit And let them not make an instance against us that every one pretends the holy Spirit by reason pretension maketh no prejudice to truth Neither is the question betwixt us and the Papists as betwixt admitting the authority of the Scripture and denying the same by reason both of us do admit the same and then the question ariseth how or by what way we may be perswaded that these Scriptures which we embrace as divine are not prophane And if we or they answer more agreeably let every impartial Christian be a judg We conclude therefore as this question to be unworthy of a Christian man If the holy Bible be the Word of God so another assertion of a Jesuit Sambar de fide orthodoxa called Sambar to be very foolish viz. that the Protestant Churches have no Scriptures For besides that he defends this proposition for no other end but to escape the strength of the arguments derived out of the Scriptures likewise he confirmeth this proposition by no other medius terminus or reason but because the Protestant Church having no notes of a true Church is false and so she can have no Scripture being the Scriptures dependeth from the Church both in their material and in their formal part Whereas both the argument and its probation is false and they foolishly petunt principium take that for granted which we utterly deny viz. that the Scriptures and their sense doth depend from the authority of the Church as we did touch this point somewhat higher Moreover the Jesuit by this assertion doth shew his desperate cause by reason none of the ancient Fathers did deny the Scriptures to any Heretick as they suppose us to be that they might shew his case plain and Austin saith that the Scriptures are not belonging as proper to one Aug. lib. 3. contr Ma. Arian but that they are common witnesses of both the sides And if we would be so rude we could change the scene and affirm that the Papists themselves have no Scripture as to the formal part because we did plainly shew a little higher their Church not only to be false and erroneous but none at all But being I am not afraid of their arrows which they can take out of the Scriptures I will not deny them the Bible Having thus far secured the Sentiment of the Protestant Churches about the authority of Scriptures I descend to the proprieties of them I affirm therefore the holy Scriptures to be perfect as well touching the perfection of parts as of degrees and thence to be sufficient to our salvation The Law of God is perfect saith David Psal 119. and the sufficiency of it is shown by the Apostle in the forementioned words 2 Tim. 3.16 The accession of the New Testament to the old maketh no prejudice to the perfection and sufficiency of Scriptures because he that declared all the counsel of God spoke nothing other than what Moses did say and the Prophets as we writ before Hence the old Fathers said very well As the New Testament is hidden in the old so the Old Testament is declared in the new neither gradus variat speciem doth a degree change the nature of things that are of the same kind Neither do we dispute with the Papists of this or the other part of Scriptures but of the whole Canon as it is made by the Apostles declared by the ancient Church and enumerated by Hierom. Hierony in prol Gal. They are not therefore to commit a fallacy of division And as we do justly cut off from this perfection and sufficiency of Scriptures the books call'd Apocrypha by reason they contradict themselves and the holy Scripture neither were they found in the Jewish Church unto which were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3.2 So we reject the distinction of the Papists betwixt the books Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical by reason a Canon cannot be changed And for this reason we do very little esteem Traditiones non scriptas not written Traditions because out of that is written Joh 20.31 2 Tim. 3.15 we may have sufficient instructions for the life-eternal To refer unto these Traditions the several Orders of Fryers and the sheaving of their Crowns the words of Christ John 16.12 I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now is a very great folly Because if this was the meaning of Christ he could very easily have called a Barber and commanded the heads of those Disciples to be shaven But may be he could not by reason of their baldness Besides that Monks Hieronimus whose duty was to weep and not to teach as an old Father saith were not shaven for a sign of their honour and pre-eminence but for a sign of their penitence For the last Psal 19.8 Rom. 16.4 the Scriptures are easie to be understood The Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes and whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Which could not be if the Scripture was not easie and light We affirm therefore that as those things which are absolutely necessary to salvation are few so they are plainly set down in the Scriptures But as for other questions I do not deny such things to be found in the Scriptures that can afford work enough for a human wit. Namely as one saith The holy volumes are of such a nature Chrysostomus that as well a lamb may wade in it as an Elephant swim Being then that the holy Scriptures are perspicuous as it is evident out of reason testimony and the consent of the ancient Fathers therefore the Protestants proceed very lawfully in attributing judicium discretionis or a judgment of discretion to every true Christian So that every believer by the often reading of the Word of God and by the conferring of one place of Scripture with the other may interpret the Gospel 2 Pet. 1.20 21. because no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for it came not by the will of man but by the holy Ghost As for the Fathers of the ancient Church and the four Primitive Councils we imbrace them as interpreters of the holy Scriptures yea we affirm likewise that they may bind subordinately to Scriptures our conscience but not force them to the faith ligant non obligant yet we deny whether the Fathers or the Council or the Roman Pope to be a Judg of the Controversies about matters of faith Austin Fatetur Andradius contra Kâ—mnitium Defens Concil Triden l. 2. Bellar. sacra scriptura regula decidendi certissima tutissimaque est Heb. 4.12 but only the Holy Ghost speaking in his Word
as the things extraordinary must not be compared with the things ordinary because the Disciples had not only the matter but also the words from the indictment of the Holy Ghost so the Churches of our later times Gal. 1.8 and 6.21 2 Tim. 3.16 are bound to the Doctrine of Scriptures which are given by Inspiration of God and are not only profitable but sufficient also for all kind of holy instructions which if the Council doth follow there is no doubt but it shall have the assistance of the Holy Ghost 2. When Christ saith the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church he doth not understand any particular Church or their Bishops but the Militant Church dispersed through all the World and that this cannot err in matters fundamental we willingly allow 3. Whence do you know that the Holy Spirit acts a praeses in every Council by reason the Ariminum Synod may have the name of a Council as well as the Nicene 4. Who can satisfie you that the members of a Council do speak according to truth and by the inspiration of God rather than partially or that their Decrees are framed more by the weight of Reason and Scriptures than by the multitude of Votes or that it is not such a Council as the Tridentine was where the Holy Ghost as the Bishop of Fifechurches Episcopus quinque Eccles a member of that Synod saith was brought over from Rome into Trident in the Bags of the Roman Veredary and he staid out longer when the Waters did rise but came sooner after they were fallen so the Holy Spirit was afraid either to be wet or to be drowned 5. At last a Papist should proceed very disorderly if he being asked about the infallibility of a Council from whence he could prove it should betake him to Scripture because we ask them antecedently to the Word of God of this infallibility of the Church by reason it is her Office as well to make a Canon as to give authority to the Scriptures being their assertion is this That the authority of Scripture as to us doth depend on the authority of the Church But that which giveth authority to another thing cannot mutuate his own from it Hence you may see with what difficulties they intricate themselves that place the Church and its infallibility in the Council But neither those have lesser ones that settle the same in the Pope alone Although this sentiment is very foolish and consutes its own self by reason of its absurdity being it places the Church which is a congregation of many in one man yet we shall proceed in our proposition will run on our race For the most part of the Jesuits do hold this sentence and affirm That the Pope like the Pythia of Delphos only by himself may and can frame Decrees and expose them to the belief of the people Be it so that this Infallibility doth reside with the Pope the same difficulties will come again For how will you be perswaded that the Pope hath been Popable because he could be not Baptized He could have occupied the See by force by Simony he could be a Woman as Johanna was and not a man all which if it be present the Pope is no more a Pope Then how can you know that the Pope when he was going to frame his Decretals did use the usual and necessary preparations as Prayers and Fasting for seven days c How that he made them Motu proprio as the Roman Court saith that is by his own Will and not by the perswasion of the Chamber all which if it be deficient the Decretals and Constitutions are of no value nor pronounced out of the Cathedra or Pulpit and so neither binding the Consciences nor Infallible Further By what Argument will you be perswaded that this Infallibility doth not belong as well to the Bishop of Paris or Mantua as to the Bishop of Rome and so that this infallibility is not auferible from the Roman Bishop Gerson de auferibilitatae Pape of whose Auferibility Gerson did write a Treatise all which you must believe if you will take his Decretals for infallible At last how one single man can be infallible in matters of Faith cannot be understood because he hath neither any promise of it nor hath proved himself to be such an one as is clear and manifest by many examples May be you will betake your self to that vulgar distinction of the Pope pronouncing in his Chair or in his Hall out of the Pulpit and without the Pulpit so that he may be call'd Infallible as to the first but not as to the second But you 'll find very little comfort in that same distinction because besides that it cannot be defined how one and the same man should contradict himself without fear or coaction in the same matters likewise the Pope who can deceive being out of the Pulpit should take advice from himself as sitting in it that he might not be mistaken or else the Cardinals if they would have the holy Father to be without blame should bind fast this good old man to the Pulpit with chains as another Prometheus to a Caucasus that he should not stir from this Cathedra and so speak always truth But it is over-true that the holy Popes did err most abominably as pronouncing out of the Pulpit as it is shewn both by Papists and Protestants Platina de vitis Pontificum Romanorum and is to be seen in John in Stephanus in Formosus and others which are to be read of in Platina of the lives of the Roman Popes 2. They cannot tell us what they do understand by this Cathedra or Pulpit for as to a material Pulpit it can contribute nothing to the infallibility of the Pope or else it could flow in as well upon a Herdsman as the Pope if it should work by its Physical and internal virtue And as to a moral Pulpit of which Christ makes mention when he speaketh of the Fulpit of Moses nothing else can be understood by it besides the Holy Scriptures and if the Pope pronounce accordingly to them we will freely obey him 3. The Holy Spirit upon whom as they say the infallibility of the Pope dependeth is not bound to any place but bloweth where he pleaseth Others seeing no security to be found in the former distinction did commence another viz. That the Pope cannot err in matters of Law but he can be deceived in matters of fact But this likewise is a broken Cane and whosoever leaneth his hand upon it will be deceived This distinction was found out by those that are call'd in the Popish Church Jansenists for to heal that wound that was inflicted on them by Alexand the VII by reason of the famous five Articles of Janseniusâ— the Bishop of Ypres but nevertheless it hath nothing of truth in it self For 1. when the Pope pronounceth any thing as to the matters of Faith he doth not only look