stedfastly concluded with my self as soon as God would grant me an opportunity to associate my self in the Protestant Church and reject the Roman Idolatry Which I accordingly have done and having renounced the Popish Religion have adjoyned my self unto the body of our Saviour Christ Jesus that is unto the true Protestant Church Whose truth I am going to shew now as shortly as I can and that by this argument That Church which doth vindicate the authority of the Scriptures defends the proprieties of them and teacheth according to the Scriptures is a true Church but the Protestant Church doth so The Major is firm and without contradiction The Minor is to be proved which I am endeavouring to do Neither will I be so Scripturary as that I should reject the old Fathers and the Primitive Councils I will alledg them likewise as bearing witness unto truth which cannot be overthrown As to the first The Protestant Church doth vindicate the authority of Scriptures when she denieth the same to depend from the authority of the Church not so much as to us Robert Bellarmin seeing that these who affirmed without any limitation Bell. de V. D. l. 1. c. 46. the Divinity of Scriptures doth depend from the authority of the Church did not speak soberly enough he endeavoured to mollify the Proposition with this distinction viz. that the Scriptures must be considered either in themselves or in respect unto us As they are considered in the first manner they do not depend from the authority of the Church but as they are in the second But as the distinction is vain because every authority is Relative and is not so much to be considered in it self as in respect of the object so likewise the supposition is false viz. That the authority of Scriptures in respect or in relation unto us doth depend from the Church But before I come to the demolishing of this assertion we will consider the reason why Papists say and believe so And indeed I can find no other besides this that they seeing themselves unable for resisting the Arguments of the Protestants which are drawn out of the Scriptures endeavouring to pervert the sense of them asserting that the same dependeth from the interpretation of the Church and so consequently are constrained to affirm that also the authority of Scriptures dependeth from the Church of which Scriptures nor of the right meaning of them nothing can be certain without the Tradition of the Church And by this same they very handsomely tread in the footsteps of the old Hereticks of whom one thus speaks The Hereticks when they come to be argued by the Scriptures they presently fall to the accusing of them as if they could not be from or of a sufficient authority or not so to be understood and of which no certainty can be had without Tradition Here is the true Protraicture of our modern Papists But to the thing it self We deny the authority of Scriptures to depend any way from the authority of the Church but only from the holy Spirit speaking within the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.21 2 Tim. 3.16 17. by reason he is the author of them and so he doth endue them with an irrefragable authority And as Christ desires no testimony from any besides from the Father so likewise his word which he hath been pleased to leave upon earth instead of his person And as it is very unreasonable that the Kings Proclamation should depend from a Crier or a Rule from a thing that is ruled or that the Sun should borrow its brightness from that Orb or Vortex which it is contained in so it is very disagreeable to affirm that the Scriptures should depend from the authority of the Church The Church is a Candlestick the Word of God is a Candle as our Saviour declareth Luke 8.16 Now as a Candlestick doth contribute nothing at all to the light of the Candle so neither doth the Church to the authority of Scriptures We do not reject the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in that case by reason the Church leads us unto the Gospel as the Samaritan Woman did lead her fellow-citizens to Christ as Austin saith yet for all that none of them can be call'd the cause of our faith but an instrument Yet the Papists do object against us viz. 1 Tim. 3.15 That the Church is call'd the pillar and ground of the truth and from thence they bring in this conclusion that she is the only cause from whom the authority of the Scriptures doth depend But very foolishly because first that I may pass by the Observation of Camero who affirmeth these words to belong unto the 16 verse by reason there is to be found in that verse a Copulative Particle which otherwise should be to no purpose c. the Apostle doth speak of the Church considered as a house and then sheweth which is the chiefest pillar or ground of the same and indeed if we speak reasonably a house cannot be a pillar but a pillar is in a house It is secondly to be observed that by this pillar is not to be understood an Architectonical but a Political one not one that should uphold by its strength the authority of Scriptures but one upon which the Proclamations and Constitutions of the Supreme King are affixed Neither is the exception of Bellarmin against this distinction of any value viz. That by this way the Church may be as well call'd a Library as a Pillar by reason we do affirm that the office of the Church is not only to keep the books as it is of a Library but to expose the Contents of the same to the view of people and to under-teach them in the way of their Superiors will which belongs to a pillar The Church then can be an external Motive unto us that the Scriptures are of divine authority but cannot perswade us unto it by reason it is only the propriety and the business of the holy Ghost whom the Lord joyneth with his word Ps 59.21 when he saith My spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Austin speaketh very handsomely to that purpose Lib. de Confess speaking of the authority of Scripture But how shall I be perswaded to believe this Moses indeed did say so it is true he said but he is gone and although he should be present and talk Hebrew to me I should not understand what he meant but if he should speak Latin I should understand But by what means should I know that he speaketh truth Therefore inwardly inwardly I say in the Cabinet of my heart not the Greek nor the Hebrew nor the Latin neither the Barbarian truth but he that without the sound of lips or the noise of syllables should tell me he speaketh truth and I should say to this this man You speak truth You may see Christian and impartial Reader how Austin did
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
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