The Baptist Against the Papist, Treatise · Part 1
The FIRST PART ſheweth, the SCRIPTURE and ROME to be in Contention about the SUPREAM SEAT of JUDGMENT in Controverſies of RELIGION.
THe firſt of all Controverſies is founded upon this Query: What is the authoritative Judge of Controverſies? And indeed till there be ſome agreement in this point, there can be no expectation of any fruitful iſſue of any Controverſie.
Now all Controverſies amongſt the ſons of men, are reduceable to one of theſe two heads, namely, things humane, or, things divine; things preciſely pertaining to this life, or things which only pertain to that which is to come; concerns of a ſecular conſideration, or concerns of a religious conſideration. And according to the nature of theſe Controverſies, ſuch ought the Judge for deciſion thereof to be.
Concerning this Judge of Religious Controverſies, there are divers opinions. Some ſay that the Light, or that of God in Every Man, is this only infallible Judge of all Religious Controverſies. But if this be admitted, a multitude of inconveniences muſt needs follow, of which this is not the leaſt, That there can be no end of Controverſies, becauſe, if every man have this Judge of all Debates in himſelf, and he aver, that what he ſaith and doth is according to the voice of this Judge (or, that of God in him) no man can take in hand to judge contrary thereunto, without becoming the Judge's Judge, and ſo violate the Rule propoſed. For this opinion refers not doubtful matters to that of God in ſome men, or a ſelect number of men, but to that of God in every man.
There is another Opinion, which ſaith, That amongſt all men which pretend to own Chriſt, and challenge to themſelves the title of his Church, and yet do deny each other to have an intereſt in that title; That amongſt all ſuch parties of the ſons of men, the only infallible and authoritative Judge of their Controverſies about Religion, is the LORD Himſelf, as he ſpeaketh by his Spirit in the holy Scriptures; together with right Reaſon: or thus, which is all one, The Apoſtles and Prophets, as they ſpeak in their holy Writings, are the onelyonly infallible authoritative Judge in theſe Controverſies. Yet three things are in this Opinion allowed: firſt, That the living voice of the Paſtors (with the Church) in their reſpective Ages wherin they live, are of great importance in order to the terminating ſtrife in the Church, as a Church. Secondly, That Records of Antiquity are of ſome uſefulneſs for the reſolving ſome Controverſies, and for the better diſcovery of ſome Errors, yet not ſo abſolutely neceſſary, but that the Church may ſufficiently reſolve her Controverſies without them. Thirdly, That there is a Judgment of Science to be allowed every man, as touching all things which he chuſeth or refuſeth in matters of Religion, to be uſed with moderation and diſcreet ſubjection. And this is the Opinion to which for my part I do adhere.
There is another Opinion which ſaith, That the Papal Church of Rome is the Supream Judge and Catholick Moderatrix of all Diſputes in matters of Faith, and that All are bound to hear and obey her Voice under pain of Damnation; and that the Scriptures, as taken in the ſecond Opinion, is not the Judge of Controverſies. Now this is the Opinion which at this time I am to examine, which in much ſeriouſneſs I humbly purpoſe to do, and leave it to the ſober conſideration of all men.
And for the better diſcharge of this duty, it is meet we ſhould underſtand what the Papiſts mean by the Church of Rome. And this I find, that under that title they would involve the whole Church of Chriſt from the Apoſtles dayes until this preſent time, at leaſt all the Faithful ſince the time that Paul declares the Roman Church to have been famous, as Rom. 1. 8. But this is the very thing denied by us: for though we willingly grant that there was a very famous Church at Rome, when Paul wrote his Epiſtle to them; yet it followeth not, that there is ſuch a Church there now, or that all that ever from that time to this have walked in the ſteps of true Faith, muſt needs be ſuppoſed to have been Members of the Roman Church, or rather of the Church of Rome (ſo called) eſpecially ſince it was Papal. So that in this Controverſie they muſt be content to define the Church of Rome on this wiſe, (viz.) All that in any Age ſince Chriſt, was of the ſame Faith and Practice in things religious, which is at this day found in the Papal Church of Rome, and thoſe only, are the perſons of whom the Papal Church of Rome doth conſiſt. And indeed this is as much as they can reaſonably deſire; for if thoſe holy men who lived in times paſt, were of a Faith and Practice contradiſtinct to that which Rome hath now received, Then may not the preſent Papal Church without wrong, challenge them to be of their Church? As for example: Paul, who bore witneſs for Chriſt at Rome, and the Chriſtians there in his dayes, was of the Church of Chriſt at Rome; yet we deny that they were any part of the Papal Church of Rome.
The Church of Rome therefore, defined as before, I do deny to be the infallible authoritative Judge of all Controverſies about matters of Faith or Religion: And I do further ſay, That the Scriptures and right Reaſon, as laid down in the ſecond opinion, much more deſerves to be received for this ſupream Judge of Controverſies, than the Papal Church of Rome: and that there is not an other Umpire that can ſo effectually decide the Controverſies of Religion, which depend between ſuch parties of men as lay claim to the Title of Chriſt's Church, and yet deny each other to have an intereſt therein.
And how far forth the truth in this Point hath been evidenced in that pro and con Diſcourſe (ſo far as it relateth to the firſt of them) which hath been occaſioned by the writing of the Seven Queries I have before ſpoken of, is here offered to the Conſideration of all ſober men, that profeſs to own the Glorious Goſpel of the bleſſed God and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt. The firſt Query of the Seven was this, propounded by the nameleſs Papiſt.
PAPIST.
Whether we are to reſolve all differences in point of Religion, only out of the written Word of God?
BAPTIST.
To which Queſtion theſe enſuing Anſwers were given before I received the Adverſaries laſt Paper, which, with the Anſwers thereunto, I will tranſcribe verbatim. I ſay the Anſwers were,
That the word Controverſies being underſtood of ſuch Controverſies only as depend between thoſe parties of men who deny each other to be the Church; that then there is no other way whereby WE can reſolve thoſe Controverſies, but by the aſſiſtance of God's Spirit ſpeaking to us [through the undoubted Prophets, and Apoſtles, and Primitive Churches] in the lively Oracles of God, the Scriptures of 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 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 Theſe were both General Councilsfor 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 point of Faith. Secondly, The Council of Epheſus did err ſo, as to conclude for the Eutichian Hereſie, namely, That the Body of Chriſt was not of one Subſtance with ours; and is not this an errour in point of Faith? Or will you ſay, that theſe things were never contradicted and cenſured by other Councils? Theſe things are not denied by your eminent Diſputant. See the Book intituled, Certamen Religioſum. So then it appears, that General Councils have erred, and contradicted each another in very high points of Faith.
Moreover, as to the things whereof I chiefly ſpake in my laſt Paper, it is manifeſt that Councils have contradicted one another about the Sacraments; for the Council of Conſtance, confirmed by Pope Martin the Fifth, doth curſe the Laity, or excommunicate ſuch as receive the Sacrament in both kinds. And yet by the Council of Baſil, the Laity are allowed to receive it in both; which Council was alſo confirmed by a Pope, namely, Felix the Fifth. Sure one of theſe Councils muſt needs err. But you have a way to ſalve this errour (ſuch as it is) and that is to tell me, That the Church may vary in cuſtoms of this nature. Sure this is a corrupt opinion, by which it will follow, That we have no certainty of, nor conſtancy in any Ordinance of Chriſt; for if the Church have power to take the Cup away, ſhe hath power alſo to take the Bread away; for certainly ſhe hath as much to do with the one, as the other. But truly this your variation, as it is clear beſide the Inſtitution of Mat. 26 1 Cor. 11Chriſt, and the Doctrine of Paul, ſo it hath in a manner deſtroyed both Baptiſm, and the Supper of the Lord, as is evident by the practice uſed in divers of your Maſſes, where the People partake neither of the Bread nor Cup. As alſo your Peda-Rantiſm, hath in a great meaſure defrauded the Sons of men of the Baptiſm of Repentance.
But be pleaſed to conſider, that this your ſacrilegious diviſion of Cyprian Serm. Penet.this Sacrament, is condemned by Cyprian, Gelaſius, and others. Firſt, Cyprian ſaith, How can we exhort the People to ſhed their blood for Chriſt, if we deny them the Blood of him?Gelaſ. conſec. Diſt. 2.
The diviſion of this Mystery cannot be without great Sacriledge, ſaith Gelaſius.
Again, you cannot be ignorant how the Council of Carthage, decreed the Books of Tobit, Judith, Eccleſiaſticus, Sapience, and Maccabees, ſhould be received for Canonical, notwithſtanding they were rejected out of the ſacred Canon by the Council of Laodicea; and here by the way I may take notice, how you would have me walk by ſuch a rule as you your ſelf do not obſerve; for you propoſe the Judgment of thoſe who lived neareſt to the Apoſtles times, as my ſafeſt rule to walk by, ſuppoſing they knew the Mind of God, or Chriſt, better than thoſe that came after; but then why do you reject the Judgment of the Laodicean Council, which is more antient than that of Carthage, which yet you follow in receiving the Books of Maccabees into your Canon of holy Scripture.
Secondly, It is marvellous to ſee, what work you make in reconciling the Fathers without the Scriptures. And ſeeing you are ſo hardy as to undertake this task without Scripture, as undoubtedly you ſee you muſt, or elſe grant, that the Scripture muſt be that whereby we muſt decide all Controverſies in Religion; for certainly, if we muſt decide all the Fathers Controverſies in Religion with or by the Scripture, it is not then very likely that either we or they ſhould decide ours without them: but I ſay, ſith you have undertaken to decide the Fathers Differences without Scripture, pray tell me, before you meddle with their Differences, how you know them to be holy Fathers of the Church? can you prove them Church-members without Scripture? I believe this is as hard a task as to reconcile their Differences without Scripture; and yet this alſo muſt you do, before you can look upon the Scripture as any Rule for either them, or your ſelf.
You tell me, if I take the Fathers ſingly, no doubt they have erred: yet you ſay I muſt follow their unanimous Conſent, (a pretty Paradox) Follow their Conſent! in what? why ſay you, in their Interpretation of Scripture. Of Scripture! Why there is no ſuch thing as yet for them to interpret; for you know (that by your own direction) we have laid by the Scripture, and muſt reconcile theſe Fathers by themſelves. Miſerable Guide! haſt thou not led me into a Labyrinth, and run thy ſelf into a ſufficient Maze? I'le back again and ſee how theſe Fathers themſelves direct me in this difficult point. And firſt I meet with famous Auguſtine, who tels me how he took notice of the Fathers that were before him. Saith he,
My conſent without exception I owe not to any Father, were he never Aug. de Nat. & Grat.ſo well learned, but only to the Canonical Scripture: For whereas the Lord hath not ſpoken, who of us can ſay it is this or that? and if he do ſay ſo, how can he prove it? Yea, ſaith he, I require the voice of the Shepherd reade me this matter out of the Prophets, Pſalms, the Gospel, or Aug. in Iohn. Tract. 94.the Apoſtles Epiſtles. Neither (ſaith he) ought we to take the diſpenſations OF ALL MEN, how CATHOLICK SOEVER they be, or be they never ſo commendable as we take the canonical Scriptures, as though we may not (ſaving the honour that's due to ſuch men) reprove or refuſe any thing of their Writings, if we find they meant otherwiſe than the Verity doth allow, by the help of God found by us, or by others. Again, he ſaith, I am not moved with Cyprian's Epiſtles; for Aug. ad Fortunat.I do not take the Letters of Cyp. as the Canonical Scripture, but I do try his Writings BY THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURE; and whatſoever in them doth agree with the Authority of the holy Scripture, I do receive it with his Commendation; and whatſoever doth not——I do by his good leave refuſe it.
And for further teſtimony of Auguſtine's integrity, hear what he ſaith of himſelf: Truſt not me, (ſaith he) nor credit my Writings, as if they were Canonical Scripture, but whatſoever THOU findeſt in the Word, although thou didst not believe it before, yet ground thy Faith on it now; and whatſoever thou readeſt of mine, unleſs thou know it certainly to be true, give no certain aſſent unto it. Again, he thus teacheth, We Auguſt. Prolog. l. 3. de Trin.muſt be partakers of other mens Writings, wholly after the manner of Bees; for they flie not alike to all Flowers, nor where they ſit do they ſnatch all quite away, but ſnatching ſo much as may ſerve to their honey-making, they take their leave of the reſt. Even ſo we, if we be wiſe, having gotten ſo much of others as is ſound and agreeable to Truth, we will leap over the reſt. Which rule, if we keep in reading and alledging the Fathers words, we ſhall not ſwerve from our Profeſſion, the Scriptures ſhall have the ſovereign place, and yet the Doctors of the Church ſhall loſe no part of their due eſtimation.
And ſaith Origen, We have need to bring the Scriptures for witneſs, Orig. in Jer. hom. 1.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 the neceſſity of Circumciſion, Act. 15. did they not aſſemble the Church, and ſo pronounce Sentence conciliariter, with a viſum eſt Spiritui ſancto & nobis?
BAPTIST.
[It is here worth noting how you diſpute beyond the due bounds of the Query, which, as it concerns you Papists and us Baptiſts, hath no relation to the Differences which ariſe in the Church, as ſuch, and indeed you go amiſs in this matter throughout the whole Diſcourſe.]
Here you ſeem to acknowledge, that the Church ought to rule according to Scripture; but you will allow me to judge whether ſhe do ſo or not. But I anſwer, that there is a Judgment of Science, as well as a Judgment Authoritative; the latter I know cannot be exerciſed by me, nor any other Member of the Church, becauſe this Power lyeth in the Church as imbodied together; but the former, to wit, a Judgment of Science or Knowledge, is particular to each individual, and ſo my ſelf, if a Member of the Church, am allowed the exerciſe thereof, even in matters of Religion, 1 Cor. 10. 15. I ſpeak to wiſe men: judge ye what I ſay. The Apoſtle doth not here give, any wiſe man at Corinth leave to judge of that which he ſaid, ſo as to cenſure what he had delivered, yet he muſt exerciſe his underſtanding to judge of what Paul had ſaid, thereby to find out the verity of what was ſpoken. But yet I do confeſs, that our caſe, and the caſe of Chriſtians then, do differ: for Paul was a Foundation-layer, a Maſter-builder, (ſo that the Members might not ſo well judge then, as now, yet) the Church now is to build upon the Foundation which is laid already: and you know that I have in my Rejoynder acknowledged, that it very nearly concerns particular Members of the Church, to have great regard to the Judgment of the Church, when, after ſerious debate, they deliver their Sentence in any point diſputable. And further (as touching your Church) you tell me anon, that even a Heathen may judge of the holineſs of your Church, by the Law of Conſcience; and then, why may he not by the ſame Law judge your Church concerning her unholineſs? nay verily, he muſt be able to ſpeak both wayes, or elſe he hath no Judgment. And if a Heathen have this priviledge and ability, then why not a man profeſſing Chriſtianity, who hath not only the Conſcience-Law, but alſo the written Law of God, by which he underſtands things more excellent, Rom. 2. From all this I only conclude, that each particular ought to have the free exerciſe of his Judgment in what he chuſeth or refuſeth, ſith without this he cannot chuſe or refuſe any thing with confidence, nor to his comfort.
And concerning Controverſies in the Church, I do not ſee that (in theſe dayes) we are bound to follow the ſentence of a multitude, (though aſſembled in Council) SO, as to hold their Sentence abſolutely infallible; for the promiſe of infallibility is not made to a certain ſelect number *The Apoſtles are here exceptedof Biſhops, but to the Church, taken collectively; and we may remember that a great Aſſembly of Prophets in the old Church, erred in Judgment with unanimous conſent, when yet the Lord had one Micaiah at home which underſtood the truth of his Will. Wherefore I here conclude, although the Members of the Church ought to weigh with great reſpect the things concluded of by their Paſtors, yet ſo may it be that they may ſwerve from the Truth, whilſt God clears it up by ſome particular rather than by ſuch an Aſſembly. And to this agrees very well a ſaying of Gerſon, If it ſhould ſo happen that there ſhould be a General Council aſſembled, in Gerſon exam. of Doct.which ſuch a man were preſent as is well inſtructed, If the greateſt part ſhould decline through Malice or IGNORANCE, to the oppoſition of the Goſpel, ſuch a LAY-Man may be objected, againſt the ſaid General Council. And ſaith Panormitan, In matters WHICH, CONCERN Panor. chap. ſignif.FAITH, the ſaying of a LAY-Man ought to be preferred before that of the Pope, if his ſaying be more probable by better authority of Scripture than that of the Pope.
You often tell me, that to appeal to the Spirit ſpeaking in the Scriptures, &c. is not a ſufficient way to decide OUR Controverſies, and that becauſe you may challenge them to be for you, &c. To which I anſwer, by retorting your Argument thus, That which you call the living Voice of the Church, to wit, Volumns of Fathers, and Decrees of Councils, is therefore inſufficient to decide OUR Controverſies, becauſe your oppoſites do ſay they are for them, and againſt you: and now you muſt anſwer your own Query, viz. Who muſt take up this Quarrel? You anſwer, that we muſt explicate them one by another; the places which are obſcure, by ſuch as are plain. And then I ſtill ask you, why we may not as well agree our ſelves this way by the Volumns of the Prophets and Apoſtles?
I ſhewed before, how you miſapply that Text, Matth. 18. and though the caſe is ſo plain, as that you cannot defend your ſelf, yet you ſeem loth to decline your error, and would faſten a very groſs paſſage upon me; namely, that I ſhould ſay, That the Church is no Rule for thoſe that are out of her Communion, as not to be a light for ſuch as grope in the dark. A manifeſt wrong; I only ſay and prove, That thoſe that are not of the Church, are not within the power of her Diſcipline; nor can ſhe reaſonably deſire unconverted ones to appeal to her Judgment-ſeat in Controverſies between them and her. And I asked you, If you would not ſcorn us, if we ſhould call upon you to appeal unto us as your Judges, Whether we, or you, be the Church? and not doubting but you would, I concluded, that it is equally abſurd for you, to deſire us to appeal to you as our Judges. But you may find it plain enough in my Papers, That I do believe the Church SO to be a Rule to the world, as to ſhew them the way of Life, and ſo a good means for their Illumination and Converſion.—
As for your three Texts, 1 Tim. 3. Deut. 17. 8, 9. Malachi 2. 7. As they do your cauſe no good, ſo they do mine no harm: I grant the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, and that ſhe hath Power to hear and determine all Controverſies among her Members, as aforeſaid; and that it is the duty of the Members, to enquire of their Paſtors, what is the way of God concerning them: But what of all this? Ergo, The Papal Church of Rome is the only infallible Judge, and Moderatrix of all Contention about Religion. Ergo, we muſt all appeal to the Papal Church of Rome, as our Judge, in this Queſtion, Whether we be of the Church, or not? though we be in doubt, Whether ſhe her ſelf be a true Church, or not? yea, though we are ſatisfied ſhe is not. Are not theſe Monſtrous Conſequences?
Be it here obſerved, That I do believe the Church of Chriſt to be the Pillar of Truth, ſo, as that ſhe was never ſo over-clouded with error, but that ſhe hath enjoyed the fruition of that Promiſe, Matth. 16. in ſome good meaſure ever ſince it was made: Nor ſhall ſhe ever ſo cloſe with the gates of Hell, as by general conſent, and full authority to diſſert that Faith, which having Chriſt for its object, is the Rock ſhe is built upon: and therefore you ſee, I hold the Church cannot err (in ſome ſenſe) and indeed, he that holds the contrary, muſt (for ought I ſee) raze out that Promiſe, Matth. 16. and many other. And yet nothing from all this accrues to the Papal Church of Rome.
I alledged Stephen, as defending the Truth by the authority of Scripture Only, &c. Nor can it be groundedly imagined, that (had it been the mind of God, that ſuch as are not of the Church, ſhould be ſummoned to her Tribunal) Stephen (being full of the holy Spirit, the leader into all truth) would have omitted the uſe of that means, but he knew that ſuch authority the Church had none, as I ſhewed from 1 Cor. 5. What have I to do to judge them that are without? do not ye alſo judge them that are within? And therefore he could not mention any ſuch power. And though Stephen did many wonders among the People, yet at this time when he ſo powerfully vanquiſhed his adverſaries, he did none at all, but only overcame them by the aſſiſtance of the Spirit ſpeaking in the Scripture, &c. I deſired you to ſhew me but one Inſtance, where ever any of the Primitive Saints did appeal to the Church, of which they were preſent Members, as Judge between them and ſuch as never received their Doctrine: but you have not done it, nor indeed can it be done. As I ſhewed, that Stephen appealed to Scripture ONLY, &c. ſo I alſo ſhewed, That it was the way of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, frequently to vindicate their Doctrine againſt ſuch as were not of their Church, by appealing to the Scriptue (eſpecially amongſt ſuch as owned the Scripture) this you confeſs; and alſo you tell me, that your Church doth the ſame: But this cannot be true of All your Doctrine, becauſe you have told me, That many Points of your Faith are reſolved without the written Word of God; or elſe you never anſwered my firſt Antiquery, which demandeth, What Controverſie in Religion you can reſolve without the written Word of God? And in your Anſwer you aſſigned, The Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from the Father and the Son, Sabbath, Infant-Baptiſm, and MANY OTHER POINTS OF FAITH; and I ſhall ſhew anon, that we have it pro confeſſo, from your Champions, that there be ſome Points of your Faith, which is not GROUNDED UPON, nor MENTIONED IN the SCRIPTURES; and therefore your Church cannot vindicate ſuch Points of her Faith and Doctrine by the Scripture.
Although Chriſt ſent Paul to Ananias for inſtruction, yet it followeth not, that we muſt take Romes inſtructions without Scripture. Is there no difference between the time that now is, and then was? Much of the Scripture (if not all the New Teſtament) was then unwritten. Again, Ananias was immediatly ſent of God. If you are ſo ſent, prove it to us, as Ananias did, by ſhewing the Miracle of reſtoring Paul's ſight. If you are not ſo ſent, to what purpoſe do you alledge this Text? I believe I might form you a monſirous Conſequence here.
PAPIST.
You that will not truſt the Churches Judgment, lay down four wayes of reſolving Doubts; The firſt, To argue it out till Truth prevail. But if we muſt argue only out of Scripture, and be our own Interpreters of it, there can be no end of arguing, as I have often ſhewed. The ſecond, To appeal to God as the two Tribes did, Joſh. 22. A rare way to end Controverſies, to look for Miracles in our Diſputes. The third, To appeal to Scripture, and right Reaſon: But if I challenge them to be on my ſide, who muſt take up the difference? The fourth, To caſt Lots. But though the Apoſtles did it, who certainly were inſpired to do ſo, yet muſt not we preſume to tempt God, or to look for the like Miracles, or to build our Faith upon ſuch doubtful events.
BAPTIST.
You here wrong us, to ſay, that we will not truſt the Judgment of the Church; for the Church, truly and univerſally taken, we do credit, as her that is appointed of the Father, to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth; of which Church, we take the Prophets and Apoſtles to be the principal Members, and ſo in all Points of Faith, to be credited in the firſt place. But if by Church, you mean the Papal Church of Rome, I confeſs we dare not truſt her Judgement, at leaſt, not in all that ſhe ſaith; for example theſe following: 1. Your Church tells us, That it is not needful for the Scriptures to be read to, or by the Laity, in a tongue which they underſtand: and that though they Pray (after another) in Latine, though they underſtand not what they ſay, yet ſuch prayer is ſufficient, Rhem. Teſt. Annot. in 1 Corinthians. 2. Your Church tells us, That the Sacrifice of your Maſſe, is available to take away, or obtain remiſſion of ſins by the work wrought. Con. Trident. Seſs. 22. That the whole Maſſe is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead; and whoſo ſaith, it is only a commemoration of Chriſt's Death, &c. is accurſed. Con. Trent. 3. Your Church holds, That ſuch as deny that the real Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, is in the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, ought to be burnt to death. 4. Your Church holds, and tells us, That Images, and old clothes of Saints, ought to be worſhipped with religious Worſhip. 5. That men are AS FULLY Juſtified by good Works, AS THEY ARE DAMNED BY evil Works. 6. That it is unlawful for Miniſters of Chriſt to Marry. 7. That the Scripture doth not contain all things neceſſary to Salvation. To omit many other, theſe are Points of your Churches Judgment, which we dare not truſt, till by you, or ſome other, proved to be Truths.
I aſſigned the uſe of Lots as lawful in ſome doubtful caſes to end Controverſies, and for proof, I quoted Acts 7. and this you will not allow for two Reaſons. 1. Becauſe (you ſay) the Apoſtles were inſpired to uſe them; but were it ſo (as that you cannot prove) yet it cannot be denied, but we may do ſome things which they were inſpired to do: for the Holy Ghoſt was to lead them into all Truth, and they were to lead us into the ſame Truth, by their Example and Doctrine, Joh. 16. 13. 1 Cor. 11. 1, 2. And be it here obſerved, That the Holy Ghoſt led thoſe, our Teachers, to ordain the Miniſtry by Prayer, and laying on of Hands, Acts 6, and Acts 13. which practice of theirs, is a good preſident to act by; a preſident I ſay; for this practice is not expreſly commanded in Scripture, no more than the uſe of Lots in the election of Miniſters. If it here be objected, That Chriſt might give laying on of hands in Precept when he was with his Apoſtles. I Anſwer, So alſo might he give them the other to be uſed, when there might be perſons found of ſeemingly equal fitneſs to ſerve the Church. 2. You reckon the uſe of Lots, Acts 1. amongſt Miracles, as your other Reaſon, why we may not uſe them to decide any Controverſie; but why you ſhould ſo do, I ſee no more reaſon, than to ſay Joſh. 22. mention'd any Miracles towards the compoſure of the difference between the two Tribes, and Iſrael; where in truth no ſuch thing can be found, though you ſeem to affirm it.
PAPIST.
In my laſt Paper, I took notice how you ſent us to Heaven for Miracles, to take up our Quarrels after the Example of Moſes, whoſe cauſe was cleared that way: Here you deny you brought in the Inſtance of Moſes to this purpoſe, which, how true it is, every one that can reade muſt needs ſee. For, are not theſe your words? But you ſay, Reaſon is on my ſide, &c. and demand by whom we muſt be tryed, who muſt take up the quarrel? I anſw. Even the ſame that took up quarrels of this nature in times paſt, Exod. 7, &c. Do you not here tell us plainly, That God muſt take up our quarrels *Note, there is not the word AS in my words, only I ſay the ſame, that is, God muſt take up our quarrels; and how that muſt be, is ſhewed in my Anſwer following.AS he did thoſe of Moſes? And truly otherwiſe I might (as you foreſaw) very poſſibly tell you, that your Allegation was nothing to the Queſtion, Who muſt take up the quarrel? It is pretty to ſee what ſtuff you make of it, and then how you digreſs, to rail at our Baptiſm and Paſtours; I ſay, rail: for you bring no proof at all.
BAPTIST.
I have ſaid enough to ſatisfie any reaſonable man, that it doth not follow from my alledging Exod. 7. that I ſend you, or any body elſe, to Heaven for Miracles to decide our Controverſies. For at the firſt I ſhewed, that in the caſe of Moſes there was Miracle againſt Miracle; only God gave a note of diſtinction between thoſe ſigns, inſomuch as the Serpent that came of Moſes Rod devoured the other: from whence I only noted, That it's God's way to give ſome powerful note of diſtinction, between the Witneſs of his Servants, and Deceivers. And now, is not this my Obſervation very pertinent to our caſe? You ſay, you are the Church. We ſay, we are the Church. Here is Teſtimony againſt Teſtimony, as there was Miracle againſt Miracle; and if the Lord do not now give ſome powerful note of diſtinction between our Doctrine and yours, concerning the Church, as he did between Stephen's and the Alexandrians, I pray, who muſt take up the quarrel between U S? Is it fit that you ſhould be Judge in your own caſe here? If ſo, why may not we? If the Councils and Fathers were of the Papal Church, then it is not any more reaſonable that you ſhould ſummon us to their Arbitriment, than it is for us to ſummon you to the Judgment of our Predeceſſors; but foraſmuch as you and we are agreed, that the Prophets and Apoſtles were infallibly aſſiſted to write the Mind of God for us to obſerve; therefore it's moſt reaſonable that we ſhould both appeal to them. If you object, the Prophets, &c. are not alive to interpret their Writings, and that our difference is about the ſenſe thereof; I Anſwer, This objection is every way as forceable againſt the Decrees of Councils, and Volumns of Fathers; for their Writings muſt be interpreted, expounded, &c. and we differ about the meaning of them. Secondly, the way you aſſign us to agree them, is to conſult them together, &c. Now I would know, why we may not be allowed this way to ſeek out the meaning of the Prophets and Apoſtles? In a word, there is not one Objection which yet I have met with, levelled againſt our appealing to holy Scripture, &c. as the only infallible means to decide all Controverſies between YOU and US; but the ſame objections are more forceable againſt all that you appeal to, for deciſion of the ſaid Controverſies.
PAPIST.
You except againſt our Miracles, becauſe we bring them to prove our Church by; but if it appear as it doth, that God works Miracles upon thoſe that actually call upon his Bleſſed Mother, and his other Saints, or whilſt they are performing ſome of our Religious practices, which you abhor, is it not an argument that God approves them? It is God then, and not we, that brings Miracles to prove our Church.
BAPTIST.
You will ſtill have your Miracles to be an infallible mark of the truth of your Church, eſpecially thoſe of the Bleſſed Virgin (you mean the Image ſo called at Loreto) or as you phraſed it in your third Paper, The Lady of Loreto. But let me tell you, that there is ſmall cauſe you ſhould refer me to what is done there, as an infallible mark that your Church is the Church of Chriſt. For by the relation of two eye-witneſſes, which I have read, it is a place of moſt groſs Idolatry, blind devotion, and deceit. One of which Authors, was once a Teacher of your Church, who, before his ſeparation from you, travelled to Loreto, to ſee if the Image of the Virgin would inform him of the truth or falſhood of the Roman Church, as it is now conſtituted; for he was doubtful in this matter, and had been informed, that if any perſon were guilty of Mortal ſin (which if the Papal Church be the Church of Chriſt, he concluded he muſt needs be guilty of, in queſtioning her, at leaſt in the Judgment of the Fryers, who waited there upon that Image) he had been informed (I ſay) that if ſuch as were guilty of Mortal ſin, did but pray before the Lady of Loreto, the ſaid Image would either bluſh, or fall into a ſweat, and ſo reſolve the Petitioner in the affirmative. But if we may believe the Lady of Loreto, and this Informant, then it is no Mortal ſin to think, that the Papal Church is not the Church of Chriſt: For this doubtful man prayed earneſtly, and beheld the Lady as ſtedfaſtly, but no ſweat nor change befel her at all. Therefore, according to the Fryers rule, it is no Mortal ſin to think the Papal Church of Rome is not the Church of Chriſt.
But this one thing is eſpecially obſervable here, That whereas you would perſwade your ſelf, and others, that I ſend men to Heaven for Miracles to decide Controverſies; it is manifeſt that you are the man that is herein guilty: For the Controverſie is, Whether the Papal Church of Rome, be the Church of Chriſt? You affirm; I deny. To decide this Controverſie, you refer me to Miracles, as the ſpecial means, or chief mark, whereby I may be reſolved in this matter, as is evident in this, and your two former Papers; So that what you would caſt upon me, falls clearly upon your ſelf, ſave that, inſtead of ſending me to Heaven, you ſend me to Loreto.
[In my Rejoynder I urged, that of neceſſity the Scripture muſt decide all our Controverſies, as aforeſaid; becauſe, as things now ſtand, the Word (or Scripture) is antecedent to the Church, ſo that inaſmuch as it is impoſſible to find the Church without the Scripture, it ſuppoſes clearly that the Scripture muſt be found before the Church: and ſo, if the Scripture must of neceſſity reſolve this great Controverſie about the Church, it conſequently followeth that they must reſolve all Controverſies; becauſe all Religious Controverſies are involved in this one general Query, Where is, and who are the Church?]
Something here, which the Adverſary doth further write, is omitted, becauſe it may be more fitly taken notice of afterward.
PAPIST.
I had reaſon to take notice of your general ſaying, that the Word was antecedent to Faith and the Church, ſince there was a Church, and conſequently Faith before the Scripture was written. Now it ſeems you meant not the Scripture by the Word, but I know not what Word, which was afterward committed to writing. It is paſt my underſtanding what Word you mean; for ſince it cannot be Verbum Scriptum before it be written, It muſt either be Verbum Traditum, and I ſuppoſe you will not allow that; or Verbum Dei Patris; and that cannot be the Word you ſpeak of, as committed to writing.
BAPTIST.
By that Word which was antecedent to Faith and the Church, as it relates to the Church under the Patriarchs, &c. I mean the Word which God ſpake to them, and by them, at ſundry times, and in divers Heb. 1. 1.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 *Not denying Chriſt to be her foundation in the main. Eph. 2. 20., 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 Chriſoſt. Hom. in Mat. 24order 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 onelyonly (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 onelyonly infallible means to refel them, is, the Spirit ſpeaking in Scripture, &c.
For thus ſaith the firſt of them: If any man teach otherwiſe, and conſent not to wholſom words, even the words of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the Doctrine that is according to Godlineſs, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about queſtions, &c.
Thus ſaith the ſecond, He that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the ſpirit of Error.
The third ſaith thus, Whoſo tranſgreſſeth, and abideth not in the Doctrin of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the Doctrine of Chriſt, hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this Doctrine, receive him not into your houſe, neither bid him God-ſpeed.
From theſe Texts it appears, that unleſs the Papiſts can produce ſomething which they can infallibly prove to be Chriſt's Doctrine, beſide what is contained in holy Scripture; or, that the Apoſtles may be heard as infallibly by ſome other means, as by the holy Scripture; or, that the Saints received ſome Doctrine for Chriſts, that is not contained in the Scripture; I ſay, unleſs they can infallibly ſhew ſomething of this nature, my Anſwer is good. But if they can produce any other thing of ſuch authority, then I acknowledge my Anſwer to be deficient. Howbeit, if any man, or the Church her ſelf, do decide a Controverſie, by inſiſting upon the Scripture, this is no more than my Anſwer included; for I do not imagine that the Church muſt not pronounce what is contained in the Scripture: but if ſhe hath power to ſpeak as from the Lord (in theſe dayes) when yet the Scripture ſaith no ſuch thing, then I profeſs my ſelf ſhort of underſtanding the power of the Church.
2 Theſſ. 3. 2. I only made uſe of this Text thus far, that in Religious Controverſies the Apoſtle gives Reaſon her place, and therefore deſired to be delivered from unreaſonable men.
PAPIST.
ONce more you offer to juſtifie your Conſequences drawn out of the five Texts. But I ask once more, To what purpoſe did you bring them? was it not to prove what you had ſaid in your Anſwer to my Query, That the Scripture, ſo we took right Reaſon along with us, was ſufficient to reſolve all Controverſies in matters of Faith? No rational man can reade your first Paper but muſt think ſo; and indeed, otherwiſe you must have brought them to prove ſomething that was not under debate, which had been impertinent. Must not that very Aſſertion of yours be the Conſequence to theſe five Texts? and them, have I not reaſon to cry out, that there never appeared ſuch Monſtrous Conſequences? But, to avoid this inconvenience you fall into the other, and will have ſome of your Texts brought to prove certain Propoſitions, which you had not mentioned in your Anſwer. Howſoever, let us now ſee what you make of them. Iſa. 8. 20. God's People are commanded to have recourſe rather to the Law, &c. than to ſuperſtitious Oracles, Ad Legem magis, &c. And they have a ſign given them to convince ſuch Oracles of falſhood, if they ſpeak not according to the Word or Propheſie of Iſaiah. This is the clear ſenſe of that place, out of which you draw this ſtrange conſequence. Ergo, the Scripture, &c. is to reſolve all matters of Faith. A ſtrange Conſequence, I ſay, as will appear, if we turn your Euthymeme into a Syllogiſm, thus: Recourſe is to be had rather to the Law; than to falſe Oracles, whoſe falſehood appears, if they ſpeak not according to the Word or Prophecy of Iſaiah. But if this be ſo, the Scriptures, &c. are to reſolve all points of Faith. Ergo, &c. What a prodigious minor have we here? How doth it follow, that becauſe God's Word is to be more credited than ſuperſtitioas Oracles; or, that ſuch Oracles are not to be credited, when they ſpeak againſt God's Word: Therefore the Scriptures, &c. are to reſolve all points of Faith. I know you have not the word rather in your Engliſh Tranſlation as we have in ours, but the clear ſenſe of the place bears as much.
1 Tim. 6. 3. ſaith, they are proud that teach contrary to the Doctrine of Chriſt. Ergo, you infer that the Scripture is to judge whoſe Doctrine is of pride. This is as mad a concluſion as the laſt; for when there is no clear Text of Scripture for either ſide, as it often happens, or Scripture brought on both ſides; How can the Scripture judge whether party be proud? or, how can it be judge of its own ſenſe, when it is alledged on both ſides, who both pretend to have the Spirit and Reaſon on their ſides?
1 John 4. 6. Thoſe that hear not the Apoſtles, are not of God, nor have his Spirit. Ergo, ſay you, the Scripture reſolves who are religious: Doth it follow out of this Text, that when parties contend, that they hear the Apostles, the Scripture, can reſolve the difference, and pronounce who are religious? &c. Not at all.
2 John 9. 10. Gives Judgement againſt thoſe that follow not Chriſt's Doctrine. You infer ergo the Scripture muſt try whether men bring this Doctrine. Strange Logick: for unleſs your Text proved that the Scripture containes all Chriſt's Doctrine, which it doth not, your Conſequence muſt needs be faulty.
2 Theſſ. 3. 2. you ſay proves, that Reaſon is ſome wayes neceſſary to decide Controverſies in Religion. I will not examine the goodneſs of this Conſequence, but I am ſure you need not have brought Scripture to have proved ſo manifeſt a Truth, which cannot be denied by any, but ſuch as pretend to have ſo much of the Spirit, that me-thinks they ſhould have little need of the uſe of Reaſon.
BAPTIST.
Concerning my five Texts, and what I infer thence, I need not ſpeak much here; yet it is worthy obſerving how apparantly you miſs the clear ſenſe of Iſa. 8. 20. whilſt you reſtrain the relatives [this word] to the Word or Prophecy of Iſaiah, whereas it is as clear as the Sun at noon, that they ought to be referr'd to the Law and Teſtimony; for thus I read, To the Law and to the Testimony, if they ſpeak not according to This Word. Having thus miſſed the ſence of the Text, then in all that you ſay further, you diſcover a taunting ſpirit, endeavouring to beſpatter me with what dirt comes next to hand.
I did not quote any one of the five Texts, as taking it ſingly to prove the whole Aſſertion; and therefore you did injure my underſtanding, to argue from them apart, as brought to prove the whole Poſition; but I brought them to prove ſuch Propoſitions, as being laid together, do amount to ſo much as my Aſſertion (as I explicate it) doth contain. For the firſt four Texts do all of them ſhew, how God's People ought to try and defend themſelves againſt ſuch as oppoſe the Church and Truth of God, as I ſhewed in my Rejoynder: and the fifth, gives Reaſon her place in Religious Conteſts. But there is not one of the Arguments which I formed from my five Quotations, but you deprave and abuſe it, by both adding terms of your own, and omitting mine; yea, ſometimes whole ſentenoes: and when you have ſo done, you flout at the Concluſions. Which dealing is too bad for a ſober Diſputant,
It were a very eaſie thing to turn all your Objections here againſt the Scripture as inſufficient to reſolve differences in Religion, upon the Church as therefore inſufficient to reſolve them. For, whereas you ſay, That when both Parties pretend to have Scripture and Reaſon on their ſides, then the Scripture cannot decide the Controverſie; Might not I as well ſay, when both parties pretend to have the Church on their ſide (as that's the caſe between us) the Church then cannot decide our difference?
Again, where you ſeem to ſay, that when both parties contending, do ſay they hear the Apoſtles, that then the Apoſtles cannot (as they ſpeak in the Scriptures) decide the Controverſie: Hath not this the ſame force againſt the Church, when both parties contend they hear the Church? See how you can defend your ſelf, and I doubt not but therein you will defend my Arguments for the Scripture.
And becauſe you do cry up the Fathers, &c. for ſo clear a way to decide all our Controverſies, I will therefore ſhew you, that they do clearly avouch the Anſwer which I have given to this your firſt Query, as will evidently appear to the impartial Reader of the ſeveral Quotations which I have before alledged, and which do here follow.
The ANSWER to the FIRST QUERY, Avouched ſufficient by the Sentence of divers DOCTORS, both Antient and Modern.
VVHether of us be Schiſmaticks? ask not me, I Aug. cont. Petil. c. 85will not ask you. Let Chriſt be asked, that he may ſhew us his Church.
Neither muſt I alledge the Nicene Council; nor you the Arimi. I am neither bound to the one, nor you to the Aug. cont. Max. l. 3. c. 14other; let the matter be tryed by the Scripture.
Auguſtine ſaith, Let the Scriptures judge; let Chriſt judge; let the Apoſtles judge. Yea, it is confeſſed by the Papiſts, that Aug. Optatus, and Baſil, ſummoned their Adverſaries to the arbitriment S. N. Antidot.of holy Scriptures, and did allow the ſufficiency of holy Scripture to decide the Controverſies depending between them.
In time paſt, ſaith Chryſoſtome, there were many wayes to know Chryſoſt. Hom. in Matth.the Church of Chriſt (viz.) by good Life, by Miracles, by Chaſtity, &c. but from the time that Hereſies did take hold of the Church, it IS ONLY known by the Scripture, which is the true Church.
Again, he ſaith, The Lord then knowing that ſo great confuſion would come in the latter dayes, therefore willed the Chriſtians that would take to the ſureneſs of true Faith, to have refuge to nothing but to the Scripture; otherwiſe, ſaith he, if they regard other things they ſhall periſh, not underſtanding what the true Church is.
[Thus my Anſwer is avouched good, as it reſpects the means to decide the differences which are about the Church. Next, hear what they ſay touching ſuch differences as are in the Church.]
Iren. If there be any diſagreement riſen up among Chriſtians Iren. l. 3 cap. 4.concerning Controverſies in Religion, what better courſe is there to be taken, than to have our recourſe into the Moſt antient Churches, [which muſt needs be thoſe planted by the Apoſtles, conſidering the time when he lived] and to receive from thence, what ſhall be certain and manifeſt.
Auguſtine. Becauſe the Scripture cannot deceive, whoſo feareth to be miſled in the obſcurity of this Queſtion, let him ask COUNSEL Aug. 7. Tome cont. Ereſ.of that Church which the SCRIPTURE, without any ambiguity pointeth out.
Conſtantine Mag. There are the Goſpel, the Prophets and Apoſtles, which do teach us what to hold in Religion; wherefore expelling all hoſtile and bitter contention, let us ſeek the Solution of theſe Queſtions out of the Scriptures. Thus ſpake this famous Emperor in the Council of Nice, at what time the Biſhops had like to have jarred into pieces.
THus have I given an impartial Relation of what hath paſſed between the Popiſh Queriſt and my Self, in our two laſt Papers, (which contains the ſum of what paſſed in the other) as touching this Queſtion about the Judge of Controverſies. And now, for further ſatisfaction, That the Scripture, as aforeſaid, ought to be admitted the high Prerogative of Judge in our Debates; conſider, that of neceſſity it muſt be ſo. My reaſon is, becauſe either the Scripture, or ſome other Writings, muſt be our Judge, eſpecially in this important Queſtion, WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? For when we contend about her, it is very unreaſonable, that any party contending for that title, ſhould be permitted to give Judgment in their own cauſe: As for example, The preſent Aſſembly of Papiſts ſay, That they are the true Church: and the preſent Aſſemblies of Baptiſts ſay, That they are the true Church. Is it fit that either party contending, ſhould here give Judgment deciſſive? What then muſt we do? why of neceſſity we muſt to ſome Writings, whereby to be decided or agreed in this Controverſie. Theſe Writings muſt be either the Scriptures, or ſome other; but no other can compare with thoſe, ſo that they do deſerve this Prerogative better than any other.
The Papiſts ordinary way in this difficulty, is to tell us, that we muſt here be tryed by the Tradition of our Fore-fathers; in which they ſay, we cannot be deceived: which Tradition, they ſay, is the only thing that is unqueſtionable, and needs no other ground to ſtand upon, but Author 7. Qu.it ſelf. And againſt the Scripture's being received, upon its own evidence or authority, they uſually do thus object, that before we can receive what it teacheth, we muſt be aſſured of its truth. And again, T. B. End to Contro.they ſay, the Scripture may not be the Judge of Controverſie, becauſe it may be corrupted, tranſlated, ill interpreted, not rightly underſtood. And by theſe, and other like objections, they uſually in all their Writings, invalidate the Scriptures certainty, authority, and ſufficiency, that ſo they advance the authority of their Traditions.
But let it be ſeriouſly conſidered, whether theſe Objections have not the ſame force againſt what they reſt upon, which they have againſt the holy Scripture? Firſt then, whereas they tell us, the Scripture cannot teach us any thing, till we be aſſured of its truth: Doth not this conclude againſt any other thing as ſtrongly? Ought we not to be aſſured of the truth of the Church before we receive her documents? Ought we not to be aſſured of the truth of that Tradition which we receive for the Rule of our Faith? But how muſt we be aſſured of the truth of the Papal Church, and Tradition? There is not a man living, that can remember when either began, and ſo avouch its beginning to be of divine Inſtitution, and the continnance of the ſame ever ſince its beginning, to have been without any corruption: What then muſt we do? Why we muſt ſearch Romes Records. And then I ask, are they not as queſtonable, and liable to miſ-interpretations, as eaſily miſ-underſtood as the Records of God? What is now become of theſe Objections, the force whereof is evidently againſt the Papal Church and her Traditions, of the truth whereof we muſt be aſſured BEFORE we can be taught by either of them.
I ſay again, There is not a man of all the Papiſts that can evidence Rome to have been a Church two hundred years ago, and then much leſs one thouſand ſix hundred years ago. So that OF NECESSITY we muſt to the Writings of ſome men (whom we never ſaw write one word) to find the Church. And then I would know why we may not make enquiry at the Pen of Paul, what the Church was at firſt, and what it ought to be now, as well as at the Pen of Auguſtine. Cannot the Pen of Peter the Apoſtle give us as good information in this matter, as the Pen of any Pope, pretending to be his Succeſſor? If the Papiſts anſwer, That we know not the Pen of Peter or Paul: We anſwer, as well as they know the Pen of Auguſtine or Gregory. If they ſay Paul's Writings may be corrupted, and muſt be interpreted, may be miſ-underſtood. I return the ſame Anſwer of all other Books whatſoever; yea, thoſe which contains Romes Tradition. See therefore what is gained by deviſing objections againſt the authority or certainty of the holy Scriptures. Such doings do only tend to the deſtruction of all Faith, making every thing doubtful, and the effect is the uſhering in of all uncleanneſs on the one hand, or if men miſs this ſnare, they are catched in another, viz. to walk at random as their own, or other mens fancy leads them. This is evident by what we have ſeen in the Ranters on the one hand, and the Papiſts and Quakers on the other.
Let us trace this matter a little further, thus. The Papiſts Traditions (moſt, if not all of which, have been committed to Writing ſeveral hundreds of years ago) muſt ſpeak for themſelves, are unqueſtionable of themſelves, muſt challenge no ground but themſelves to ſtand upon: But the ſacred Scripture which hath eſpecial Promiſe from God for its preſervation, Pſal. 12. muſt have none of theſe high priviledges allowed it; Is not this a moſt peccant Aſſertion? Again, Peter and Paul muſt be no Judges of Controverſies in Religion, as they ſpeak to us in their Epiſtles; but the Popes of Rome, dead long ago, and now only ſpeak in their Writings, yet they muſt be our infallible Judges in theſe Controverſies. The great Council of Apoſtles, Elders, and Brethren, Acts 15. can be no Judge of any Controverſie, though their Decrees are yet extant among us; but the Council of Trent, who only ſpeak in their Decrees, muſt be our Judge, and that ſo as from their Judgments no appeal can be admitted. The Apoſtolical Council ſends forth their Decrees in the Name of the holy Ghoſt, and themſelves; and in thoſe their Decrees, they prohibit the eating of blood, and ſtrangled things, &c. But the Papal Councils will ſend forth a Decree directly oppoſite to this, and yet ſign'd with theſe powerful words; Viſum eſt Spiritui Sancto & nobis. If we appeal in this matter to the Apoſtolical Council, they may not be permitted to pronounce a Sentence deciſſive. But from the ſentence of the Papal Council we muſt in no wiſe appeal. Can any thing be ſaid more unworthily?
Thus then, Firſt, the godly Reader may perceive, That whether he be able to anſwer all the cunning Objections that men, by reaſon of the long experience they have had in the wayes of deceit, have found out; yet he hath an Argument of NECESSITY wherewith to oppoſe their ſubtilty. And, Secondly, he hath the advantage of all their own objections, againſt themſelves; yea, againſt their Church, Tradition, and all that they ſtand upon. Being ſeaſonably retorted upon them. Wherefore I ſhall conclude with the Pſalmiſt's words,
Pſal. 64. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
They encourage themſelves in an evil matter: they commune of laying ſnares privily; they ſay, Who ſhall ſee them?
They ſearch out iniquities, they accompliſh a diligent ſearch: both the inward thoughts of every one of them, and the heart is deep.
But God ſhall ſhoot at them with an arrow, ſuddenly ſhall they be wounded.
So they ſhall make their own tongues to fall upon themſelves: all that ſee them, ſhall flee away.
And all men ſhall fear, and ſhall declare the work of God: for they ſhall wiſely conſider of his doings.