The Ancient Christian Religion

WHether we are to resolve all Differences in Point of Religion, only out of the written Word of God?

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 join the living Voice and Authority of the Church (in present being) assembled with her Pastors, 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 decisive; 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.

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? 1. 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 shown how you forsake 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 mere 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.

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 Controversus 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 Privileges 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 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 itself 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 since 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 show you how they are divided, I give you divers Instances concerning their Divisions, as also touching the Corruption which hath been found in divers Popes.]

1. I had no reason to take notice of your excluding from the living Voice of the Church, every Voice exalting itself 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 do 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 ancient 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 anything you have alleged, 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, Mat. 16. Christ built not his Church upon Peter, but upon Peter 's Faith: Sure you read not St. Augustine, for he there expounds that place of Christ himself, and not of the Faith of St. Peter; nor doth he recall his expounding it elsewhere of St. Peter, but leaves both Expositions as probable, concluding thus; Harum autem sententiarum quae sit probabilior 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 allege 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 an horror, as the same St. Ambrose 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 Tertul. 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 something may be objected out of him (especially if he have writ much, as it is our case) which may seem contrary to what he expressly 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 Latin Fathers, and expressly 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 Layties 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 e 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 Caiaphas played 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 data, 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!

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 Pastors, in those particular Ages wherein they live. You take this living voice to be the Decrees of Councils, and Books of the Ancient Fathers. And here I cannot but marvel, why you should be willing to Appeal to the Books of the Ancients, 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 senseless 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 clearness to decide our Differences, as the voice of a living Judge in a Case of Law amongst Me •… ? Then what modest 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? Since 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 yourselves, but to yourselves (as I have formerly noted) and take upon you to be the only living Voice, that must, without control, interpret Fathers, Councils, and Scriptures too; and when you have done, sit down as Judge, to give Sentence for yourselves, 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 shown) you must not make use of the Scripture to that purpose; because, before the Scripture can have any Authority to any purpose, (according to your Judgment) your Councils must deliver it to us as the Word of God; which they cannot do till they be found, First, Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church; And Secondly, At unity among themselves, and each with himself. And I have asked you, How you will effect this difficult work? To which you Answer; First, That General Councils have no such Controversies as I talk of. Secondly, That when there is such difficulty in any one of the Fathers, we must look upon the rest what they say, and so follow their unanimous consent; for (say you) if we take them singly, no doubt they have erred, and these Errors we know by their dissenting from the rest.

I answer first, That General Councils have erred, and that in matters of Faith, is undeniable, if Records may be credited rather than you. As first, The Council of Arimi. did err so, as to conclude for the Arian Heresy, namely, That there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God: And sure you account that an Error in point of Faith. Secondly, The Council of Ephesus did err so, as to conclude for the Eutichian Heresy, namely, That the Body of Christ was not of one Substance with ours. And is not this an Error 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 entitled, Certamen Religiosum. So then it appears, that General Councils have erred, and contradicted each other 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 Error (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 with the other. But truly this your variation, as it is clear beside the Institution of Christ, 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 Paeda-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 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?

The division of this Mystery cannot be without great Sacrilege, saith Gelasius.

Again, You cannot be ignorant how the Council of Carthage, decreed the Books of Tobit, Judeth, Ecclesiasticus, Sapience, and Maccabees, should be received as 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 yourself 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 or the Laodicean Council, which is more ancient than that of Carthage, which yet you follow in receiving the Books of Maccabees into your Canon of holy Scripture?

Secondly, It is marvelous 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 the 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, since 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 yourself.

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 thyself into a sufficient Maze? I will back again, and see how these Fathers themselves direct me in this difficult Point. And first, I meet with famous Augustine, who tells 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 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? Yes, saith he, I require the Voice of the Shepherd, read me this matter out of the Prophets, Psalms, the Gospel, or 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 Honor that's due to such Men) reprove, or refuse anything of their Writings, if we find they mean 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 I do not take the Letters of Cyprian 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 knowest it certainly to be true, give no certain assent unto it. Again, he thus teacheth, We must be partakers of other Men's Writings, wholly after the manner of Bees; for they fly 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 alleging 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; for our Meanings and Expositions without them, have no credit, — the discussing of our Judgments 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 Scriptures, 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 alleged Augustine, as being opposite to you and your Church, touching the meaning of Mat. 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 receivied 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 Psal. 22. you would 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 alleged is clear and convincing, then a suspicion must be cast upon the Book, &c. I could instance the best part of a Thousand Books, Epistles, &c. which are entitled under the names of the Ancient Fathers; amongst which, as you observe, is reckoned the Book of Dynis the Areopagite, which I alleged in my Rejoinder. 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, opposite 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, since none must be permitted the use of his Reason (by you) in this Controversy? and how he should judge according to Faith, I know not, since 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.

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 Query) 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 herself 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 days, 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, 3. 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 Catholic 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 the pain of being accounted a Heathen, &c. Mat. 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 echoes out the Voice of God, may well be esteemed by her as Heathens. And in your own sense 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 anybody 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 everyone were left to decide his own case? This was not the old way, as you may see, Deut. 17. 8, 9. & Malachi. 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 yourself.

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 always 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 days, about the necessity of Circumcision, Acts 15. did they not assemble the Church, and so pronounce Sentence conciliariter, with a visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis?

[It is here worth nothing 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 doth 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 lieth in the Church as imbodied together; but the former, to wit, a Judgment of Science or Knowledge, is particular to each individual; and so myself, 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 Masterbuilder, (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 Rejoinder 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 ways, or else he hath no judgment. And if a Heathen hath this privilege 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 chooseth, or refuseth, since without this he cannot choose or refuse anything with confidence, nor to his comfort.

And concerning Controversies in the Church, I do not see that (in these days) 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 of 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 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 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 • o 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, Volumes 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 ourselves this way by the Volumes of the Prophets and Apostles?

I shown before, how you misapply that Text, Matth. 18. and though the case is so plain, as that you cannot defend yourself, yet you seem loath 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 conclude, 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 show 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 inquire 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 herself 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 desert 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 thatx Promise, Matth. 16. and many others. And yet nothing from all this accrues to the Papal Church of Rome.

I alleged 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 shown from 1 Cor. 5. What have I to do to judge them that are without? do ye not 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 desire you to show 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 shown, that Stephen appealed to Scripture ONLY, &c. so I also shown, 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 Scripture, (especially among 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 •… ver answered my first Antiquery, which demandeth, What Controversy 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 show anon, that we have it pro confesso, from your Champions, that there be some Points of your Faith, which are 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 Rome 's 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 immediately sent of God. If you are so sent, prove it to us as Ananias did, by showing the Miracle of restoring Paul 's sight. If you are not so sent, to what purpose do you allege this Text? I believe I might form you a monstrous Consequence here.

You that will not trust the Churches Judgment, lay down four ways 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 shown. 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 challengo 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.

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 Judgment, 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 Latin, 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 Mass, is available to take away, or obtain remission of Sins by the Work wrought, Con. Trident. Sess. 22. That the whole Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead; and who so saith, It is only a commemoration of Christ's Death, &c. is accursed, Con. Trid. 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 others, 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, John 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 expressly 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 Controversy; but why you should so do, I see no more reason, than to say Josh. 22. mentioned 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.

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, everyone that can read 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 tried, who must take up the Quarrel? I answer, Even the same that took up Quarrels of this nature in times past, Exod. 7, &c. Do you not here tell us plainly, That God must take up our Quarrels AS he did those of Moses? And truly otherwise I might (as you foresaw) very possibly tell you, That your Allegation was nothing to the Question, Who must take up the Quarrel? It is pretty to see what stuff you make of it, and then how you digress, to rail at our Baptism and Pastors; I say, rail; for you bring no proof at all.

I have said enough to satisfy any reasonable Man, that it doth not follow from my alleging Exod. 7. that I send you, or anybody else, to Heaven for Miracles to decide our Controversies. For at the first I shown, 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 's 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 US? Is it sit 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 anymore 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 Volumes 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.

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.

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 Loretto ) or as you phrased it in your third Paper, The Lady of Loretto. 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 Loretto, to see if the Image of the Virgin would inform him of the truth or falsehood 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 Friars, 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 Loretto, 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 Loretto, 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 steadfastly, but no sweat nor change befell her at all. Therefore, according to the Friars 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 persuade yourself, 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 Controversy is, Whether the Papal Church of Rome be the Church of Christ? You affirm; I deny. To decide this Controversy, 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 yourself, save that, instead of sending me to Heaven, you send me to Loretto.

[In my Rejoinder I urged, That of necessity the Scripture must decide all 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 Controversy 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?]

I had reason to take notice of your general saying, That the Wordwas 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 Del Patris; and that cannot be the Word you speak of, as committed to writing.

By that Word which was antecedent to Faith and the Church, as it relates to the Church under the Patriarchs, &c. I mean the Word which God spake to them, and by them, at sundry times, and in divers manners. And if you take that term [ Word ] to relate to the Church of Christ in its Plantation, then I speak partly of the written Word of God, and partly of that which was (at that time) only spoken by word of Mouth, by Christ and his faithful Stewards; and if you will call this part of the Word Verbum Traditum, I say, that is the Word I speak of. And I do also say, this Word was afterward committed to writing; which Word, together with the former, I mean that of the Prophets, is that whereon the Church (as now considered) is founded, by which she must be known. And in this sense, I say, the Holy Scripture is now antecedent to the Church. And therefore well spake that learned Person Chrysostom, when he forewarned the Sons of Men, That if they took heed to anything, in order to their knowing the Church (in the latter times) beside Scripture, they would fall headlong into the Abomination which maketh desolate, and not be able to know the True Church.

I Think it meet here to give the Reader some account of my Judgment of these five Texts, which I brought to justify 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?

Ans. The Spirit speaking in the Scripture, together with right Reason as truly subservient, is that whereby we are to resolve all Differences, &c. For proof I cited, Isa. 8. 20. 1 Tim. 6. 3. 1 John 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 herself against all that come to spoil her of her Church-state, by the Scripture only (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 chap. 29. 11, 12. The Prophet likewise foreseeing, that when God should hide his face, Israel would inquire of Wizards, 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 inquire 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 to the Church, beside the Law and Prophets; and hereunto, I say, the Church is only to apply herself, 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 Liars, who say they are the Church, and are not.

And to this agree the next three Scriptures, the very reading whereof showeth, that when the Controversy is between the Church and such as pretend falsely to that Title, the only 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 wholesome 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 Doctrine 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 Christ's, that is not contained in the Scripture; I say, unless they can infallibly show 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 herself, do decide a Controversy, 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 days) when yet the Scripture saith no such thing, then I profess myself short of understanding the power of the Church.

2 Thes. 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.

ONce more you offer to justify 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 read 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 of these five Texts? And then, 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. However, 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 falsehood, if they speak not according to the Word or Prophesy 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 Enthymeme 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 superstitious 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 Dictrine 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 alleged 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 Judgment against those that follow not Christ's Doctrine. You infer, ergo the Scriptures must try whether Men bring this Doctrine. Strange Logic! For unless your Text proved that the Scripture contains 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 ways 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.

Concerning my five Texts, and what I infer thence, I need not speak much here; yet it is worthy observing, how apparently 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 refer'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 sense of the Text, then in all that you say further, you discover a taunting spirit, endeavoring 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 show, how God's People ought to try and defend themselves against such as oppose the Church and Truth of God, as I shown in my Rejoinder: 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 sentences: and when you have so done, you flout at the Conclusions. Which dealing is not fair in a sober Disputant.

It were a very easy 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 Controversy; 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 Controversy: Hath not this the same force against the Church, when both parties contend they hear the Church? See how you can defend yourself, 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 show 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 alleged, and which do here follow.