Judges between them and by his Providence prevents or over-rules all those Disorders which may happen either in Church or State in this World and rewards or punishes both Governours and Subjects according to their deserts in the next And this supresedes all farther Disputes about some hard Cases or the sincerity or insincerity of Governours or Subjects for every man must of necessity judge for himself and God will govern and judge us all which there could be no pretence for if we had not the free exercise of our Reason in the government of our selves The Paper But I know'tis urged The Church of England is guided by Antiquity for the Interpretation of Scripture but every one knows that there is great difficulty in that too even for Scholars at least I am told so for no Church admits of all that is ancient for several Heresies are so and since we say Number makes nothing for Truth and that all men may err and that there is no certain mark by visible Succession to find out which are true Believers in this Confusion the Church of England must be very fortunate not to retain too much as the Arians and Macedonians c. say we do or too little as the Romanists say Answer The Church of England indeed has regard to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in expounding Scripture not that she fetches all her Expositions from ancient Writers but that she takes care not to expound Scripture in contradiction to the ancient Faith of the Church contained in the ancient Creeds and it requires no great skill in Antiquity to know what this Faith is which we repeat every day in the Apostles Creed and this is a good Argument that we expound Scripture right when the Sense we give of it is what the words and reason of the Text import and agrees with the Faith of the first and purest Ages of the Church Had we no ancient Records we could find out the true Sense of Scripture in all necessary Points of Faith but the Traditionary Doctrine of the Church where the Tradition is plain and clear and therefore easie to be known is a great confirmation of those Interpretations we give of Scripture in conformity to the ancient Belief and confutes all the Evasions and Criticisms of Hereticks For when the words of Scripture may with some Art be expounded to different Senses either to justifie some new or ancient Heresies or the Catholick Faith we need not doubt but that is the true Sense which agrees with the uniform Belief of the Primitive Church who were the best Judges what the Faith of the Apostles was by whom the Scriptures were written and though there were indeed very ancient Heresies yet nothing is plainer in Ecclesiastical History than the distinction between those ancient Heresies and the Catholick Faith and therefore Scholars cannot easily mistake them and as for those who are unlearned that short and ancient Summary of the Catholick Faith contained in the Apostles Creed and expounded by the Nicene Fathers in their Creed which is in every bodies hands and part of our daily or weekly Service is Security enough against all Fundamental Mistakes The Christians of the Church of England have a very plain and easie Resolution of their Faith As for the positive Articles of Faith we have the ancient Creeds which have been received in all Ages of the Christian Church from the times of the Apostles and which the most perverse Hereticks cannot deny to have been the Catholick Faith and yet we do not believe these meerly upon the Authority of Tradition but because we find all these Doctrines plainly taught in Scripture and for this the meanest Christian need not depend wholly upon the Authority of his Guides but has liberty to examine their Expositions and the Reasons of them which are so plain and convincing in the great and Fundamental Articles of our Faith that an honest man who meets with a skilful Guide may satisfie himself about it and see with his own Eyes Now what greater assurance can we have in this case than the harmony and consent of Scripture and Tradition which confirm and justifie each other The Apostles no doubt preached and writ the same things and it is a good Argument That is an uncorrupt Tradition which agrees with the Doctrine of the Scripture and that that is a true exposition of Scripture which agrees with the ancient Formularies of Faith delivered down to us by an unquestionable Tradition from the first Ages of the Church As for negative Articles about which is our only controversie with the Church of Rome since nothing can be an Article of Faith but what Christ or his Apostles have taught we think it sufficient to reject all such Doctrines as are not plainly and expresly taught in Scripture and this the meanest Christian with the help of a Guide may understand For as in Reason it must be when men will prove that to be in the Scripture which is not the Scripture Proofs which are urged by the most learned Doctors of the Roman Communion for their peculiar Doctrines which we reject are so apparently unconcluding that it requires very little skill to confute them And though this were reason enough of it self to reject any Doctrine which arrogates the authority and necessity of an Article of Faith that the Scripture does not teach it yet in most cases we can shew and that to the conviction of the meanest understanding which is honest and unprejudiced that such Doctrines are either in express words or by plain and necessary consequence rejected and condemned in Scripture which is somewhat more than not to be taught there because it is certain no Church can have Authority to teach what the Scripture condemns And then as for Authority we appeal to the best Authority of the Christian Church the three first Ages after the Apostles who are the most credible Witnesses which is all the Authority they can have of the Apostolick Doctrine and Practice and can plainly prove from those venerable Records that the Doctrines and Practices in dispute between us and the Church of Rome were either never taught or actually condemned by those Primitive Fathers And though in other cases it is a hard thing to prove a Negative it is not so here because the proof lies all on the positive side For those who will teach such Doctrines and Practices ought to prove them for without such a Proof they are to be rejected on course and therefore if we can confute their Proofs we need do no more and this is a very easie Task especially with reference to the first three Centuries for since they themselves are now ashamed of the counterfeit Dionysius their Decretal Epistles and such like spurious Writings the wisest of them pretend to very few Testimonies from the first Writers and those which they do alledge are such lame ones as need very little confutation These are the Protestant Grounds of Faith as it is
the Protestant Religion which is nothing else but the Christian Religion purged from the Corruptions and Innovations of Popery Now it would be very pleasant to hear a Popish Priest in a dispute with Turks or Pagans about Christianity urge the Authority of a visible Judge of Controversies and if there be no way to instruct an Infidel who cannot be presumed to own the Authority of any Judge what Christian Religion is and to convince him of the truth of it but by Reason and Scripture either this is a good way or there is no certain foundation for Christianity and let any Man shew me a Reason why Christians may not understand their Religion the same way that Heathens must be taught it This was the way which Christ and his Apostles took with Jews and Heathens and they had no other way to take with them The Jews had a written Law which no Authority could contradict and therefore our Saviour did not only work Miracles but appealed to the Scriptures both for the Authority of his Person his Miracles and his Doctrine and left every man to his own liberty to judge for himself what he must believe which shews that Miracles themselves are no Authority against a written Law for then the Jews could have had no pretence for their Infidelity and there had been no reason for Christ and his Apostles to have disputed with them out of the Scriptures The Heathens had no standing Revelation and therefore the bare Authority of Miracles was sufficient to confirm that testimony the Apostles gave of the Resurrection of Christ and the Doctrine which he preached and those who would not believe meerly for the Miracles sake were convinced by Reason and Argument for thus St. Paul disputed with the Philosophers at Athens as well as with the Jews and thus the Primitive Doctors dealt with the Infidels in their days as we learn from those many excellent Apologies they wrote in defence of Christianity But then those who did believe at first upon the Authority of Miracles were particularly instructed in the Faith of Christ out of the Law and the Prophets which though they were originally given to the Jews yet are the venerable Records of the Christian Faith to which the Apostles had recourse in expounding the Christian Doctrines Thus Christianity was taught at first and if this be not a solid Foundation the Christian Faith has none neither Christ nor his Apostles though they were Infallible made their own Infallibility the only reason of mens Faith but referred them to the Law and the Prophets which they expounded to the conviction of all honest and teachable Minds and if they would not believe upon these terms they must continue Infidels And that this way of resolving Faith into the Authority of a visible Judge was not known in the Christian Church even in the Apostles days and yet methinks St. Peter's Authority if he had any such Authority should have been better known in those days than at such a distance of time is evident from those early Heresies which sprang up in the Church For let any reasonable man tell me how it is possible there ever should have been any Heresie in the Church if all Christians had received the Authority of an infallible Judge together with their Christianity Men might have renounced Christianity and the visible Judge together but had they then acknowledged a visible Judge it had been a contradiction to pretend to the name of Christians and to oppose the Doctrine of the Infallible Chair Had there been a visible Judge of Controversies in the Apostles days known to all Christians it had been impossible there should ever have been any Heresies in the Church as those men must grant who think it necessary there should be such a visible Judge to make all men of a mind and to prevent the rise and growth of Heresies which must suppose that the Authority of a visible Judge would do this or else this Argument cannot prove the necessity of a visible Judge If then the Appointment of a visible Judge would certainly prevent all Heresies and yet from the beginnings of Christianity there have been Heresies in the Church this is a demonstration there was no visible Judge in those days Well but if there be no visible Judge of Controversies how shall we arrive at any certainty in our Religion for the Scriptures are to a demonstration not plain even in what we dare not disown to be Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the Trinity Now 1. Suppose there are some difficult passages in Scripture which are not obvious to every common understanding Can we not therefore understand what is plain because somethings are difficult Can any thing be plainer than the first and second Commandments not to give divine Worship to any Being but the Supreme God and not to worship God by Images and Pictures Can any thing be plainer than the Institution of the Lords Supper in both kinds than St. Pauls discourse against Prayers in an unknown Tongue Can any thing be plainer than what is evident to our very Senses that Bread and Wine is not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Men who will believe contrary to the plain words of Scripture contrary to the evidence of Sense and Reason which certainly ought to be consulted in expounding Scripture who would prove that to be in Scripture which is not in it or that not to be in Scripture which is there have some reason to complain of the obscurity of Scripture for the Scriptures were never written to prove what they would have proved but yet they may be very plain to men who only enquire what the Scripture teaches without forcing such Senses upon it as it does not teach Those who will prove that from Scripture which is not in it to be sure must prove it very obscurely and then to excuse the obscurity of their Expositions charge the Scriptures with obscurity Though all things are not equally plain in Scripture yet all men may understand what is plain and it is a strange perversness to say nothing is plain in Scripture because some things are not plain or that we cannot be certain of the sense of plain Texts because there are some obscure Texts Secondly I do affirm that every thing that is necessary to be believed is plain in Scripture for else how should we know that we must believe it or that it is necessary to salvation But then by plain I do not mean that it is plain to every man and at the first sight but it is plain to men who apply themselves to the study of the Scripture and have skill and ability to do it and may be made plain to every man who has the common understanding of a man without any biass and interest who will attend to the Instructions of the Learned And this is reason enough to call it plain if learned men by study and industry can understand it and if the unlearned may
any other way to prove the lawfulness or usefulness of them especially if besides the want of such a positive Institution we have plain Evidence against them and such as every man may understand When the Scripture tells us That Christ has by one Offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified Hebr. 9. 25 26. 10. 14 this is a direct proof against the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein he is offered ten thousand times every day When Christ is the Priest as well as the Sacrifice and can be offered by none but himself how comes he to be offered by a Mass Priest unless he as well as the Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into Christ It is certain there can be no such thing as the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass unless the Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ and we are as certain as our Senses can make us that there is no Transubstantiation As for the half-Communion it is confessed that Christ did institute his last Supper in both kinds and commanded them all to drink of the Cup And this may satisfie any man who does not believe that the Church of Rome has authority to repeal the Institutions of Christ and to forbid what he commanded And when St. Paul assures us That there is but one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus one would think this Evidence enough against the Mediation of Saints and Angels when they cannot shew one word for it For as for their distinction between Mediators of Redemption and pure Intercession they cannot shew it in Scripture where our Redeemer is our only Advocate And when Christ himself enforces and ratifies that Command of the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve this is a plain Argument against the Invocation of Saints since they have nothing for it And when there is no Authority in Scripture for praying in an unknown Tongue one would think that the absurdity of the Practice and the Authority of St. Paul who expresly condemns it were Evidence enough against it So that though men may be at the needless expence of a great deal of Learning in these Controversies yet in truth there is no Learning required to understand them the meanest man may judge for himself for the Controversie turns upon so plain a Point and there is so plain Evidence in the Case that an honest man may have abundant evidence and satisfaction though he do not understand one word of all the Learning which is lost in such Disputes The Paper In short I think there is but Evidence or Authority to move us to believe Answer This is certainly true if it be rightly understood that is if by Evidence is meant the Evidence of Sense and Reason and by Authority the Authority of Scripture which is the Authority of God who spake by Moses and the Prophets in the Old Testament and by Christ and his Apostles in the New and the Authority of the Primitive Church as credible Witnesses of the Apostolick Doctrine and Practice in this sense we grant that our Faith must be founded both upon Evidence and Authority and this is the true Protestant Resolution of Faith and then the only fault of this Proposition is That Evidence and Authority are opposed to each other whereas they must always go together in a true Rational Faith But if by Evidence be meant all the Arguments whereby we can prove the truth of any thing whether from Sense or Reason or Scripture or the Testimony of Antiquity and by Authority be meant the Authority of a visible Judge of Controversies as it is understood in this Paper then at best this is a very precarious Proposition without the least shadow of truth that either Evidence or Authority must move us to believe that is that our Faith must be resolved either into Evidence or the Authority of a visible Judge For how is this proved That when there wants Evidence for our Faith we must believe upon the Authority of a visible Judge It seems to me a more natural Consequence That where there wants Evidence we must not believe at all If it had been first proved that God had appointed a visible Judge to direct those who cannot judge for themselves there had been some pretence for saying that we must believe either upon Evidence or upon the Authority of a Judge but without proving this first I would desire any man to prove to me that I am bound to believe what I have no Evidence for or which is all one no such Evidence as I can understand and if I be not bound to believe without Evidence how can the want of Evidence prove that there must be a visible Judge into whose Authority I must resolve my Faith The Paper Evidence to the generality of People is impossible But I have already proved that this is not impossible but the meanest man with the help of a learned and faithful Guide may understand the Scriptures in all things necessary for a Christian to know But suppose at present that the generality of People cannot do this yet can learned men do it And one would think if there be any Evidence at least learned men may understand it for that which is not evident neither to the learned nor to the unlearned I fear is no Evidence at all unless there be such a kind of Evidence as is evident to no body and yet the Church of Rome has brought things to a fine pass if she must be forced to deny that we have any Evidence for our Religion Now if there be any Evidence for our Religion and learned men may understand it then at least learned men may judge for themselves and not depend upon the Authority of any other Judge and thus there is no need nay there can be no use of a visible Judge for the learned part of the world for to say that learned men have Evidence to ground their Faith on and yet must not believe according to Evidence but Authority is to say that men have eyes but must not use them to see their own way but must follow a Guide blindfold And yet if learned men be allowed to see and judge for themselves a Judge of Controversies will signifie very little for it is learned men who start Difficulties and manage Disputes and are the Authors and Patrons of Heresies and if these learned men who may and must judge for themselves differ from each other and from the Judge of Controversies what remedy is there Nay if learned men must judge for themselves according to the Evidence they have of things and not be over-ruled by Authority without Evidence there can be no visible Judge of Controversies for an Authority which may be contradicted as it may be if learned men must judge for themselves can be no Authority either with the learned or unlearned for the unlearned will have no great Reverence for that Authority which
the learned may contradict And therefore whoever will have a Judge of Controversies must not lay the necessity of having such a Judge meerly upon the ignorance of the Multitude for this does not prove that learned men must have such a Judge nay it proves that learned men need no such Judge if Ignorance only make him necessary and if there be not a Judge for learned men there can be no Judge of Controversies for there are more Disputes among the learned than the ignorant The ignorance of the People is only made a pretence to deceive ignorant People but is no good Reason for a visible Judge for there can be no visible Judge unless he judge for the learned as well as the unlearned and if learned men must not judge for themselves it is then a ridiculous thing to talk of any other Evidence than the Authority of the Judge for what does Evidence signifie if no man must use it Nay upon these Principles it is a ridiculous thing to distinguish between learned and unlearned men in Matters of Religion To what purpose is it to read and study the Scriptures Fathers and Councils when they must not exercise their own Reason or Judgment about them What priviledge have the learned above the unlearned when they must know and believe no more than their Judge will let them The Paper And we are discouraged from the quiet way of Submission to the Clergies Authority by your telling us That no Assembly of Men have power on Earth to bind the Conscience Answer How comes Submission to the Clergies Authority in here For is every Priest the Judge into whose Authority we must resolve our Faith This indeed is the last Resolution of Faith in the Church of Rome for the Priest is the immediate Guide of every mans Faith and Conscience and after all the talk of a visible Judge the People know nothing more what he teaches than what their Priest tells them who it may be himself knows little of the matter And I cannot see what greater security this gives the People of the Roman Communion than what our People have who have generally as wise and learned and honest Guides as they to say nothing more But who ever said That no Assembly of men have power on Earth to bind the Conscience We do acknowledge that the Church has power to make Laws to bind the Conscience for whatever Laws she makes for the edification and good government of Christian People which contradict no Law of God and are agreeable to the general Rules of the Gospel do bind the Conscience Nay in Matters of Faith the Authority of the Church is so sacred that all Christians are bound in Conscience quietly to submit to her Decisions where there is not plain Evidence against them But we say indeed That no Man nor Assembly of Men have such Authority as to oblige us to believe all their Dictates and Decrees without examination much less contrary to the evidence of Sense Reason and Scripture and the Judgment and Practice of the first Ages of the Church and therefore we do not require that men should believe meerly upon the Authority of their Teachers without understanding why they do so But this I hope is no discouragement to any men to submit to the Instructions of their Guides and to learn from them what they are to believe and why and this will make them wiser men and more understanding Christians than to rely wholly on their Authority The Paper For Authority that of the Church of Rome is infinitely greater who it is to be feared at least has an appearance of Succession and Visibility and who pretends that God has left in that Church such means so happy and so easie to attain to the certainty of the Truth that our very Divines wish in this confusion of things God had so ordered it for certainty and union Answer This is a strange Paragraph that only a fear of an appearance of Succession and Visibility and her own pretence that God has made her the visible Judge of Controversies should render the Authority of the Church of Rome infinitely greater than of any other Church which are very little things to give so great an Authority But we will readily grant that the Church of Rome has been a visible Church in a constant Succession of Bishops and Pastors from the Apostles days till now What then how does this give her a greater Authority than other Churches which have as visible a Succession as she The Greek Church has been a visible Church and preserved her Succession from the Apostles till now the Church of England is as visible and has as good a Succession as the Church of Rome how then does Succession and Visibility give the Church of Rome a greater Authority than the Greek Church or the Church of England It is a mighty weak Foundation for the Authority of a Judge of Controversies which is the matter in question that such a Church has a visible Succession from the Apostles A Judge of Controversies who shall oblige all men to believe his determinations must be infallible unless we will say that God has obliged us without examination to believe a Judge who may err which cannot be unless we can suppose that God may oblige us to believe a lye for thus it may happen if we are always obliged to believe a Judge who may sometimes err as all fallible Creatures may Which shews what a poor shift it is which some late Writers have used and which this Paper which speaks not one word of Infallibility seems to imitate to set aside the Dispute about the Infallibility of the Church which they can make nothing of and to insist only on the Authority of the Church to determine Controversies as a visible Judge for that only obliges men either to renounce the Communion of such a Church or to submit to her Determinations not at all adventures to believe as the Church believes as I shewed before and therefore this does not concern the Dispute about the Resolution of Faith Now if the Judge of Controversies must be infallible how does a visible Succession from the Apostles prove any Church to be infallible This is no natural effect as the Romanists themselves grant for then the Successors in all the Apostolical Chairs must be infallible since all the Apostles were as infallible as St. Peter whereas they will allow this only to the Chair of St. Peter as a peculiar Prerogative granted to him by Christ so that it is not Succession or Visibility which proves the Church of Rome to be the infallible Judge of Controversies which is the thing this Paper insists on but they must return to the good old Arguments of Tu es Petrus pasce Oves which I perceive the Author of this Paper was ashamed of and therefore I shall not take a needless trouble to confute them If indeed they could prove a visible Succession of Doctrine and Worship
against her Infallibility However this shews That the most infallible Teacher cannot destroy our natural liberty of judging for we must judge of his Doctrine by Sense and Reason and see that it contradict neither which are the only natural Principles of Knowledge we have which is therefore to exercise all the Reason and Judgment which God has given us And Thirdly Though we must receive all Divine and Supernatural Truths upon the Authority of the Revealer yet we must own our own Reason and Judgment to understand the Revelation which cannot possibly be otherwise For whoever it be that speaks to us whether God by an immediate Voice from Heaven or a Prophet inspired by God we have no way to understand what is said but by our own natural Faculties and therefore must judge of the Sense of what is said just as we do at other times when any man speaks to us And if we were not present to hear the Prophet speak but have his Revelations delivered to us in writing we must take the same course to understand such a Divine Book as we do any other human Writing if there be any difficulty in it we must seek for some body to help us to understand it but still we must understand for our selves for no body else can understand for us and if we must understand we must judge for our selves too This is all that we demand or desire a liberty to understand and judge what God would have us believe and do and this the most infallible Teacher cannot deprive us of no more than he can oblige us to see and hear with other mens Eyes and Ears when God has given us Eyes and Ears of our own And Fourthly Where there is a standing Revelation we must then judge of the Doctrine of all succeeding Prophets how infallible soever they be by its conformity to the preceding Revelation We must never suppose that God can contradict himself and therefore though he may improve a former Revelation by new and more perfect discoveries yet he can never contradict it and hence it follows That no true Prophet can contradict a true Revelation but though a power of Miracles may give Authority to a new Prophet to expound a former Revelation and to improve it yet we must be well satisfied that the Doctrine of this new Prophet be agreeable to the old Revelation which makes us Judges of the Sense both of the old and the new Revelation For it is impossible we can understand their agreement unless we can judge of the Sense of both This was the Case of Christ and his Apostles when they appeared in the World The Law of Moses and the Writings of the Prophets were the standing Revelation which God had given to the Jewish Nation whereby they were to try all Prophets To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them Isaiah 8. 20. and therefore though Christ wrought more and greater Miracles than ever Moses did this alone had not been a sufficient Reason to believe him had not his Person answered the Types and Predictions of the Law and his Doctrine been not the destruction but the improvement and perfection of the Mosaical Dispensation To this trial he submitted himself and his Doctrine appeals to Moses and the Prophets requires them to search the Scriptures for they are they which testifie of me John 5. 39. and after his Resurrection from the Dead which one would have thought had been sufficient of it self to have confirmed his Divine Authority yet he proves from Scripture that thus Christ ought to suffer and to enter into his Glory and beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them the two Disciples going to Emaus the things concerning himself Luke 24. 26 27. And this course the Apostles took in their Sermons St. Peter did not only testifie to the Jews as an Eye-witness that Christ was risen from the dead but proves that David himself had prophesied of this Acts 2. 22 c. Thus St. Paul disputed with the Jews at Rome to whom he expounded and testified the Kingdom of God perswading them concerning Jesus both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets from morning till evening Acts 28. 23. Thus his Epistle to the Romans is one entire Dispute about the obligation of the Law and Justification by Faith in Christ from the Types and Predictions of the Law it self So that Christ and his Apostles were certainly as infallible Teachers as everwere in the VVorld yet they did not bear men down meerly by their infallible Authority but appealed to the Scriptures and to every mans own Judgment of them and God had ordered it so that it could not be otherwise for he had given them a standing Revelation whereby they were to judge of all new Prophets whatever they were but if they must have relied on the bare word of such Prophets whom they were to try by this Revelation for the Sense and Interpretation of it this had been the same thing as to take their own word without any trial Now if Christ himself never pretended to any such Authority that all men should believe him upon his own word without examining his Doctrine by the Scripture or exercising their own Reason and Judgment can we think that he should give any such Authority to St. Peter Nay when it is evident that St. Peter never had any such Authority and never could exercise it how can St. Peters Successors have that in his right which he never had nor could have himself For though he was an infallible Teacher yet every man had a liberty to examine what he taught and to judge of it by its conformity to the Law and the Prophets But you I say Could not Christ appoint an infallible Judge of Controversies in his Church to decide all Disputes and to prevent Heresies and Schisms That Christ has not done this I shall take for granted till I see some better Proofs of it than I have yet met with and I have some reason to think such a Judge could not be appointed whom we should be obliged to rely on with an implicit Faith without examination or any use of our own Reason and Judgment and that is because it was impracticable to appoint a Judge upon whose bare Authority we are bound to believe the truth of Christianity it self Christ and his Apostles did not assume to themselves to be such Judges in their days for there lay an Appeal from them to Moses and the Prophets as you have already heard and so there does to this day and if I must not take any mans word for the truth of the Christian Religion I must not take his word neither for the truth of any Doctrine in Christianity If I may to this day examine the Gospel by the Law and the Prophets as the Jews did in our Saviours days then I must judge for my self too
be taught to understand it Thus Mathematical Demonstrations are certainly plain for if a Demonstration be not plain nothing is but yet it is not every man can understand them without a Teacher but since those who do study Mathematicks can understand them and any man of ordinary capacity who will attend to the Instructions of a skilful Master may understand them we may call them plain though they are not obvious at the first sight For this purpose Christ appointed an order of men in his Church whose business it should be to study the Scriptures themselves and to teach others not to impose on their Faith by their meer Authority which our Saviour has expresly warned us against to call no man Master upon Earth and which St. Paul expresly disclaims being Lords of their Faith but to open their Understandings and by easie steps to lead them into the true Sense of Scriptures Thus he taught his Disciples himself as appears from all his Sermons thus the Apostles taught the Christians of their days and this is the only teaching I know of for to teach men to believe without understanding is to teach them to believe they know not what nor why But the Doctrine of the Trinity is not plain in Scripture An Assertion which strikes at the very Fundamentals of Religion and justifies all the ancient Heresies which can never be confuted but out of the Scriptures For is the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures or not If it be not there how comes it to be an Article of our Faith and if it be not plain in the Scriptures how can any man tell it is there when it is not plain that it is there The Primitive Fathers who opposed those ancient Hereticks wrote great Volumes to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scriptures and therefore I presume did think it might be proved from Scripture This being a Doctrine which can be known only by Revelation if it is not plain in Scripture it is plain no where and so not the Object of our Faith unless they can shew us another Revelation besides and above the Scriptures The only Argument the Paper urges to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity not to be plain in Scripture is That some denied the Divinity of the Son some believed the Holy Ghost not to be a separate Person but only an Attribute of God That is whatever some men deny is not plain and therefore Christianity it self is not plain because Jews and Turks and Heathens deny it Is the Form of Baptism plainly contained in Scripture to Baptize in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and yet many of the ancient Hereticks who corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity would not use this Form which is as good an Argument that this Form is not plain as that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not And indeed if one be plain the other must be unless we will say That we are baptized in the Name that is into the Faith and Worship of Creatures The Paper And I think the assembling those Councils we receive as General shews that their Opposers were considerable Answer How considerable For Numbers or Interest or Zeal or Authority they were inferior upon all these accounts to the general Enemies of the Christian Faith and why should not the number of Infidels be as good an Argument against Christianity as the number of Hereticks against any one Article of the Christian Faith But this is a fatal Instance to the Popish as well as the Protestant Resolution of Faith and somewhat worse for the Scriptures never complied with Hereticks but the pretended visible Judge did when the Pope of Rome subscribed the Arian Confession But what course did these Nicene Fathers take to confute the Heresie of Arius did they not alledge the Authority of the Scriptures for it Consult their Writings and see what their Reasons are and when such a venerable Council thought the Scriptures clear and plain in this Point is the dissent of Hereticks a greater Argument that they are not plain than the determination of such a Council that they are That this was the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church from the time of the Apostles was a good confirmation that they expounded Scripture right but had it been possible that there should have been a Traditional Article of Faith which the Scripture said nothing of meer unscriptural Tradition could be no sufficient foundation of Faith and that for this Reason because we could not be sure what the Original of such a Tradition was For the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles give us the most certain Account what their Faith was and how ancient soever any other Doctrine may be we have no reason to think it came from the Apostles if there be nothing of it in the Scriptures The Paper And that those good Fathers did not think after their witnessing out of Scripture and Tradition the Belief handed down to them from Father to Son that the Christians had so much as a liberty of examining after them Since they positively Anathematized all those that did not receive their Decrees for which if they had no Authority the primitive Fathers were the greatest Tyrants in the World to refuse the blessed Means of Salvation to those that for ought appeared were as sincere as themselves and the generality of Dissenters made Scripture their Rule as well as we do This I do not alledge that I know of any truly General Council we reject but this appears to me that in the best of times there was thought a Power left in the Church without Appeal to every mans Reason and the Guides of the Church did not think a man safe though he to the best of his understanding did expound Scripture if he did not follow the sense of the Church Answer This Paragraph is designed to prove that there is a Power in General Councils to determine Controversies of Faith without appeal to every mans Reason and that the Fathers assembled in those first Councils did believe they had such a Power that when once they had determined what the true Faith was no man might examin after them Now whatever the Fathers of the Council believed of themselves it is plain other men did not believe it The Hereticks whom they condemned did not acquiesce in the Authority of the Council which yet they would certainly have done had it been the general Belief of Christians in that Age that the Decrees of General Councils were final and conclusive to be believed by all men and to be examined by none For the most obstinate Hereticks could never have out-faced such a prejudice as this After the Council of Nice the Fathers did appeal to mens private Reason if writing Books in justification of the Doctrine of the Trinity be such an Appeal as is evident from the Writings of Athanasius Hilary S. Augustine and others Nay it is strange there should be so many other
Councils convened about the Arian Controversie after the decision of the Nicene Fathers if that had put an end to all farther Disputes and Appeals which is a good Argument that the Christians did not then think that the Authority of a Council was so sacred that no man must question it when succeeding Councils examined and many times reversed the Decrees of former Councils nay that Councils which were not general should make bold with the Decrees of General Councils which is but a degree removed from every man's private Reason But the Council anathematized all those that did not receive their Decrees and does this prove that they denied all Christians a liberty of examining after them Might they not declare such Doctrines to be damnable Heresies and reject such men out of their Communion without believing their Decrees to be so infallible and sacred that no man must examin them Do not the Protestant Churches do this without pretending to such an absolute Authority over mens Faith A fallible man who is certainly assured that any Doctrine is a damnable Heresie may declare it to be so and if he have any such Authority in the Church he may cast such men out of Communion and this is all that an Anathema signifies and all this may be done and yet men dispute on and judge for themselves and therefore to denounce an Anathema does not prove that he that does it has such an infallible and uncontroulable Authority as must silence all Disputes and captivate mens Reasons and Understandings to his Dictates As for that Passage That the Guides of the Church did not then think a man safe though he to the best of his understanding did expound Scripture if he did not follow the Sense of the Church it has something of truth but a great deal of sophistry in it It is so far true that a man who embraces damnable Errors is not safe how firmly soever he be perswaded of the truth of them and that it is very hazardous to contradict the Sense not of any Council which may be a pack't Conventicle of Hereticks nor of any particular Age of the Church which may be very ignorant or very corrupt but of the Universal Church in all Places and Ages but in this Sense it is nothing to the present purpose And if the meaning be as it seems to be that it is dangerous for a man to use his own Reason and Judgment in opposition to the Decrees of Councils it may sometimes be so and sometimes not as the Council is and whatever the event be every man must judge of that it may prove dangerous to a man to use his Reason if he do not use it right but yet there is no help for it but every man must use his Reason or act like a Fool. But possibly it will be asked What Authority then do we allow to Councils and I shall very freely speak my mind of it 1. In Cases that are doubtful the Judgment of so many wise and learned and pious men from all parts of the Christian Church is a very probable Argument of the truth of their Decrees and no modest man will openly oppose what they determine unless it appears that there was something of Faction and Interest at the bottom or that the Reasons whereby they were over-ruled were so weak or ludicrous as to render their Judgments contemptible For if the Opinion of one learned man be so considerable much more is the deliberate Judgment of so many great and good men Secondly The Authority of ancient Councils is very considerable as they were credible Witnesses of the Apostles Doctrine and Practice and the constant Faith of the Church in the preceding Ages which is a mighty satisfaction to find by these venerable Records that what we now believe was the Faith of the Church in the best and purest Ages before it was divided by Schisms and Factions or corrupted with ease or liberty or wanton disputes Thirdly General or National Councils have authority to determine what Doctrines shall be publickly professed and taught in their Churches and be made the Articles of Church Communion as it must necessarily be if there be any authority in the Church For it is fit that the Faith of the Church should be one and those who have the government of the Church must have the care of the Faith But then this Authority does not oblige any man to believe as the Church believes and to receive all such Decrees without Examination but only if we will live in Communion with such a Church we must own the Faith of that Church for she will allow none to communicate with her who do not Now if the Faith and Worship of such a Church be pure and orthodox the Church is in the right in requiring obedience and conformity to her Decrees and Constitutions and those who refuse it must answer it both to God and Men if her Faith be corrupt she abuses her Power in imposing it on Christians and no man is bound to believe what is false because the Church defines it to be true If you ask whose Judgment ought to take place the Judgment of the Church or of every private Christian I answer The Judgment of the Church of necessity must take place as to External Government to determine what shall be professed and practised in her Communion and no private Christian has any thing to do in these Matters but when the Question is What is right or wrong true or false in what we may obey and in what not here every private Christian who will not believe without understanding nor follow his Guides blindfold must judge for himself and it is as much as his Soul is worth to judge right For if he reject the Faith and the Communion of the Church without a just and necessary cause he is a Heretick and a Schismatick liable to the Censures of the Church in this World and to the vengeance of God in the next If he reject an erroneous and corrupt Communion he incurs the Censures of the Church which in most Christian Kingdoms are attended with some temporal Inconveniences and if he imbrace it he is in danger of a future Judgment For if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the Dith These are the proper limits of all Human Authority both in Church and State below this there is no Authority and above it it is not Human Authority for a blind Obedience can be due to none but God and he himself seldom exacts it If we will grant Governours and Subjects to be men who have the use of their own Reason and Judgment it is impossible to state the Case of Authority and Subjection otherwise than thus That the Faith and Judgment of Governours influences and directs their Government and gives Laws of Faith and Manners to Subjects and the private Judgments of Subjects direct them how far they are to believe and obey their Governors and God himself
we must either say That Common People who have not time nor abilities to understand and answer all the Objections which are made against the Existence of a God can have no good reason to believe there is a God or we must grant that men may have sufficient reason to believe some things without being able to answer all possible Objections which are made against them The plain account of this matter is this That there is such a degree of Evidence Arguments so plain and clear and convincing that the Mind may safely acquiesce in them without examining or answering all possible Objections which may be started Every man finds this in himself there are many things which he can never be made to doubt of though it may be he has but one plain Argument to prove them Though the Philosopher disputed very subtilly against the possibility of Motion he could perswade none of his Scholars that Motion was impossible because they saw themselves and every thing else move every day which was a sufficient confutation of all the Arguments that can be brought against Motion If I have any one unanswerable Argument to prove that a thing is or that it is not this is a sufficient foundation for my Faith though I cannot answer all Objections against it For there are no Objections of any force against a plain and positive Proof but such as weaken the Proof it self and they indeed must be considered but all other collateral difficulties may be rejected for if I can prove that a thing is no other difficulties about the nature notion or operations of such a Being can prove that it is not As for Instance We have a great many positive Proofs that there is a God especially from the visible effects of his Power and Wisdom in making the World now if this be a good Argument and nothing can be said against it which can move a considering man then we may firmly believe there is a God though there may be a great many difficulties objected against the Notion of a God what he is and how he made the World c. which do not prove that there is no God but that we do not perfectly comprehend him And yet this is generally the case that where there is one plain and evident Proof for or against any thing there is no plain and evident Proof on the other side for then indeed we should be in a hard case could there be plain positive Proofs for both sides of the Question It will be of use to shew this more particularly how men of very ordinary Abilities may arrive to a very great certainty in Religion without being able to dispute the Point or to answer all possible Objections and the best way to explain this to the meanest Understanding is to give some particular Instances of it It is a great Dispute between us and the Church of Rome Whether the Sacramental Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ which I think a plain man who will believe his Senses may determine without disputing for he has the best Evidence that he possibly can have for any thing that the consecrated Bread and Wine is still Bread and Wine not Flesh and Blood for all his Senses tell him so and he who will suffer himself to be reasoned out of his Senses deserves to be deceived and very absurdly complains of want of Evidence and Certainty when he rejects the most certain Evidence that God can give him In matters of Sense the restimony of our Senses is certainly the best Evidence and every man who has his Eyes in his head can see whether it be Bread and Wine or not and therefore this alone is sufficient to create Certainty in defiance of all Objections to the contrary Thus the second Commandment which forbids the worship of all Images without any restriction or qualification is a plain and express proof against Image-worship for whatever Apologies may be made for the worship of Images here is an express Law against it in such plain terms as require great Art and Sophistry to evade them but no Art to understand them now there being a positive Law against the worship of Images and no Law either in the Old or New Testament to give the least allowance to any kind of Image-worship any man who will believe according to Evidence must condemn Image-worship whatever other unscriptural Arguments or Authorities may be alledged for it And I know no need there is of any dispute in the case if men will be determined by a Divine Law Thus if there be a Supream infallible Head of the Church he must be appointed by Christ and that in such plain words that every body may know who he is and what his Authority is but Christ has done no such thing and therefore there is none and this alone is Evidence enough to satisfie the meanest man in this matter without disputing For if Christ hath appointed no Supream Infallible Judge I am sure all the Arguments in the world cannot make one This is so plain and evident that a man who will be convinc'd by Reason cannot resist it for though no pretence of usefulness or necessity can prove that there is such a Judge yet that Christ has appointed no such Judge evidently proves that there is none for he cannot be unless he is evidently appointed by Christ and yet he is not evidently appointed unless it be in such plain words as admit of no reasonable dispute So that this whole Controversie about the Supream Head of the Church and an infallible Judge issues in this one Point Whether Christ hath appointed such a Head and Judge and there is but one way to prove it viz. by shewing where and when Christ has done this and this the meanest man without disputing may judge of for if no such thing plainly appear the want of Evidence for it is all the Evidence we need to have against it And thus it is in most of the disputes between us and the Church of Rome especially where the People are most concerned they are reduced to this one plain Question Whether any such thing was instituted by Christ because without such an Institution they can have no vertue in them and whether they be instituted or not the most unlearned man who can read the Bible at least with the help of a Guide may satisfie himself As for instance Whether the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead whether the Laity are not as much bound to drink of the Sacramental Cup as to eat of the Bread whether it be lawful to pray to Saints departed and to make them our Advocates and Intercessors with God whether we must pray to God in a Language which we do or do not understand c. I say nothing can justifie these things but an Institution and when no such Institution appears it is a vain thing to attempt
as well as Bishops from the Apostles that they believed and practised neither more nor less through all the several Ages of the Church to this day than what St. Peter taught them though this would not make them the Judge of Controversies yet they would be good Witnesses of the Apostolical Faith and there would be great reason to enquire what their Faith and Worship is But their meer Succession to the Apostles does not prove that they have neither diminished nor added to the Faith of the Apostles for there is no natural necessity that those who succeed should always be of the mind of their Predecessors and we have plain Evidence that the Church of Rome has in several Ages made new and strange additions to the Christian Faith and their Succession of Bishops without a Succession of Faith and Worship is little worth And yet it is much stranger still that the Church of Romes pretence to the Authority of a Judge should be made a Reason to believe that she has this Authority What advantage has Confidence above Modesty over weak Minds The Church of England might pretend this with as much reason as the Church of Rome but she disowning Infallibility loses all claim to it and the Church of Rome pretending to Infallibility it seems gains a right to it by Possession and Usurpation But the Argument such as it is seems to be this That the Divines of the Church of England wish in this confusion of things that there were a Judge of Controversies and therefore by their own Confession a Judge is very useful and necessary and therefore there is such a Judge and no other Church pretending to that Authority but the Church of Rome therefore she alone is that Judge Which is such a Chain of Consequences as hang together by Magick for they have no natural connexion If we did think a Judge of Controversies useful does it hence follow that God has appointed such a Judge when there is no appearance of any such thing Or if God had appointed such a Judge does the Church of Romes pretending to be that Judge when she can shew no Commission for it prove that she is so But the truth is whatever Divines they be if there be any such who wish for such a Judge to unite the whole Christian Church in Faith and Worship take very wrong Measures of things And because the true understanding of this is the most effectual way to end this Controversie I shall discourse particularly of it 1. First then I observe That an infallible Judge of Controversies whom we are bound in all cases to believe is inconsistent with the constitution of human Nature Man is a Reasonable Creature and it is natural to a Reasonable Creature to understand and judge for himself and therefore to submit to any mans Judgment how infallible soever he be presumed to be without understanding and judging for our selves is an unnatural imposition upon Mankind this destroys human Nature and transforms a Man who is a knowing and intelligent Creature into a sensless though infallible Machin which moves by external direction not from an inward Principle of Knowledge and Life To know and to follow a Guide without any Knowledge or Judgment of our own are two very different things the first is the Understanding of a man the other a sort of Knowledge without Understanding For though I had an entire System of true Propositions which I must exercise no act of Reason and Judgment about but only receive them as the Dictates of an infallible Judge this is not human Knowledge this is no perfection of human Understanding no man is a jot the wiser or more knowing for all this no more than he would be who could repeat all the Propositions in Euclid and believe them to be all true upon the Authority of his Master but knows not how to demonstrate any one of them which is to understand nothing about them Now I can never believe that God will destroy human Nature by suspending all the acts of Reason and Judgment to make men infallible which is a certain way indeed to prevent Error to let men know and judge of nothing that they may not mistake but for my part I value knowledge so much that I had rather venture some Mistakes than forfeit my Understanding If my Faith must be resolved wholly into the Authority of an infallible Judge though I may think I understand some things yet I must not believe for that Reason for then I must believe nothing but what I do understand and see a Reason for which makes every man his own Judge but I must believe my Judge with or without Understanding without the exercise of my own Reason and Judgment which may make us good Catholicks but does also unman us But you 'l say Are we not bound to believe infallible Teachers whom we know to be infallible And has not God in several Ages given such Teachers to the World Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles And must we not resign up our Understandings to them and does this unman us Why then may we not resign up our Understandings to an infallible Judge now as we ought to have done had we lived in the days of Christ and his Apostles and any other infallible Teachers Now for Answer to this consider Secondly That no infallible Teacher can wholly supersede the exercise of our own Reason and Judgment For though the immediate Authority of God must and ought in all cases to over-rule us and is the best and most rational account of our Faith for nothing is more reasonable than to believe God who is Eternal Truth yet when any man pretends to teach by Gods Authority we must in the first place judge of his Authority and not believe every one who pretends to come from God which resolves the very Reason of our Faith into our own private Judgment and therefore by this Rule we must at least use our own Judgment in the choice of our Judge which in our present case will infer the use of our own Reason and Judgment as to all the material Disputes in Religion and make such a Judge needless when we have found him Of which more presently Nay Secondly VVe must judge of the Doctrine of such a Teacher by Sense and Reason which are the natural Principles of Knowledge for let a man pretend never so much to a Divine Authority if he preach any thing contrary to the Sense and Reason of Mankind we are not to believe him no not though he should work Miracles For we must believe nothing comes from God which is contrary to Sense and Reason which are the natural Notices God has given us of things and as God cannot contradict himself so we can never be surer that any man speaks from God than we are of what Sense and Reason teaches and if the Church of Rome would but suffer us to judge thus far we should have an infallible demonstration
as they did and not believe any pretence of Infallibility against my own Sense and Reason I cannot compare the Doctrine of the Law and the Gospel unless I understand them both and I can understand and judge only with my own Understanding and if I must have done thus though I had lived in our Saviours days surely I must do so now whatever infallible Teachers there may be in the World which I think is a demonstration that there neither is nor can be any such infallible Judge whom I am bound to believe purely upon his own Authority But it may be Objected That this proves too much and undermines even the Protestant Resolution of Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and the Writings of the New Testament as an infallible Rule of Christian Faith and Manners For it seems though we pretend to own their Infallibility yet we must examine their Doctrine by the Law and not believe them to be infallible till we have set in Judgment on their Doctrine and approved it as agreeable to a more infallible Rule and thus we believe their Infallibility because we like their Doctrine not believe their Doctrine because they are infallible Now there is so much Truth in this Objection that I cannot believe that Christ and his Apostles are Teachers come from God unless I be satisfied that they teach nothing contrary to any former Revelation which God has made of his Will for God cannot contradict himself and therefore whoever contradicts what God has before taught can be no true Prophet And therefore though Miracles alone were sufficient to give Authority to Moses who was the first Prophet by whom God made a publick Revelation of his Will yet Miracles alone were not sufficient to give Authority to any succeeding Prophets but their Doctrine also must be examined by its conformity to the Law for though Miracles gave them Authority to make new Revelations yet not to contradict the old So that to examine the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by the Law so far as to see that they do not contradict it is no more than to examine whether they be true Prophets or not as all men ought to do before they believe any pretenders to Prophecy but when it appears that they do not contradict the Law then that power of working Miracles wherewith they are endowed obliges us to believe then in every thing else upon their own Authority And thus we own Christ and his Apostles to be infallible Teachers and consequently receive the Writings of the New Testament as an infallible Rule of Christian Faith because they were men endowed with supernatural Powers and did not in their Preaching contradict any former Revelation of Gods Will. And this is all that we do or need affirm to destroy the Pretences of an infallible Judge for if I must still judge for my self whether the Doctrine of the Gospel do not contradict the Law then I must judge for my self both of the Sense of the Law and the Gospel or else I cannot judge whether they agree or disagree and therefore there can be no infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment in this Inquiry for that were to own their Infallibility before I know whether they are infallible or not Though I must believe whatever an infallible Judge teaches yet I must not believe him till I know him to be infallible and I should think no pretender to Infallibility should exempt himself from such a trial as all Prophets after Moses even Christ and his Apostles themselves submitted to that is to have their Doctrine tried by a standing Revelation Now suppose the Pope or Church of Rome to set up for this infallible Judicature before I can own their Infallibility I must at least examine whether what they teach do not contradict the Law and the Prophets for thus I may and must examine the Gospel it self and if in any one thing they plainly and directly contradict the Law I have nothing more to do with their Infallibility for no man can be infallible who mistakes in any one thing The Church of Rome then teaches That we may give Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and Images Having the Law of Moses in my hand I turn to it and according to the best of my Understanding I find this Worship expresly forbid in the first and second Commandments No say they this is your mistake we are the infallible Judges and you must not trust your own understanding but take the sense of the Church in it By your favour Gentleman say I you are a little too hasty with your Infallibility when I am satisfied you are infallible I will trust you but I am now inquiring whether you are infallible or not and therefore as yet we are upon even ground and I must trust my own Judgment till I find one more infallible Now I say you contradict the first and second Commandments and therefore are not infallible and you would prove that you do not contradict these Commandments from your pretended Infallibility which is the thing yet in question Christ and his Apostles permitted men to judge for themselves whether they contradicted the Law and the Prophets and therefore suffered them to judge of the Sense of the Law too and so must you do also unless you pretend an exemption from all Trial and Examination which Christ and his Apostles never pretended to This shews that even to this day no pretence of Infallibility can exempt men from having their Doctrine tried by the Law and the Prophets for the Gospel it self may still be thus tried and therefore there can be no such infallible Judge as has any Authority to oblige us to believe any Sense they put upon the Law contrary to our own Sense and Reason for then such a Judge as this could not be tried by the Law For if he alone has Authority to interpret the Law no body can try him but himself And this plain Instance I have given of their contradicting the first and second Commandments utterly overthrows their Infallibility till they can prove not by their pretended Infallibility but by plain Reason and Argument that they do not contradict them And we desire no more than to set aside their Plea of Infallibility and we will reason the Case with them when they please And besides this by a parity of Reason this Argument reaches much farther For if the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles must be tried by the Law and the Prophets because no man can have any Authority against a standing Revelation then by the same Reason whoever should now set up for an infallible Guide his Doctrines must be examined by the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles which is now an infallible Rule to us And if the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles might be examined by the Law and the Prophets for the very same Reason the Doctrine of all succeeding Bishops must be tried by
the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for they are as much a standing Revelation to the Christian Church as the Law and the Prophets were to the Jews Nay indeed there is more reason now to examine the Doctrine of all Teachers by the Writings of the New Testament than there was under the Jewish Dispensation to examine them by the Old because the New Testament is the last and most perfect Revelation of God's Will and we must expect and receive no more for S. Paul pronounces an Anathema against Angels themselves should they preach any other Gospel Gal. 1. 8 9. whereas the Law it self gave expectations of a more excellent Prophet than Moses and of a more perfect Revelation and therefore as they were to receive no Prophet who contradicted the Law of Moses so we must receive none who preach any thing else than what Christ and his Apostles have taught Now if the New Testament be all that and more than that to us which the Old Testament was to the Jews then we must have the same liberty of judging under the New Testament which the Jews had under the Old For there can be no more danger in our judging of the Sense of the Gospel and examining the Doctrines of all men by it than there was in allowing this liberty to the Jews we have the same natural right to it which the Jews had a Right not owing to a positive Institution but to the reason and necessity of the thing But to set aside this Dispute about the possibility of such an infallible Judge of Controversies this very Consideration proves that Christ never intended it viz. That he has given us the Gospel in Writing as a standing Rule of Faith and Manners and has appointed an Order of Men to study the Scripture themselves and to instruct others in the true Sense and Interpretation of it 1. Because he has given us the Gospel in Writing which is now to us a standing Rule of Faith and Worship as the Law and the Prophets was to the Jews Now the use of a written Law is for every body to understand it and direct their Faith and Manners by it This was the use the Jews were required to make of the Old Testament and certainly the new Testament was writ for the same end or else I know not why it was writ If then we must learn from the Scriptures what we are to believe and practise this inevitably proves that our Saviours intention was that we should judge for our selves for no man can learn any thing from a Writing unless he be allowed to understand it and judge of the sense and meaning of it Now is not this a plain Proof that Christ never intended such a Judge of Controversies whom we must believe with an implicite Faith If I must receive my Faith upon the Authority of a Judge then there is no need of a Rule which I must and can make no use of if I must follow my Rule there is no room left for a Judge for I must judge for my self To resolve my Faith into the Authority of a Rule and of a Judge are as inconsistent as judging and not judging and therefore Christ could not appoint both ways because they contradict each other one requires the exercise of my own Reason and Judgment and the other forbids it and therefore since Christ has given us a written Rule we may reasonably conclude he has appointed no Judge For though a Law and a Judge to execute that Law are very consistent in Civil Government where the Sentence of a Judge does not oblige mens Faith but only authoritatively determine a difference yet they are two very contrary and therefore inconsistent Resolutions of Faith Secondly As Christ has given us a Rule so he has appointed an Order of men to study this Rule themselves and to instruct other Christians in the meaning of it which is an Argument he intended we should understand it For why should we be taught the Scripture but that we may understand it and to what end should we understand it but to make it our Rule To teach and instruct and to determine as a Judge are two very different things the first reserves to us a liberty of judging the second determines us to believe the Dictates of our Judge Now what need of both these If Christ hath appointed a Judge whom we must in all things believe what need of Teachers to instruct men in the Knowledge of the Scriptures If the Scriptures have no sense but what the Judge gives them what an impertinent trouble is it to study the Scriptures Who can interpret them but this infallible Judge And how then can there be so many Teachers if there be but one Judge Or if the Scriptures may be understood and may be taught what use is there of a Judge unless it be to unteach what he has not a mind to and then he may make all other Teachers useless when he pleases Nay if the greatest Apostles were no more than Teachers where is the Judge and yet this is the only Commission Christ gave to all the Apostles and to Peter among the rest to teach those things which he had commanded them The Charge Christ gives to Peter is to feed his Sheep and his Lambs which is the same St. Paul lays on the Elders of Ephesus Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood Acts 20. 28. that is to instruct and teach them which is the reason St. Paul assigns for those different Orders of Men in the Church He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Ephes. 4. 11 12 13. Here is no Judge of Controversies mentioned among all these though he had been worth them all and indeed had made all the other useless if there had been any such Office But that which I observe is That the work of an Apostle was to instruct men in the Faith to teach them Knowledge and Understanding what they are to believe and why which is very inconsistent with the Office of a Judge For he who instructs men helps them to understand and judge for themselves but a Judge only imposes upon the Faith and Understanding of men without any liberty of judging If we must not understand our Religion nor use our Understanding in judging between Truth and Error there can be no use for Teachers and therefore that Christ has appointed men to instruct his Church is a proof that he intended they should believe with their Understandings and if all the
pretences of such a Judge If we cannot know what is Canonical Scripture without a Judge how shall we know whether there be a Judge For there is no way to know this but by the Scriptures if there be no such Judge appointed in Scripture we have no reason to own him and if we cannot tell what Scripture is without a Judge how shall we find the Judge by the Scriptures And though the Objection be made only against some particular Books of Scripture yet in truth it equally lies against the whole Canon For if we can know any one particular Book of Scripture without a Judge why not the rest No! some of them have been doubted of Right by some Churches who did not know them till they were satisfied by those Churches which kept those Sacred Records that they were true and genuine But the Question is Whether a Book which has been doubted of when that Doubt is removed have not as certain Authority as the rest If it could not then and cannot to this day be proved to be genuine why is it received What Obligation are we under to own it If any Books which we call Canonical were still doubtful it is more natural and reasonable to reject them than to set up a Judge without any Authority to give Authority to them For whether any Book of Scripture be Canonical is matter of Fact and the Doctors of the Church of Rome themselves do not extend Infallibility to matters of Fact and then by their own confession there can be no infallible Judge of the Canon of Scripture but we must content our selves with such Moral Certainty as may be had And if Catholick Tradition be so uncertain that we cannot learn the Canon of Scripture from it what becomes of the Authority of all their unwritten Traditions which they so much boast of Thus some men if they can but make a shew of saying any thing never attend to Consequences nor consider whether their Objections do not make as much against themselves and common Christianity as against Protestants Thirdly The last Argument is That the Author of the Paper can't make those Articles of the Nicene Creed One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church the Communion of Saints agree with the Protestant Religion Here is a little blunder in calling this the Nicene Creed though easily pardonable for it is a jumble of the Apostles and Nicene Creed together The Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints is in the Apostles Creed One Catholick Apostolick Church the Nicene Creed And why does not this agree with the Protestant Religion For we profess to believe both these Creeds as sincerely as the Church of Rome No! How can they be One who disagree by adding in Faith or diminishing from it who do not communicate together in Prayer or Sacraments when they are not agreed in the Essential things how are they One Right Churches which differ in Essentials are not One but I hope there are few Churches do that I am sure they can never prove that we deny any Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith If this proves any thing it proves That all the separate Communions of Christendom are not One Church and what then How is the Church of England more concerned in this than the Church of Rome Can't we believe One Church in the Creed as well as the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christendom Do the meer Divisions of Christendom prove the Church of Rome to be that One Church or that the Church of England is no Member of this One Church in the Creed The Church is but One from the first planting of it by the Apostles to the End of the World and the Church of Rome as well as We must own that it is but One Church notwithstanding the several Divisions that have been in it in the first Ages of the Church as well as now and therefore the Unity and Communion of the Church must not be estimated by any one Age of the Church but the Apostolick Age must be the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion as it is of the Catholick Faith Suppose all the Churches of the World at this day were in Communion with the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England Why then you 'l say it would be plain the Church of England were separated from the whole Church of Christ and from Catholick Communion Right from the Church of this Age but the whole Church of this Age is but a very little part of the Catholick Church where it is sound and Orthodox for I hope they will allow the Apostolick Churches and the Churches of the three first Ages to be the best and purest parts of the One Catholick Church and that we must still maintain Communion with them if then the Church of England were separated from all the Churches of this Age yet if she be in Communion with the Apostolick and Primitive Churches she is in Catholick Commun on still if the Apostles themselves were in Catholick Communion To know then whether the Church of England be a true Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion we are not so much concerned to enquire what Churches she communicates with now as whether she be in the Apostolick Communion which is the Fountain and Original of Catholick Communion Now if the Constitution of the Church of England be such as to Doctrine Worship and Government that the Apostles themselves would have owned our Communion had we been in their days how do we come to be Schismaticks now and out of Catholick Communion For if Catholick Communion be the Communion of the whole Catholick Church from the Times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world which is but one Church and the Apostolick Churches are the true Measure and Standard of true Catholick Communion then those Churches which to this day are in Communion with the Apostles are in true Catholick Communion And this Test we will stand by though I would not advise the Church of Rome to do so Let us consider whether the Apostles would have rejected our Communion for those Reasons for which the Church of Rome now rejects us Would St. Paul have rejected our Communion because we will not worship God in an Unknown Tongue which he himself forbids 1 Cor. 14. because we will not worship Saints and Angels and Images which the Romanists confess was neither commanded nor practised in those days and which we say was forbid then and understood to be so by all Christians For not owning the Supremacy of Peter when St. Paul himself withstood him as much as we do the Pope of Rome and upon a much less occasion Gal. 2. 11. c. And the African Churches long after in the days of St. Cyprian and by his Authority forbad all Appeals to the Bishop or Church of Rome In a word would the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind private and solitary Masses
cannot communicate with them for there is nothing sinful in our Communion and whatever they pretend they can never prove that there is any thing wanting in it necessary to Salvation and when we deny Communion to no Church that will communicate with us and require no sinful terms of Communion which can justifie a Separation from us let them tell me wherein our Schism consists The Paper I can't think those glorious Promises sufficiently fulfilled of the Holy Spirits leading them into all Truth and abiding with them and that for ever Answer Pray why not That Promise of Leading them into all Truth was made to the Apostles and was fulfilled in them and extended to no others in that degree of Infallibility as is evident from the manner how the Spirit was to lead them into all Truth viz. by bringing to their remembrance all things which Christ had said to them which can belong only to those Persons who heard the Sermons and Discourses of Christ himself For though a man may be taught what he never knew before yet he cannot be said to remember what he never heard before But when it is added that this Spirit of Truth shall abide with them for ever that for ever must be appropriated to the Apostles as it relates to an infallible Direction and their for ever signifies no longer than they lived for if it must be extended to all the Successors of the Apostles then there must be as many infallible Judges as there are Successors to all the Apostles in the several Churches founded by them which will not serve the Designs of the Church of Rome As for what follows about the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church I have already given an account of that for the Gates of Hell never prevail while there is a Church which professes the Faith which St. Peter then professed That Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which the Church of Rome her self has done in her greatest Corruptions excepting Pope Liberius his Subscription to the Arian Confession And whereas the Paper concludes with a desire to know how the Church of England is Catholick and Apostolick the Answer is very plain Because her Doctrine Worship and Discipline is Catholick and Apostolick THE CONCLUSION An Address to wavering Protestants shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Religion WHat I have now discoursed in Answer to these Papers seems to me so very clear and plain that I should not much question its good effect even upon honest Papists would they impartially read and consider it much more upon wavering Protestants if it be only some Scruples not Interest which sways them But the better to fix such People and that in the Modern fashionable way without disputing all the Points in controversie I shall desire them to consider How much more Certainty and Safety they have in Communion with the Church of England than they can have by going over to the Church of Rome And I think this is home to the purpose it being the same Argument wherewith the Roman Priests endeavour to pervert our People and which is the principal design of these Papers 1. First then I observe That all the positive Articles of the Protestant Faith are owned and believed in the Church of Rome we do not believe all that they believe but yet they believe all that we do for our Faith is contained in the ancient Creeds the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds which the Church of Rome owns as well as we And though we do not build our Certainty on the Authority of the Church of Rome but on the express Revelations of Scripture which contain all the Articles of our Faith and is as much Certainty as we desire yet methinks even a modest Romanist should blush to charge our Faith with Uncertainty when our Faith as far as it reaches is the same with theirs Surely they must grant that in these matters which we all consent in our Faith is true and orthodox they must grant that the last Resolution of our Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles is sound and orthodox also for thus they resolve their own Faith They must grant that the Universal Consent of the Church in all Ages not excluding the Church of Rome it self as a part of the Catholick Church is the best External Testimony of the Christian Faith Now when we believe the same things which the Church of Rome does upon the Authority of Christ and his Apostles whose Doctrine is contained in the Writings of the New Testament and expounded by the General Faith of the Christian Church in all Ages what appearance of Uncertainty can be charged on such a Faith We reject indeed the infallible Authority of the present Church of Rome but what then Will not a true orthodox Faith save us unless we believe in Christ upon the Authority of a particular Church which had no being when Christianity was first planted in the world But I think I need not insist on this for I cannot believe that any Member of the Church of England goes over to the Church of Rome because he cannot believe his Creed in the Church of England But then I would desire them to consider what that Uncertainty is which they complain of in the Church of England for if the positive Faith of the Church of England is certain as it must be if the Faith of the Church of Rome as to these Matters be certain why do they leave us for want of Certainty which is now the Popular Argument to seduce men from our Communion If they think we do not believe enough let them say so and make that the cause of their departure from us but if as far as our Faith goes we have certain and evident Reasons of our Faith how does our Faith come to be uncertain As for those particular Doctrines which are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome we grant we have no certainty of them nay more than that we say no man can be certain of them how confident soever he is for they are founded neither on Reason nor Scripture nor any good Authority for we do not take the Authority of the present Church of Rome to be good Authority and if this be all they mean by our uncertainty that we have no certainty for the worship of Saints and Images and Relicks for Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Host for Prayers in an unknown Tongue for Masses for the Living and the Dead for a Judicial Absolution and those new Sacraments they have introduced into the Church we readily grant it but think this a very strange Reason for Protestants to desert our Communion because we have no certainty of things which we believe to be false We do not only confess that we can find no certainty for these things but we assert that we have positive and certain Evidence against them and those who have
a mind to believe such Doctrines as these must go over to the Church of Rome to enlarge and improve their Faith for we shall never believe them But if they can be contented with the Faith which the Scriptures teach and which the Primitive Church professed we have as much Evidence and Certainty for that as the Church of Rome her self has and how they can better themselves by going over to the Church of Rome as to these Points I cannot tell since we believe as orthodoxly as they Secondly As for those Doctrines and Practices which we reject because we have no Evidence for them but only the Authority of the Church of Rome which is no Evidence to us because it is not evident it self we think our selves much safer in rejecting than we could be in owning them and that for this plain Reason that though we should be mistaken in rejecting such Doctrines as we are very certain we are not yet they are such Mistakes as do no injury to common Christianity no dishonour to our common Saviour and therefore cannot be dangerous to our Souls whereas if the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome be as we say they are Innovations and Corruptions of Christianity they are very dangerous and fatal Corruptions As to shew this in some few Instances What injury is it to Christianity not to believe the Infallibility of the Pope or Council while we believe Christ and his Apostles to be infallible which is Infallibility enough to direct the Christian Church For while we adhere to what they taught we can neither believe too little nor too much but if we believe the Infallibility of the Pope we are bound to stand to his Authority and to receive all his Dictates without examination and how dangerous is this if he should prove not to be infallible for then he may lead us into damnable Errors and we have no way to get out of them While we own the Supremacy of our Saviour who is the Head of his Church and of all Principalities and Powers and the Authority of Bishops and Pastors to govern the Church under Christ what does the Church suffer by denying the Supremacy of the Pope when Soveraign Princes and Bishops may govern their several Churches as well or better without him This indeed destroys the Papal Monarchy but Christ is King still and the Church is never the worse Church because it is not an universal Monarchy which Christ never intended it should be But if we give the Supremacy to the Pope and he has no right to it by Christ's Institution this is an invasion upon the Right of all the Christian Bishops in the world makes it impossible for them to govern or reform their own Churches whatever occasion there be without leave from the Pope which very thing has hindred the Reformation of the Church of Rome it self these last Ages when it has been so earnestly pressed both by Christian Princes and Bishops of that Communion witness the managemént of Affairs in the Council of Trent Nay this is an invasion on the Rights of Soveraign Princes to set a Superior over them in their own Dominions who can command their Subjects with a more Sacred Authority and how fatal this may prove to Princes and what a Snare and Temptation to Subjects some Examples of former Ages may satisfie us Suppose we should be mistaken about the lawfulness of Praying to Saints the Church of Rome her self does not pretend that it is necessary to do it and therefore we want nothing necessary to Salvation by not doing it and certainly our Saviour cannot think it any injury to his Mediation that we so wholly rely upon his Intercession that we desire no other Advocates and that we are so jealous of his Glory that we will not admit the most glorious Saints to the least Partnership with him and this will make him our Advocate in deed when he sees we will have no other But if he be our only Mediator and Advocate by God's appointment and his own purchase let those who unnecessarily apply themselves to so many other Mediators consider how our only Mediator will like it Suppose it were lawful to worship God or Christ by Images which we think expresly forbid by the second Commandment yet will they say That it is an affront or injury to God and our Saviour to worship him without Images If that lovely Idea we have of God in our minds if the remembrance of what Christ has done and suffered for us make us truly and sincerely and passionately devout what need have we of an Image which is pretended only to be a help to Devotion and therefore of no use to those who can be devout without it But he who considers what God's Jealousie means must needs think it dangerous to worship the Images of God and Christ and the Saints for fear they should be forbid by the second Commandment which all the wit of man can never prove that they are not Though Latin Prayers were lawful in English Congregations who do not understand them yet is it unlawful to pray in English Is it any dishonour to God any injury to Religion that men pray with their Understandings If true worship begins in the Mind and our Understandings must govern our Affections I should fear that to pray without understanding what I prayed would not be accepted by that God who is the Father of Spirits and must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth If we believe That Christs once offering himself upon the Cross was a Sufficient Sacrifice Propitiation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world what injury do we to the Sacrifice of Christ though we do not believe that he is offered again every day in ten Thousand Masses If we believe that in the Supper of our Lord we eat the Sacramental Body and drink the Sacramental Blood of Christ which by his own Institution do as really and effectually convey to us all the benefits of his Death and Passion as if we could eat his Natural Flesh and drink his Blood what injury does the Church suffer by denying Transubstantiation And if when we approach his holy Table we worship Christ in Heaven sitting on the right Hand of God Is not this as true an Honour to our Saviour as to worship him under the Species of Bread But if Transubstantiation be false what a hazard does that man run who worships a piece of Bread which the most Learned Romanists themselves grant to be Idolatry If we believe That Christ alone has a Judicial Power to forgive Sins and that the Church has a Ministerial Authority to take in or shut out of the Church which is the only state of Pardon and Salvation and therefore is a Ministerial remitting or retaining of Sins and sufficient to all the ends of Ecclesiastical Authority is not this as much Pardon and Forgiveness as any Christian has need of though we deny that the Priest has a Judicial
or Pretorian Authority to forgive sins which is not compatible to any Creature For what can any man desire more han to be put into a state of Pardon and Forgiveness in this World and to be finally acquitted and absolved in the next But if the Priest have no such Judicial Authority to forgive Sins what a fatal Mistake is it for men to rely on such an ineffectual Absolution What a miserable surprize will it be for those who thought themselves pardoned by the Priest to be condemned by Christ Though we deny such a place as Purgatory is not the fear of Hell as good an Argument to bring men to Repentance Or does it lessen the Mercies of God or the hope of Sinners to say That God remits all future Punishments when he remits the Sin But if the hopes of expiating their Sins in Purgatory and of being prayed out of it should embolden any man in sin what a disappointment would it be to find their Purgatory to be Hell This is sufficient to shew That we can suffer nothing by denying such Doctrines as these unless the causless Anathema's of the Church of Rome can damn us but the hazard is so vastly great on the other side the Mistake will prove so fatal if they be in a mistake that nothing less than an infallible Certainty can justifie the Prudence of such a Choice and therefore it is not fit for such fallible Creatures as we own our selves to be to venture on them We are safe as we are and we think it best to keep our selves so though we had no other Reason for it but that it is good to be safe Thirdly Safe I say we are in rejecting these Doctrines unless they can prove that by rejecting them we want something necessary to Salvation There are two things especially wherein the Romanists think they have the advantage of us and for the sake of which some Protestants are perswaded to forsake the Communion of the Church of England for that of Rome That they eat the natural Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament and receive a Judicial Pardon of all their Sins by the Absolution of the Priest which we confess we do not Now suppose it were necessary to Salvation to eat the Natural Flesh of Christ and that Christ would not forgive any man who was not before forgiven by the Priest yet if these be the Institutions of Christ we have them as well as they and no man need go out of the Church of England for them If the words of Consecration This is my Body do by the Institution of Christ transubstantiate the Bread into the Natural Flesh of Christ these words must have the same effect when pronounced by a Priest of the Church of England as of the Church of Rome And therefore if this were the Intention of our Saviour to give us his Natural Flesh to eat we do eat it as much as they for we eat the consecrated Elements which are whatever Christ intended to make them by the words of Consecration For our not believing Transubstantiation cannot hinder the virtue of Consecration if Christ have so appointed it for the Institutions of our Saviour do not change their Nature with mens Opinions about them Thus Penitents in the Church of England may confess their Sins to a Priest if they please and receive Absolution and if by the Institution of our Saviour this is a Judicial Absolution then they have it and need not go to the Church of Rome for it There are but two Objections that I know of that can be made against this either that we have no true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England and therefore we have no Consecration of the Elements or that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to Consecration and nothing more is done than what the Priest intends to do and therefore no Priest can Transubstantiate but he who intends to Transubstantiate 1. As for the first of these If there be no true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England there are none in the Church of Rome for our Bishops and Priests derive their Succession from those Bishops who received Orders in the Communion of the Church of Rome and therefore have as good Orders as they could give and as they themselves had and if we have as true Bishops and Priests as the Church of Rome we must have as perfect Sacraments as they also 2. As for the Intention of the Priest That in the Church of Rome signifies no more than to intend to do what the Church does and why is not intending to do what Christ does as good and perfect an Intention as this And thus we all intend to do what Christ did which is all the Intention that can be necessary to Consecration unless the private Opinion of the Priest can alter the nature of the Institution But the Truth is If the Church of Rome depends upon the Intention of the Priest for Consecration no Papist can ever be sure that the Bread is consecrated and then to be sure it is not transubstantiated and therefore I think they may compound this business and allow us Transubstantiation if we will allow it them We want it not indeed and care not for it but those who lay so much stress upon it need not forsake the Communion of the Church of England for that Reason at least have no Reason to say That we want any thing necessary to Salvation Let us but observe the Institution of our Saviour and we need not fear but we shall receive all the Spiritual Blessings which Christ intended to convey to us in that Sacrament which those can never be sure of who do not observe the Institution but receive only a part of the Lord's Supper instead of the whole Were these things well considered I perswade my self no man would see any cause to forsake the Communion of the Church of England where he has all things necessary to Salvation without oppressing his Faith with Doctrines hard to be believed or endangering his Soul by doubtful and suspicious Practices at best THE INDEX THE Authority of a visible Judge of no use in converting Jews or Pagans 2 Faith not resolved into the Authority of a visible Judge in the time of Christ and his Apostles 3 Though some passages in Scripture are difficult others are plain 4 In what Sense the Scripture is plain 5 Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity be plainly revealed in Scripture 6 Whether General Councils have a power to determine Matters of Faith without Appeal to every mans reason 8 9 What Authority we allow to Councils 10 11 The use of Antiquity in expounding Scripture 12 The Church of Englands way of resolving of Faith 14 15 Hereticks pretences to Scripture no Argument of the uncertainty of this way 15 16 The Church of Romes pretences to Antiquity 16 17 What course People must take who are not able to judge of the Controversies in Religion 19. c. The ignorance of Common People only a pretence not a Reason for a Judge of Controversies 26 27 A visible Succession from the Apostles no mark of an infallible Church 29 Arguments against an infallible Judge 32 33 Proofs that Christ never intended to set up such a Judge 39 Certainty in Religion may be had without an infallible Judge 42 What Evidence required in Faith 43 Concerning the Unity of the Church 46 An Inquiry what Certainty a Papist can have 5â— Whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors 60 Whether the Church of England had Authority to reform Errors which are not damnable 62 What is meant by the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church 63 Whether we cannot know what Books of Scripture are Canonical without a visible Judge 64 In what sense the Church is one 65 The Apostolick Churches the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion 67 What Catholick Communion is 69 70 In what sense the Church is called Holy 72 The Church of England not Guilty of Schism 73 That there is greater safety in Communion with the Church of England than of the Church of Rome 75 to the end THE END
Apostles even St. Peter himself had no other Commission but to Teach then their Authority could not extend farther than their Teaching that is they could not oblige men to believe more than they could make them understand the reason of Well but if Christ hath not appointed a Judge of Controversies what Certainty can we have of our Religion and what care has Christ taken of the Unity of the Church These are two Points which must be considered and if we can give a fair account of them without a Judge of Controversies there will be so little need of such a Judge that there will be no great Reason to contend about him First As for Certainty why cannot we be certain of our Religion as well as of other Matters without an infallible Judge Does any man want an infallible Judge to make him certain of the sense of a plain Law or any other intelligible Writing to understand the difference between true and false reasoning to know what kind of Evidence he may rely on as to Matters of Fact which were done in a remote Country or before he was born Now if we can be certain of any thing without an infallible Judge then Certainty does not depend upon Infallibility because we can be certain without it Certainty of Knowledge depends upon the Certainty of Evidence What we have certain Evidence for we may be certain of and what we have not certain Evidence for we can never be certain of To depend upon Authority though it be supposed infallible is but one sort of Evidence and one kind of Certainty viz. the certainty of Authority and therefore if there be other kinds of evidence and certainty for our Religion besides the Authority of an infallible Judge then we may be certain still though there were no infallible Judge For where there are more means of Certainty than one the taking away one does not destroy all Certainty now I would fain see that man who will venture to say That we have no possible way to be certain of the truth of Christianity or what Christ and his Apostles taught but only the Testimony of an infallible Judge for then there is no way left to make men Christians unless they will own an infallible Judge before they believe Christianity which will argue great good Nature in them Well! but suppose there were other possible ways to attain a Certainty in Religion yet there is none so easie none so certain as an infallible Judge which delivers us from tedious Inquiries and doubtful Disputes and makes all men Orthodox whether they will or no Now for this very Reason I reject an infallible Judge because it is very plain Christ never intended such a degree of Evidence as this Faith is a Christian Grace and Vertue and therefore must be an act of the Will as well as of the Understanding which supposes that the Evidence is not irresistible for it is no Vertue to believe that the Sun shines when we see it Such Evidence as forces an assent is inconsistent with the nature of Faith considered as a Vertue which is a free and voluntary assent upon such Evidence as is sufficient to satisfie an honest man but not to compel an obstinate Infidel or Heretick to believe Of this nature is that Evidence we have for the truth of Christianity Miracles alone as I observed before did not prove Jesus to be the Messias or Christ for then all men who saw his Miracles must have believed him as they did Moses but besides this they were to inquire whether his Person answered the Characters the Prophets had given of the Messias and whether his Doctrine were reconcileable with their Law and here the Passions and Prejudices and Lusts and Interests of men might interpose and corrupt and byass their Judgments and whether they would believe or would not believe did very much depend upon the temper and disposition of their minds Hence our Saviour attributes the Infidelity of the Scribes and Pharisees to their Pride and Covetousness and such like evil Causes and requires an honest and teachable mind to prepare and dispose men to receive the Gospel Such he calls his Sheep Ye believe not because ye are not of my Sheep as I said unto you My Sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me John 10. 26 27. Now if this be all the Evidence he has afforded the World of his own being the Messias which is the very Foundation of the Christian Religion the Superstructure cannot be more firm and certain than the Foundation is and therefore the same kind of Evidence which Christ thought sufficient to prove himself to be the Messias must be sufficient also for all the ends of Religion Christ has no Disciples but sincere honest men and therefore has given us such a degree of Evidence and Certainty as may be a trial of our honesty It is of no concernment whether bad men be Infidels or Hereticks and then if there be sufficient Evidence and Certainty to satisfie honest men it is enough and there is abundant Evidence for this purpose without an infallible Judge and therefore there can be no need of him And besides this our Saviour has promised the assistance of his Spirit not only to work Faith in all well disposed Minds but to enlighten their Understandings and to guide them in the diligent use of those Means he has prescribed to find out Truth which though it does not make them absolutely infallible which there is no need of to carry men to Heaven yet it preserves them from all great and fatal Mistakes Now I would desire any man to tell me what need there had been of the internal Illuminations of the Spirit to direct us in our inquiries after Truth if Christ had provided such an external infallible Means as a Judge of Controversies And though honest men are not infallible yet they have this security as to their speculative Mistakes which have no ill influence upon their Lives that the Mercies of God do as well extend to the infirmities of our Understanding as of our Wills For if an involuntary Ignorance will be some Excuse even to bad men to lessen their punishment much more may we presume it will excuse good Men. To demand such a degree of Evidence and Certainty as God has not thought fit to give us does great mischief to Religion for this makes some men Atheists and others Infidels The Infidel thinks that seeing there is not Evidence enough for the Christian Religion to force an Assent therefore they are not bound to believe it the Church of Rome owns this That there is not sufficient Certainty without an infallible Judge and hence they argue That there must be an infallible Judge and that the Pope or Church of Rome is that Judge Now let the Infidel and the Romanist dispute it out which of these two is the best consequence that since we cannot be certain of our Religion whether we should