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
professed in the Church of England and there is but one material Objection against the certainty of this way That our Dissenters pretend to Scripture as well as we and so most Hereticks have always done and as for Antiquity the Church of Rome makes a greater noise with it than we do and how then can a plain and unlearned man chuse safely in such variety of Judgments and Opinions Now the force of this Argument consists in this That because some men mistake no man can be in the right or because some men may confidently believe they are in the right when they are in the wrong therefore no man can be sure that he is in the right which pretence would be laughed at in all other cases excepting Religion and here I am sure it deserves to be so There is a vast difference between confidence of Perswasion and certainty of Knowledge the prejudices of Education the Authority of Guides the byass of Interest and such like fallacious Principles may make men very confident when they know little or nothing about the matter or men may reason falsly and think themselves very confident as a man in a Dream does but can no man be certain he is awake because some men very confidently think themselves awake when they are in a Dream The greatest part of the World pronounce a hasty Judgment before they are well awake before they have considered the matter throughly and weighed every circumstance of it and a man who has but half considered a thing may with very good reason think himself certain so far and yet may be grosly mistaken because there is another half which he has not considered Every man is sensible of this when he corrects a Mistake for he discovers something which he had not thought on before which makes him alter his Judgment about it and therefore though some men are confident and yet mistaken it does not hence follow that no man can be certain when he Reasons right for Truth lies so easie in a mans mind who has throughly considered things and has such a native brightness and lustre in it that he can no more doubt of it than whether the Sun be up when he sees its light But let us consider this Objection particularly with reference both to Scripture and Antiquity 1. It is objected That Hereticks pretended the Authority of Scripture as well as the Orthodox and our Dissenters as well as the Church of England But what then Is the Scripture of no use because some men use it ill Is it not possible to find out the true sense of Scripture because some men put a false sense on it Can these Hereticks be confuted out of the Scripture or not If not why do we charge them with Heresie If they may how are such Heresies being fathered on the Scriptures an Argument against studying the Scriptures and relying on their Authority For we cannot confute Heresies by the Scripture unless we can understand the Scriptures and if we may find out the true sense of Scripture notwithstanding that Hereticks put a wrong sense on it then we may be as certain that we understand the Scriptures aright as we are that others do misunderstand them But besides this Though Hereticks pretend to expound Scripture yet they contradict the Faith of the Primitive Church and therefore their Case differs vastly from the Case of the Church of England whose Faith is founded both on Scripture and Apostolick Tradition as I observed before And as for our Dissenters our Dispute with them is not about Articles of Faith but the external Modes and Circumstances of Worship or the Government and Discipline of the Church and the Question between us is Whether we must use no external Circumstances of Worship but what are prescribed in Scripture or Whether the constant Practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles be not the best Comment on Scripture as to the external Government of it And this I think is so baffled a Cause that the Romanists are hard put to it when they use that Argument Secondly As for Antiquity the Church of Rome makes great boasts of it but they are very vain ones and who can help mens pretending to Antiquity when it is apparently against them No man indeed can be a competent Judge of this but those who are skilled in Antiquity and have examined their pretences but there are some considerations which lye obvious to every man and may serve to direct the unlearned what Judgment to make in this matter 1. For had true Antiquity been on their side what need had they of spurious and counterfeit Authors to make some appearance of Antiquity with This has been the great Artifice of the Church of Rome though they begin now to be ashamed of it since the learned Reformers have discovered the Cheat. Who pleases may see some account of this in an English Book entituled Roman Forgeries and this is reason enough to suspect their pretences to Antiquity for no man takes Sanctuary in Falshood who has Truth on his side 2. Another Evidence of this is their corrupting Ancient Authors and because they can find nothing in them to their purpose to insert something which is but the plainest and honestest confession of this matter is their Index Expurgatorius which corrects the Fathers and orders the leaving out of such Passages as make against them now when they are forced to leave out and put into the Fathers it is very suspicious that they are convinced the Fathers are not on their side 3. Where they make the loudest Cry of Antiquity the Scripture is either against them or says nothing for them and though we allow the Ancient practice of the Church in matters of Discipline and Government to be a good Pattern for us to follow in such particulars as are not expressed in Scripture if they comply with the general Rules and Directions of Scripture yet we do not think Antiquity it self to be a sufficient justification of any Doctrines of Faith or new acts of Worship which either the Scripture condemns or does not teach and this is a manifest difference between the Pretences of the Church of England and the Church of Rome to Antiquity The Church of England justifies her Doctrines and Practices both from Scripture and Antiquity which is as sure a foundation as we can possibly have the Church of Rome alledges Antiquity such as it is to prove such Doctrines and Practices as the Scripture either condemns or knows nothing of Now we think the Scriptures have the greatest Antiquity and are a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners and that no other Antiquity can controul the Authority of the Scriptures As for Instance Suppose the Church of Rome could prove the Worship of Images Praying to Saints and Angels Prayers in an unknown Tongue and Cummunion in One kind c. to have been anciently practised in the Church though this they are never able to prove yet what is
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
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
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
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
and the like have been thought a just Reason in the Apostles days to deny Communion to all those Churches which reject them The Church of England is in Communion with all those Churches from the Apostles days till now who never owned nor imposed those Doctrines and Practices for which we now Separate from the Church of Rome as necessary Terms of Communion which upon inquiry will be found a much more Catholick Communion than that of the Church of Rome for we communicate with more Ages and with more Churches than they do The Church of Rome as now constituted in all its parts and proportions is no older than the Council of Trent which is some time since Luther that we may with more reason ask them Where their Church was before the Council of Trent then they ask us Where our Church was before Luther We find our Church in its Doctrine Worship and Government in the Apostles days but their Church was not made all at a time but one Age brought in one Corruption another another Some aspiring Popes began the Encroachments upon the Liberties of other Churches and others kept the ground their Predecessors had got and as they had opportunity made new Conquests and thus by degrees it grew up into a Papal Omnipotency Some thinking Monks started some uncouth Opinions which were tossed about for a while in Disputes and if they were such as might be of use to advance the Power of the Pope or of the Priest they began to be countenanced at Rome and that made honest men cautious of Opposing and then they grew up into received Doctrines and when it was ripe for that purpose they were dubbed Articles of Faith and at length were digested into method and order refined and polished and received their last Authority from the pack'd Conventicle of Trent And will any man call this Catholick Communion the dividing Terms of which were wholly unknown to the best and purest Ages of the Church crept in by degrees in several later Ages and never received its accomplishment and perfection till since the Reformation it self and is now already in the wane and almost expounded into Protestant Heresie at least so they would perswade us by the Bp. of Meaux and our Modern Representers However this shews how among all the Divisions of Christendom we can prove our selves to be a Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion which is all that we at present are concerned for and let the Church of Rome do as much for herself if she can Upon these Principles she now rejects us it is plain she must have denied Communion to the Apostolick Churches and I am sure they would have denied Communion to her and what is become then of her Catholick Communion which shuts out the Apostles and Apostolick Churches The Paper And how in the Communion of Saints For that which I think makes a Corporation become a Body of Men is the Obligation imposed on those who live in that Corporation to be subject to the peculiar Laws and Government there established for even of those that make Scripture their Rule of all those Churches Answer I suppose the latter part of this is either false or hastily writ If the meaning be that the whole Christian Church in such a Corporation as is under the same individual Government or one governing Head who must give Laws to the whole Church this we utterly deny and it ought to have been proved Christ at first committed the planting and governing his Church to Twelve Apostles who as St. Cyprian affirms had all equal Power and Authority though Christ named Peter only in bestowing the Apostolical Power not to give Peter any Superiority over the rest but only to signifie that unity and harmony of consent which ought to be among them in exercising the Apostolical Power that they were all to act as one Man The Apostles left their Power to the Bishops of the several Churches who had the immediate Inspection and Soveraign Power over their own Churches as the same Father frequently asserts but yet were to govern their several Churches with mutual advice and consent So that the Unity of particular Churches consists in their Obedience and Subjection to their Bishop and in the Communion of all the Members of it in all acts of Worship and Discipline and those who separate from the external and visible Communion of the Church wherein they live without necessary and unavoidable Reasons are Schismaticks who cut themselves off from the Body of Christ. The Communion of the Catholick Church consists not in the Subjection of one Church to another but in the Profession of the same Faith and in the Agreement and Concord of their Bishops in owning each others Churches and maintaining Communion with them upon Catholick Principles and governing their Churches as far as is expedient by common Rules of Worship and Discipline This then being the Constitution of the Catholick Church let us briefly consider what it is that unites particular Churches in Catholick Communion 1. Every particular Church which professes the true Faith of Christ is part of the Catholick Church and by virtue of this Catholick Faith is so far in Communion with the whole Catholick Church and thus we own the Church of Rome her self to be part of the Catholick Church for she professes the true Faith of Christ though with a great mixture of dangerous Errors 2. The Communion of particular Churches does not consist in using the same Liturgies or external Rites of Worship if their Worship be a true Christian Worship and agreeable to the general Laws of the Gospel for every Church has Authority within her self to direct and model her own Worship and therefore if there were no fault in it yet the Church of England is not bound to receive her Liturgies and Worship from the Church of Rome but may use her own without being charged with Schism for doing so 3. Every Catholick Church is bound to receive each others Members to Communion when they come among them which makes them all but one Church one Society Body the Members of which have a mutual right and interest in each other and therefore it is a Principle of Catholick Communion not to adhere so stiffly to the Rites and Usages of our own particular Churches as not to communicate with other Churches who use different Rites from our own if they be innocent Thus far all things are plain and easie but the difficulty is how we shall maintain Communion with those Churches which teach very erroneous Doctrines or use very corrupt and suspected kinds of Worship And therefore Fourthly How corrupt soever any Church be if she still retains the true Faith of Christ we must own her for a Christian Church though a corrupt one which is one degree of Communion with her to own her of the same Body with our selves though as a sick or rotten Member This was the charge against the Novatians and Donatists not only that they
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
Proof but themselves which shews that the very highest Certainty of all is nothing else but an intuitive Knowledge or the Minds seeing and discerning that natural Evidence which is in things and those who will not allow a clear and distinct knowledge to be the Foundation of Certainty must reject all Self-evident Principles which we can have no other Proof of but themselves at least no better for we cannot reason in infinitum and therefore must come to some first Principles which are known only by their own light and evidence Next to this are those Notions and Idea's which are so easie and natural to our minds that most men believe them by a kind of natural sense and instinct without reasoning about them and those who have no mind to believe them yet cannot rid their minds of them such as the Being and Providence of God and the Essential differences between Good and Evil. These are the next degree to Self-evident Principles for they are natural Notions which indeed may be proved by Reason and must be so when we meet with men who will deny them but yet a well-disposed Mind has a natural byass and inclination to believe them sees them to be true and evident without reasoning about them This is very plain the less of Reasoning there is required in any case the more there is of Certainty First and Self-evident Principles admit of no Reasoning Natural Notions require none and as for all other matters the nearer they lie to first Principles or natural Notions the more certain and evident they are nay we have no other certainty of the deductions and conclusions of Reason but their manifest connexion to some Principles and Notions which may be known without Reasoning which shews as I said before That all natural Certainty is at last resolved into an intuitive Knowledge and the Certainty of Reason is nothing else but the connecting those things which we do not know by Nature with those which we do Sixthly Where natural Knowledge and natural Certainty ends there Revelation begins but still Certainty is not Infallibility but Evidence and natural Evidence too For there can be no communication between God and Creatures as to revealing his Will but by the mediation of our natural Faculties whether the Object be naturally or supernaturally revealed we have only our natural Faculties to know and understand with and therefore we can have no more than natural Evidence of supernatural Revelations though this Evidence is owing to supernatural Causes As for Instance An inspired Prophet though he be infallible as far as he is inspired yet it is not his Infallibility that makes him certain that he is inspired but that certain Evidence he has that this Revelation comes from God which must either be by some external and visible Signs or by some such vigorous impression upon the Mind as carries its own Evidence with it which what it is no man can know but he who has it As for those who are not inspired themselves but must learn from inspired Men their Faith must depend upon that evidence they have for the Revelation the natural Notion of Gods Veracity is the reason why they believe what they know is revealed they must use their own Faculties to understand what is revealed and they must judge of the truth and certainty of a Revelation from such Marks and Characters as are evident either to Sense or Reason So that Infallibility sounds very big but signifies very little in this Dispute for all Certainty whether in natural or revealed Knowledge must be resolved into Evidence not into Infallibility Though an inspired Prophet is an infallible Oracle in those things which he speaks by Inspiration yet it is not his Infallibility but that Evidence he has that he is divinely Inspired which makes him certain much less can any man be infallibly certain who is not infallible himself how many infallible Teachers soever there are in the World For we may as well say That a man may be wise with another mans Wisdom as infallible by another mans Infallibility Every man must know and understand for himself and Infallibility is only such a perfect degree of Knowledge as is not liable to any mistakes and if no man has any Knowledge but what be has in himself then he has no degree of Knowledge but what he has in himself and therefore can never have an infallible Knowledge unless he himself be infallible Suppose then we should grant That the Pope or Church of Rome were infallible what advantage has a Papist for Certainty above a Protestant Does the Infallibility of the Pope make them all infallible And if every Papist be not not infallible then they can have no more Certainty than fallible Creatures are capable of and so much I hope may be allowed to fallible Protestants The Authority of a Revelation in matters divinely Revealed answers to natural Evidence in things knowable by the light of Nature as we cannot doubt of things which are plain and evident to our Understandings so we cannot doubt of what we know is Revealed by God but then as we must use our Reason to judge of the natural Evidence of things so we must use our Reason to judge of the truth and evidence and sense of a Revelation and it is the same Mind and the same Understanding which must judge both of natural and revealed Knowledge and if our Understandings be not infallible I know not how an infallible Judge or an infallible Revelation which are external things should bestow an internal Infallibility on us And therefore after all their brags of Infallibility Papists themselves must be contented if they can be certain for if Infallibility did signifie somewhat more than Certainty yet Certainty is the most that a fallible Creature can have for it is impossible for any Creature to have Infallibility who is not infallible himself And this I hope will make them a little more favourable hereafter to Protestant Certainty for whatever can be objected against Certainty in general as distinguished from Infallibility will as effectually destroy the Popish as the Protestant Certainty for Papists are no more infallible Creatures than Protestants are A DISCOURSE CONCERNING A Judge of Controversies BEING AN ANSWER TO SOME Papers c. The Paper I Am not satisfied with the Foundation of the Protestant Religion For if God has certainly left no Visible Judge of Controversies as we assert and yet grant that there are things necessary to Salvation to be believed as well as things to be practised and that the Scriptures are to a demonstration not plain even in what we dare not disown to be Fundamentals as the Trinity c. Answer These Objections against the Protestant resolution of Faith strike not only at the foundations of the Protestant Religion but of Christianity it self For if the Dispute were about the truth of Christian Religion by such Arguments as they can prove the Christian Religion to be true we will prove
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