had set up a distinct and separate Communion but that they unchurched the Catholick Church and therefore re-baptized those who had been baptized in the Catholick Communion as if they had been Infidels before So that if there be any true Church in the world besides the Church of Rome the Church of Rome must necessarily be Schismatical because she unchurches all other Churches but her self and therefore can have no degree of Communion with them as with Christian Churches whereas we own the Church of Rome her self to be a true though a very corrupt Church and therefore maintain some degree of Communion with her Fifthly For it is evident that if any particular Church do teach any erroneous Doctrines we must not maintain Communion with her in her Errors for no man is bound to believe that which is false But then we must distinguish between Errors for a Church may be guilty of some speculative Errors which may do no great hurt to common Christianity and then we may very safely communicate with that Church if they do not impose on us the belief of those Errors which few Churches do but upon their own immediate Members excepting the Church of Rome As for instance The Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation is as false and groundless though not altogether as absurd as the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation but yet I would make no scruple of communicating with a Lutheran Church where I may do it without professing my belief of Consubstantiation and upon these Principles the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches may communicate together keeping their private Opinions to themselves without imposing them upon each other But if any Church which professes some speculative Errors will not admit us to Communion without professing the same Errors we must own them for true Churches still and profess our readiness to communicate with them in all acts of worship if we may be allowed to do it without owning their Errors and this makes us in Communion with that Church and that we do not actually communicate is none of our fault but the fault of those who deny it If the Errors be such as are not meerly speculative but corrupt their worship then indeed we must not only disclaim their Errors but we must not joyn in those acts of worship which are corrupted by them as the Popish Mass is by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation If their worship be partly pure and partly corrupt then notwithstanding their Corruptions we must be ready to joyn with them in all those acts of worship which are not corrupted If their worship be generally corrupt as it is in the Church of Rome by their Latin Service and Mass and Ave-Maries and frequent Addresses to Saints and Angels in those very Litanies wherein they pray to God and Christ we must wholly abstain but admonish and pray for them as Brethren and exercise all other acts of Christian Communion if they will admit of any By this we see that there are several degrees of Communion between distinct particular Churches and therefore it does not presently follow that because Churches divide Communion in acts of Worship they do not belong to the same Body The true Catholick Faith whatever Errors and Corruptions they are guilty of makes them so far Catholick Churches and while we own them Members of the same Body to which we our selves belong though we do not communicate in their Errors and Corruptions we are still in Communion with them and upon these Principles notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christians there is but one Church still to which all Churches belong who profess the true Faith of Christ unless any exclude themselves from this Catholick Unity by wholly excluding others Secondly The next Inquiry in the Paper is How the Church can be called Holy if for so many hundred years as our Church teaches in the Homily against Idolatry the whole Church of Rome has been guilty of Idolatry This being the whole of the Argument I shall not transcribe the words Now suppose the Church of Rome were the whole Church and had for some Centuries been guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Virgin Mary yet they belong to the Holy Church just as they belong to the Church by retaining the true Faith of Christ they are a true Church though the many Errors they have added make them a very corrupt Church And thus by professing the holy Faith and owning the great Principles and Doctrines of Holiness they are a Holy Church though their Holiness may be far from being perfect intire and uncorrupt as well as their Faith When Holiness is attributed to the visible Church it cannot signifie Internal Holiness and Sanctification for good and bad men are intermixt in the Church and if the Church must be holy in this sense all the Members of it must be impeccable as well as infallible But Holiness signifies either their State or their Profession That they are in Covenant with God and so his holy and peculiar People as the Jews were under the Mosaical Covenant who are therefore upon this account often called A holy Nation even when they were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Golden Calf and had few visible Marks of Holiness in their Lives and for the same Reason the Christian Church which now succeeds into the Priviledges of the Jewish Synagogue are called Saints the Elect and Chosen People of God to signifie that now God owns none for his People but those who are admitted into the Christian Covenant And in this sense no Church can cease to be a holy Church without ceasing to be a Church But then the Christian Church is holy by Profession too and that in a more eminent manner than the Jewish Church because she professes a more perfect Holiness and whatever Church teaches the holy Commands of our Saviour and requires and professes Obedience to them is so far a holy Church by Profession though she may teach other things which she may think holy but indeed are not so If Holiness signifie an External and Visible Relation to God and the Profession of a holy Religion then that Society which professes the true Faith of Christ and Holiness of Life so as to continue a Covenant Relation to Christ is in this sense a holy Church whatever Corruptions she is guilty of either in Faith or Practice which do not un-Un-church her Thirdly As for what remains in the Paper it has been answered already upon other Occasions Schism we confess is a damning Sin and thank God that we are not guilty of it We cast off the Roman Yoke which Christ never laid upon us and to deliver our selves from the unjust Usurpations of Foreign Churches is no Schism no more than it is Rebellion to oppose the Invasions of a Foreign Prince We Reformed our own Communion and that is no Schism for we had full Authority to do it and our Reformation is such that they may communicate with us though we
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
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
wholly reject it or set up a Judge of Controversies and in my Opinion the Infidel seems to have the better of it for it is a natural and immediate consequence not to believe what we are not certain of but I can see no connexion in the World between the want of Certainty and the necessity of an infallible Judge something to be sure must come between to unite them together and the least we can think of is this That it is necessary we should be certain in matters of Religion and that there is no way to make us certain but an infallible Judge and therefore since there is no certainty in Religion without such a Judge we must grant that there is one But now if this be granted that there wants Evidence to make Christianity certain how do they prove that it is necessary we should be certain of it Which signifies that it is necessary we should be certain of that which is not certain and methinks it wants a little proof too that a Judge of Controversies is the only possible way to make men certain I would advise all Papists not to press this Argument of the uncertainty of Religion too far lest when they come to consider it throughly it make them Infidels But if men will be but reasonable what greater certainty can they desire than we have The Revelation of the Will of God contained in a plain and intelligible Writing which all honest and diligent Inquirers at least with the help of a Guide may understand in all things necessary to Salvation the promise of the Divine Spirit to enlighten our Minds to understand the Scriptures and to perswade us of the reason and certainty of our Faith and the Mercies of God to pardon involuntary Mistakes Secondly The next Pretence for an Infallible Judge is Unity For we see by sad Experience that while every man judges for himself the Christian Church is divided into Sects and Parties who first differ in their judgment of things and then separate from each others Communion and thus it necessarily must and will be till all submit to one Sovereign Authority and unite in one Visible Head And therefore since it is evident that Christ intended that all his Disciples should live in Unity with each other which he so strictly enjoyns and so passionately recommends we must conclude That he has appointed some effectual means to end all Controversies and to unite them in one Communion which can be no other than an Infallible and Governing Head Now in Answer to this I considēr 1. That a Supreme visible Head as suppose the Pope of Rome is not necessary and essential to the Unity of the Church for if all Christian Churches lived in Communion with each other they would be one Church though they were all equal without owning the Supremacy of one over the rest And therefore that Christ instituted but one Church and requires all the several parts of it to live in Communion with each other does not prove the necessity of one Visible Head because they may be one without such a Head and it is easie to prove that this is all the Unity Christ intended but of this in Answer to the following Papers 2. Though Christ has made Unity necessary with the necessity of Duty it does not hence follow that he has appointed infallible and necessary means of Unity I suppose all men will grant that Christ has made Holiness as necessary as Unity and yet he has appointed no necessary and infallible Means to keep men from Sin but we see the state of the Church suffers as much by the Wickedness as by the Divisions of her Members Unity is a necessary Duty and so is Holiness but the practice of both is the Object of our own choice and liberty and if the Commands and Exhortations of the Gospel and the hopes and fears of another World with the assistances of the Divine Grace will not make men do their Duty I know of nothing else that can and I do not see how Christ is more concerned for the Unity than for the Holiness of his Church 3. For Thirdly I think it a great Mistake to attribute all diversities of Opinions to want of Evidence and all Divisions to diversities of Opinions for it is plain that the Lusts and Interests of men have a great hand in both or else both Heresies and Schisms are more innocent things than I took them to be All the World cannot preserve men who have any Interest to serve by it from being Hereticks for Interest will make men teach Heresies without believing them or believe them without reason and Interest and Faction will divide the Church where the Faith is the same of which the Donatists of old are a sad Example And there is a present and sensible Example of this which the Romanists must own and yet if they own it it utterly destroys all their Pretences to Infallibility and Supremacy as such certain and infallible Remedies for Heresie and Schism For they must say as they do That Christ has vested St. Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome with the Supremacy of the Church here then is their infallible Cure of Schism How then come all those Schisms that are in the Church For there are a good number of them notwithstanding the Popes Supremacy and some more for that Reason Has not Christ appointed an Head of Unity Yes but other Bishops and Churches won't submit to him How not to Christs Vicar How comes this to pass Why they dispute his Authority And has not Christ plainly given him this Authority Yes but they won't see it But is this inculpable Ignorance or Pride and Faction If the first then they must grant there wants certain Evidence for this infallible Head and this they must not say if the second then the Vices of men will make the Institution of a Supreme Head as ineffectual to prevent Schisms as the Commands of our Saviour are and it argues a good degree of Assurance in the Church of Rome to pretend the necessity of an infallible Head and Judge of Controversies to prevent Heresies and Schisms when though they say That Christ has appointed such a Head and Judge yet the Experience of the World for Sixteen hundred years tells us That there are never the fewer Heresies nor Schisms for it by which it appears That this is not an infallible Remedy against them Well! but it would be so if all men would submit to the Authority of this infallible Judge Very right and so any other way would do in which all men would agree for then I guess they would be all of a mind but this gives no advantage to an infallible Judge above any other means of Union and therefore the necessity of Unity does not prove the necessity of an infallible Judge For if the Romanists be in the right that Christ did appoint such a Judge and such a Judge be such an infallible Means of Unity
we should have had no dispute about it at this day and therefore they must be out in one either Christ has appointed no such Judge or this cannot prevent Schisms in the Church 4. Fourthly There is an easie and effectual way of curing Church Divisions without a Judge of Controversies nay without making all men of a Mind in every thing which must never be expected in this World And that is not to make the necessary Terms of Communion streighter and narrower than Christ has made them nothing but what is plainly revealed in Scripture and is essential to Christian Faith and Worship For such Matters most Christians agree in and though they may have some private Opinions of their own this ought not to divide Communions while they do not impose them upon the Faith of others nor introduce any new and strange Worship into the Christian Church As for Example The Church of England believes and practices whatever was thought necessary in the Apostles days and for some Ages after and there is little or no dispute about these Matters between us and the Church of Rome so that we could to this day without a Judge of Controversies maintain Communion with the Church of Rome upon the same Terms that the Apostolick Churches maintained Communion with each other for we both agree in all things which are necessary and essential to Church Communion So that the Schism between us and the Church of Rome is not for want of a Judge of Controversies for without owning such a Judge we agree in all that is necessary in all that Christ and his Apostles required to make us Members of the Christian Church But this will not satisfie the Church of Rome which will receive no other Churches into her Communion without owning her Soveraign and Supream Authority nor without believing many Doctrines manifestly absurd in themselves and never taught in the best and purest Ages of the Church nor without joyning in such a Worship which they themselves dare not say is necessary for they do not pretend that for their Praying to Saints and worshipping Images and Prayers in an unknown Tongue and which we think is sinful If these things were removed we could gladly Communicate with them upon true Catholick Principles There is no need of a Judge but only to determine those Controversies which She her self has made in contradiction to the Primitive Faith of Christians and therefore I cannot but commend her policy that She will allow no body to be Judge of these Disputes but her self Would all men submit to the Church of Rome it would certainly restore Peace and Unity to the Church but to the great prejudice of Truth and hazard of mens Souls and we must not purchase a meer external Unity at this rate Those men over-value Unity who part with Truth for it for certainly the Unity of the Church is not more considerable than the purity of its Faith and Worship The Paper These Reasons make me think a visible Judge absolutely necessary Answer What I have already discoursed I hope may occasion some new and different thoughts of this Matter but since Certainty is the great and prevailing Argument let us turn the Tables and see what Certainty a Roman Catholick has His Faith is resolved into the Authority of a visible and infallible Judge This I confess bids very fair for he that follows an infallible Guide cannot err but whoever considers this Matter carefully will find all this talk of Infallibility dwindle into nothing For First Suppose there be an infallible Judge before we can with certainty and assurance rely on him we must certainly know who he is for it is the same thing to have no infallible Judge and not to know where to find him And this is a difficulty which those Persons little consider who please themselves so much with the fancy of Infallibility For 1. Papists themselves are not agreed about this Matter Some will have the Pope to be infallible as Peters Successor and in his right Others the Church assembled in a General Council Others neither Pope nor Council distinctly and separately considered but a Council confirmed by the Pope Others none of all this but Tradition is infallible Infallibility they all agree to but know not where this Infallibility is seated Now what shall a doubting Protestant do who has a mind to be as infallible as any of them did he know where to find this Infallibility May he not as easily choose his own Religion and what Church he will live in Communion with as which of these infallible Judges to follow Which soever of these he rejects he has a considerable party of the Church of Rome on his side the only difference is that he is so far satisfied with their Reasons against each other that he rejects them all and he has good Reason for it for if God had intended to appoint a Judge to end all Disputes certainly he would have done this so manifestly that there should have been no dispute who this Judge is For methinks a doubtful and disputable Judge is not a very proper Person to end all Disputes 2. Nay according to the Doctrine of the Roman Divines it is not possible to prove either that there is such a Judge or who this Judge is For if there be such a Judge he must be appointed by Christ and then we must look for his Commission in the Gospel and yet the Church of Rome will not allow us to know what the Gospel is or what is the Sense and Interpretation of it but from the infallible Judge And thus it is impossible to find out either the Judge or the Scriptures because we have no place to begin at If we begin with the Judge we are a little too hasty because we have not yet found him and if we begin with the Scriptures that is as bad because we cannot understand them before we have found the Judge so that we must take one of them for granted without any proof and by that find out the other and that is neither better nor worse than to take them both for granted which is an admirable Foundation for Infallibility at all adventures to choose an infallible Judge and then to believe him at all adventures So that though men who have always been brought up in the belief of an infallible Judge may in time grow very confident of it and take it for a first Principle which needs no proof yet I wonder how any Protestant who has been taught otherwise and if he acts wisely and like an honest man cannot believe it till it is proved to him can ever entertain such a thought for let his Adversary be never so subtil if he resolves to believe nothing but what he sees proved he may maintain his ground against him As to represent this briefly in a Dialogue between a Papist and a Protestant Papist I pity your Condition Sir to see you live at such uncertainties for your Religion and
be the meaning of some particular Phrases in this obscure Text so much is very plain in it that men who build hay and stubble upon the Foundation i. e. who believe in Christ though with a mixture of many vain and hurtful Superstitions shall yet if their lives be holy and vertuous be saved by the Faith of Christ though with some loss and hazard which makes the case of honest men who live in very corrupt Communions not perfectly hopeless And in this sense it is that we grant That Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome though this is no reason for any man to choose the Communion of a corrupt Church because there is a possibility of Salvation in it However this shews what a great mistake this Paper is guilty of where it is said That the best Christians in the Church of Rome which believe such damnable Doctrines can be saved only by Ignorance which most Protestant Divines believe the Pagans themselves may be For though invincible Ignorance is an equal excuse for Pagans and Christians yet when this excuse is allowed Pagans have not such a right to Salvation as Christians have Ignorance may excuse but cannot save It is only Faith in Christ saves us which corrupt Christians have and Pagans have not which is an essential difference Secondly Suppose the Errors of the Church were not damnable why might not the Church of England reform such Errors as are not damnable Suppose they only obscure the Glory of Christ's Mediation and are dangerous temptations to sin or hinder the Edification of the Church or betray men to false Notions of God and of Religion though they are not in themselves damnable why may not such Errors as these be reformed If the Church of Rome were convinced that she were guilty of such Errors ought she not to reform her self And is not every Church in duty bound to preserve her Faith and Worship as pure and uncorrupt as she can And why then is not the Church of England bound to do so If indeed the Church of Rome had a Supream Power over the Church of England that nothing could be done without her Approbation and Order then we would grant that in case of tolerable Errors such a dependent Church could not reform it self without the consent of its Superiour as no private Christian can reform the Church wherein he lives without the consent of the Governours of it But we say that every National Church has the Supream Independent Power within herself and therefore may correct any abuses and corruptions which are crept into her Communion without asking leave of the Bishop of Rome or any other Church in the World and this justifies the Reformation of the Church of England if she reformed nothing but what was erroneous though the Errors were not damnable for all Errors ought to be reformed when they are known if the Reformers have just Authority to do it and such Errors as are damnable will justifie any man to reform himself and all that he can convince of such Errors for every man has Authority to save his Soul Thirdly If the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors how does Christ perform his Promise to his Church That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the difficulty of this Objection consists only in the sound of those Phrases The Gates of Hell by which some understand That the Devil shall never be able to corrupt the Faith of the Church for if he can do that then say they he prevails against the Church But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie only Destruction for Hades is properly the state of Dead men who are laid under-ground and appear no more in this World and therefore when our Saviour promises That the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against his Church the meaning is that there shall always be a Church in the World professing that Faith which here Peter had professed and whereon Christ promised to build his Church viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God And such a Church there has been in the World ever since and the Church of Rome it self notwithstanding all the Corruptions that are in it is such a Church But that the Church may be over-run with great and damning Errors is evident from St. Paul's Prediction of the Apostacy of the later days When the Man of Sin shall be revealed the Son of Perdition who as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2. 3 4. For whosoever this Man of Sin is he sits in the Temple of God that is in the true Church of Christ and while the Man of Sin sits in the Church we need not doubt but he brings some damning Errors with him and yet it is the Temple of God even when the Man of Sin sits there Fourthly As for the last thing mentioned it is sufficiently known that there were a great many Christian Churches in the World at the time of the Reformation who did not own the Usurpations of the Church of Rome and though they might have Errors of their own yet not of such fatal consequence But if all the Christian World had been equally corrupted at that time it had been the same thing to us for Corruptions ought to be reformed and we had Authority to reform our selves And as for joyning in Communion with other pure Churches we do so we own all pure Churches nay are ready to communicate with Churches which have some Corruptions in their Constitution if they be tolerable and do not render their Communion sinful which is all the Obligation we have to communicate with any Church For if by Communion they mean that we should have put our selves under the Government and Authority of any other Church which is the Sense of Communion in the Church of Rome which thinks no Church in Communion with her without submitting to her Authority we beg their pardon for that we will communicate with other Churches as Friends and Equals and Brethren but not as Subjects Secondly The next Argument for a visible Judge which the Paper insists on is That without such a Judge we cannot know that every particular Book of Scripture is Canonical And here are a great many Objections started against the Authority and certainty of the Canon which much more become Scepticks and Infidels than Christians of any Communion I do not think them worth transcribing for this Argument may be answered without answering these Objections which the Church of Rome is as much concerned to answer as we For those who originally made these Objections will not be put off with the Authority of a Judge without a rational Solution of these Difficulties and those who grant that there is no other Answer can be given to them but to resolve the credit of the Canon into the Authority of a Judge without any other Reason give up the Cause of Christianity to Infidels who despise the vain
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
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
Nov. 15. 1686. Imprimatur JO. BATTELY A DISCOURSE Concerning a Judge of Controversies IN MATTERS of RELIGION BEING AN ANSWER TO SOME PAPERS ASSERTING The Necessity of such a JUDGE With an Address to Wavering Protestants shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Religion Written for the private Satisfaction of some Scrupulous Persons And now Published for Common Use. With a PREFACE concerning the Nature of Certainty and Infallibility LONDON Printed for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard 1686. THE PREFACE WHen I first undertook to Answer these Papers I little thought of writing a Book but when it was writ I was more easily perswaded to make it publick for such kind of Objections as these our People are daily assaulted with and our Ministers daily troubled to answer and therefore it will be very serviceable to both to print such a plain Discourse as this which whatever defects it may have I am pretty confident does sufficiently expose the weakness and sophistry of such Arguments The truth is this ought not to be made a Dispute and the fundamental Miscarriage is that our People are not taught or will not learn to reject such captious Questions as tend only to Sceptism and deserve not to be confuted which I think I may have liberty to say now I have confuted them and to shew the reason I have to say so shall be the subject of this Preface It is thought and certainly it is so the most compendious way to reduce Protestants to the Communion of the Church of Rome to perswade them that they can have no certainty of their Religion without an infallible Judge and that there is no Infallibility but in the Church of Rome Now could they prove that the Church of Rome is infallible this indeed would be an irresistible Reason to return to her Communion but this they say little of now-a-days this they would gladly have us take for granted especially if they can prove that we can have no certainty without an infallible Judge and therefore this they apply themselves to to run down Protestant certainty and first to make men Scepticks in Religion and then to settle them upon Infallibility Now the way they take to do this is not by shewing that the Reasons on which Protestants build their Faith either of Christianity in General or of those particular Doctrines which they profess are not sufficient to found a rational Certainty on for this would engage them in particular Disputes which is the thing they as industriously avoid as if they were afraid of it but instead of this they declaim in general about the nature of Certainty ask us how we know that we are Certain if we rely upon Reason other men do not reason as we do and yet think their Reason as good as ours if on Scripture we see how many different and contrary Expositions there are of Scripture and how can we be certain then that we only are in the right when other men are as confident and as fully perswaded as we Now all this is palpable Sophistry and no other direct Answer can or ought to be given to it but to let them know that after all they can say we find our selves very certain and that their attempt to prove us u certain without confuting the Reasons of our Certainty is very fallacious 1. As for the first whether I am certain or not no body can tell but my self for it is matter of Sense as Sight and Hearing is and they may as well ask me how I know that I see and hear as how I know that I am Certain I feel that I am so and that is Answer enough 2. And therefore when they ask me how I know that I am certain if this Question have any sense in it it must signifie on what Reason I found my Certainty for nothing can create Certainty in the Mind but that Reason and Evidence which we have of things as we can see with nothing but Light Now if Certainty results only from the Reason of things it is ridiculous to expect any other Answer to that Question how I am certain than my giving the Reasons of my Faith for there is no other Reason of Certainty than those particular Reasons for which I believe any thing And this of necessity brings the Controversie to Particulars There is no one Reason of my Certainty because the same Reason will not serve for all things and therefore before I can give them my Reason I must know what they require a Reason of and then I will give it them And thus we are just where we were and if they will prove that we have no Certainty they must confute all the Reasons of our Faith and dispute over all the Controversies between us a Task which they are not willing to undertake and yet there is no other way to prove the Faith of Protestants uncertain but by proving that they have no certain Reasons of their Faith Yes you 'l say it is proof enough that we cannot be certain because we every day find so many confident men mistaken who yet think themselves as certain as we do and therefore we may be mistaken notwithstanding all our assurance and confidence that we are not Now this indeed would be an unanswerable Argument did we found our Certainty upon the meer strength and confidence of Perswasion for men may be very confident because they are ignorant and we readily grant that an ignorant Confidence may betray men into the grossest Errors and therefore though every confident man thinks himself in the right we never think another man in the right meerly because we see him confident which is a plain sign that all men distinguish between Confidence and Certainty Wise men who would not be mistaken are very careful that their Confidence do not out-run their Reason for Reason is the Foundation of Certainty and no man can have greater Certainty than he has Evidence for what he believes Now since men may be equally confident with or without Reason the only way to try the Certainty of their Faith is to examine the Reasons whereon it is founded if we can confute their Reasons we destroy their Certainty if we can't it is ridiculous to charge their Faith with Uncertainty for that is a certain Faith which is built upon certain and immoveable Reasons and if the Certainty of Reason makes men certain and some mens Faith may be built upon certain Reasons though others are mistaken then the confident Mistakes of some men is no proof that the Faith of all men is uncertain I am sure all Mankind think thus who think any thing which is a good sign that it is a very natural thought No man thinks himself the less certain because he sees other men differ from him The Foundation of this very Argument against Protestant Certainty owns this The Argument is That we can never know when we are certain because of
this to the purpose when the Scripture expresly condemns the VVorship of Images and giving Religious VVorship to any other Being but to God only and by their own Confession says nothing of the VVorship of Saints and that St. Paul disputes designedly against Prayers in an unknown Tongue and that our Saviour instituted his Supper in both kinds and commanded them to drink of the consecrated Cup as well as to eat the Bread Though I have a great Reverence for Antiquity yet if St. Paul in his days pronounced an Anathema against Angels themselves who should preach any other Gospel we may safely renounce the Authority of any Church that shall contradict the express Commands and Institutions of Christ. To conclude this Argument Were Antiquity our only Guide and Rule in matters of Faith and Worship I readily grant it would be a very uncertain Rule and such as neither the Learned nor the Unlearned could build their Faith on for there have been great variety of Opinions and Practices in other Ages of the Church especially since the fourth Century from which the Church of Rome principally date their Antiquity as well as in our own which shews what an uncertain Foundation the Church of Rome has for her Faith as for all those Doctrines and Practices wherein she differs from us which have no foundation in Scripture and at best a very uncertain one in very late Antiquity But this does not concern us who prefer Scripture Antiquity before all other and own no Antiquity in contradiction to the Scripture which is the Rule and Foundation of our Faith and by this we know that we neither retain too much nor too little because we teach neither more nor less than what the Scripture teaches The Paper But 't is Replied The Church of England gives leave even to Women to examine the Truth of what they teach but certainly this is a Complement they being incapable of Examination neither indeed are Statesmen Lawyers the Busie nor the stupidly Ignorant For if we will be Judges our selves of these matters what Life or Capacity is sufficient for in Justice if I examine I ought to hear all the several Pretenders to the Interpretation of Scripture who make it their Rule of Faith so to examine those Texts that make against us as well as those for us and the several Expositors For in Affairs of much less importance People are thought foolish and partial let one party tell his story to a seeming demonstration not to preserve another Ear for the other side before he determines if he must judge at all Answer The lightness of this Expression of Complementing does not savour of a serious mind in matters of such vast importance Did our Saviour then Complement his Hearers when he commanded them to search the Scriptures for he had Women and very busie People who heard his Sermons The Poor and the Ignorant and the despised People Publicans and Sinners received the Gospel which does not so much require great leisure and capacity for study as an honest teachable Mind and I confess I think it a great reproach to the Gospel of our Saviour to make it so much an Art and a Mystery that none but great Scholars can understand it Scholars indeed have made an Art and a meer disputing Art of it and Hereticks who have corrupted the Gospel have endeavoured by perverse Comments to make plain places obscure and the Church of Rome has more countenanced this Pretence than any other Church in the World to frighten People from Reading that Book which is the most dangerous Book that ever was written against Popery And after all their talk of the obscurity of Scripture their denying the People the free use of it is a plain confession that they think it too plain against themselves so plain that every ordinary Christian would be able to see it But if so very few People are able to judge of the Disputes in Religion what course shall Women and other Persons whom the Paper makes such incompetent Judges take Suppose they have been educated in the Communion of the Church of England and are now assaulted by Popish Priests to go over to the Church of Rome must they make this change with Reason or without it Must they judge for themselves or forsake one Church and chuse another without Judgment Or can Women or Busie or Ignorant People more easily find out the true Church and the infallible Judge than they can read in Scripture that they must worship none but God that they must not worship Images and Pictures that they must pray to God in a known Tongue and celebrate the Supper of our Lord by drinking of the Cup as well as by eating the Bread Whoever ventures to forsake the Communion of a Church wherein he was baptized and educated I am sure ought to be able to judge whether he be or no and those who confess they are not able to judge ought to be kept where they are for it is safer to continue in a Church without Judgment than to forsake it without Reason and Judgment In the first Case The Providence of God in our Birth and Education will make some Apology for our involuntary Mistakes but if we wantonly leave one Church and go to another without being able to judge of either the Act is wholly our own choice and if we leave a better for a worse we must take what follows and therefore this is the most improper Argument in the World to be used by one who is wavering between two Churches for if he must not use his own private Judgment I cannot guess how he should either chuse or refuse Those who challenge a liberty of judging for themselves which is the undoubted right of all Reasonable Creatures may change as they see reason and at their own peril if they chuse wrong but those who disclaim all right and capacity of judging must continue as they are and take their chance for they may as well chuse their Faith as their Guide whom they will in all things believe But still the force of the Objection is not answered That he who will judge must judge upon the whole matter and therefore must be able to know and answer whatever is said to the contrary which the greatest number of Men as well as Women are not able to do but if this be true the greatest numbers of Men as well as Women must never believe there is a God or that Christ came from God to declare his Will to the World for there are very few of them that ever heard or are able to answer the tenth part of the Arguments of Atheists and Infidels against the Being of a God and the Christian Religion and yet it is ridiculous to talk of Authority or a Judge of Controversies in these matters for we must first believe there is a God and that Christ came from God before we can believe that they have appointed a Judge of Controversies So that
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-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
obstinately refuse to consult that living Oracle and infallible Judge whom God hath placed in his Church to decide all Controversies in Faith and Worship Protest Sir I thank you for your Charity and though I do not find my self so uncertain as I perceive you think I am yet I should be glad of such an infallible Guide as you talk of if I knew where to find him Pap. He is to be found in the Church of Rome for that is the Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth there is St. Peter's Chair whom Christ made the Supream Governour of his Church whom he commanded to feed his Lambs and his Sheep that Rock on whom Christ promised to build his Church and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it and therefore in Communion with this Church and in obedience to the Supream Pastor of it you cannot err Prot. But pray how shall I be sure of this Pap. Do you ask that now when I have referred you to such plain Texts of Scripture for the proof of it Prot. Will you allow me then to interpret these Texts according to my own private Judgment and why then may I not use my judgment in other matters for I think all the Articles of my Creed are as plain in Scripture as that the Pope or Church of Rome is the Supream infallible Judge and indeed if I must stand to my own judgment in this matter I can find no such thing in these Texts you have alledged Pap. Your own judgment no by no means this causes all the Heresies in the World that men will presume to judge for themselves Prot. What course must I take then Pap. You must stand to the judgment of the Church which cannot err and whatever Hereticks say she will tell you that these Texts prove the Churches Infallibility Prot. Hold Sir what is it we are to prove Pap. That the Church is Infallible Prot. And this I must prove from Scripture Pap. Yes Prot. And must not rely on my own judgment neither for the sense of Scripture but on the interpretation of the Church Pap. Right This is the true Catholick Way Prot. That is I must take the Churches word that she is Infallible Pap. No you must believe the Scripture which says so Prot. But I must believe the Scripture not because I understand this to be the sense of it but because the Church so expounds it Pap. Right for Hereticks expound it otherwise Prot. And what is this then but to take the Churches word for her own Infallibility What difference is there between taking the Churches word at the first or second rebound To believe it because she says it her self or to believe it because she makes the Scripture say it And therefore if this be all you have to say I must e'en keep where I am and rather content my self without an infallible Judge than please my self with a meer imagination of Infallibility without any Foundation to rely on Thirdly And therefore the most learned Advocates of the Church of Rome are forced to grant that we have no infallible Assurance of Infallibility for we cannot be infallibly certain which the true Church is The only way they pretend to find out the true Church is by Marks and Notes of a Church which they say indeed have a Moral certainty though they are not infallible For according to their Principles they must not allow of any Infallibility without the sentence and definition of an infallible Judge for then Protestants may set up for Infallibility without a Judge of Controversies and therefore since there can be no infallible Judge to determine who is the Judge of Controversies they must content themselves in this matter with Moral certainty and this brings them to an even level with poor fallible Protestants They deal very hardly with us if they will not allow that we may have at least as much certainty of the Authority of Scripture and the true Sense and Interpretation of it as they can have of the Notes of the true Church which must be owned for the infallible Judge and if they be modest and understand the weakness of their own Cause they ought to be very thankful to us if we will allow them as much and may not we then be as infallible as they For indeed it is impossible that any Moral certainty should grow up into Infallibility As for instance No man can be more certain of the Decisions of an infallible Judge than he is of his Infallibility and therefore if he have not an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Judge he can't have an infallible certainty that he defines infallibly And thus the whole Faith of a Papist after all their brags of Infallibility is resolved into Moral certainty just as the Faith of a Protestant is only not with so much reason Let us take any one Article of our Faith wherein Papists and Protestants agree and see how much greater assurance Papists have of it than Protestants As suppose that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God A Protestant believes this because he has all the Evidence that we can have for any thing of that nature that the Scriptures of the New Testament were writ by inspired men and that the words of Scripture in their most plain and obvious acceptation signifie this and therefore that this is the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles who were infallible Teachers So that the last Resolution of our Faith is into the Infallibility of Christ and his Apostles which we have all the Evidence of which Sense and Reason can give us On the other hand a Papist believes that Christ is the Eternal Son of God because the Church which is infallible teaches so and he finds out the true Church by some Notes and Marks of a Church which he thinks morally certain and when he has found the true Church concludes her to be infallible without more ado Now if the Infallibility of Christ and his Apostles be as good a Reason of Faith as the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome and if we have as good Evidence that the Gospel was writ by inspired men and that such words are contained in the Gospel as prove Christ to be the Son of God as they have of their Marks and Notes whereby they find out the true Church then we have to the full as much certainty and Infallibility as they have They have but a Moral Evidence at best of the Infallibility of their Church and therefore are but morally certain what their Church teaches right and therefore if we have as much certainty as they have and God forbid we should have no more our Faith is built upon as sure a Foundation as theirs without making a noise with Infallibility which at last dwindles into some Arbitrary Notes and Marks of a Church And yet Fourthly not to trouble our selves at present with all the Notes and Marks which Cardinal Bellarmine and
others give of a true Church there is one Mark without which it is impossible we should be certain which is the true Church and that is that she professes the true Faith and Worship of Christ. For this is essential to the Church and there can be no Church without it all other Marks may deceive us for whatever other Marks there be if there be not the true Faith and Worship of Christ there cannot be the true Church and therefore when the state of the Church as it is at this day is broken and divided into different and opposite Communions whoever will find out the true Church must examine her Doctrine and Worship Bellarmine himself makes the Holiness of Doctrine one essential Mark of the true Church and yet Truth is antecedent to Holiness and equally essential Now this is such a Mark of an infallible Church as makes her Infallibility useless when we have found her For we must understand the true Religion before we can know the true Church and can be no more certain which is the true Church than we are which is the true Religion and therefore cannot resolve our Faith into the Authority of the Church because we can know the true Church only by the true Faith and therefore must have some other means of finding out the true Faith antecedent to the Churches Authority for that which is a mark to know something else by must be first known it self So that whereas the Churches Authority is thought so compendious a way to make men infallibly certain of their Religion and to deliver them from those uncertain Disputes that are in the World we cannot be certain which the true Church is on whose Authority we must rely till we have examined that diversity of Opinions which divide the Christian Church and have satisfied our selves on which side the Truth lies and when we have done this it is too late to appeal to a Judge unless we will undo all we had done before and then we shall be to seek again which is the true Church And what advantages then has the Papist above the Protestant in the point of Certainty When they cannot know which is that Church which they may safely trust without examining the truth of her Religion and judging for themselves just as we do We are concerned indeed to know which is the true Catholick Church not that we must receive our Faith upon her Authority for in order of Nature we must know the true Faith before we can know the true Church but because we are bound to live in Communion with the true Catholick Church of Christ. Fifthly And yet if they could find the Church without all this trouble and Protestant uncertainty wherever they place their Infallibility whether in the Pope or Council according to their own Principles they cannot have so much as a Moral certainty of it As for the Pope though for Arguments sake we should grant a true Pope to be infallible yet it is impossible that any man can be certain that there is a true Pope For the Church of Rome teaches That the intention of the Priest is necessary to the Sacrament that though he perform all the external part of it yet if he do not intend to apply the Sacrament to such Persons it is not applied Now according to these Principles who can tell whether this present Pope were ever Baptized or Ordained Priest or Bishop for if the Priests or Bishops that did this did not intend to do it he is so far from being a true Pope that he is no Christian. Nay if the Priests and Bishops which Baptized and Ordained him did intend to apply the Sacraments to him yet if those who Baptized and Ordained them did not intend to do it then they were no Christians nor Bishops themselves and therefore could not confer Orders on him and so upwards still which reduces the matter to the greatest uncertainty in the World for how is it possible to know any mans private Intention when neither Words nor Actions shall be allowed a sufficient declaration of it And besides this if a Pope be Simoniacally promoted or Ordained by a Simoniacal Pope here is an invalidity in his Orders and then what becomes of his Infallibility Nay what shall we say of that long Papal Schism when there were three Popes together John 23. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. who were all Deposed by the Council of Constance and Martin 5. chose Was there never a true Pope among all the Three If there were What Authority then had the Council to Depose them all and chuse a Fourth And who knows to this day from whence the succeeding Popes have derived their Succession which may very much call the Popedom and Infallibility into question And then as for Councils which consist of Bishops there is the same incertainty about them whether they be true Bishops or not as there is about the Pope and besides this there are so many Disputes what makes a General Council when it is regularly called and when they act Conciliaritèr in such a manner as a Council ought to act to procure the infallible Directions of the Spirit and to give Authority to their Decrees that if Women and Busie People cannot understand the Scriptures and the Reasons of their Faith I am sure they are much less able to understand what Councils they may safely rely on But suppose we did know who this infallible Judge is whether Pope or Council and this Judge should give us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture and an infallible Decision of all Controversies in Religion which the Church of Rome never could be perswaded to do yet and I believe never will witness those many fierce Disputes which are among men of their own Communion and I think no man is ever the more infallible for a Judge who will not exercise his Infallibility yet if this Judge should infallibly determine all the Controversies in Religion we must either hear it from his own Mouth or receive it in Writing or take it upon the report of others As for the first of these there is not one in the World at this day that was present at the Debates of any General Council or heard them pronounce their Decrees and Definitions and I believe as few ever heard the Pope determine any Question ex Cathedrâ which what it means either they do not well understand or have no mind to tell us As for Writing when we see the Decrees of a Council written we can have only a Moral assurance that these are the Decrees of the Council and when we have them it may be they are much more obscure and subject to as many different Interpretations as the Scriptures are that we can have no better assurance what the sense of the Council than what the sense of the Scripture is as Experience tells us it is in the Council of Trent which the Roman Doctors differ as much about as Protestants do about 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