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 taught to understand it Thus Mathematical Demonstrations are certainly plain for if a Demonstration be not plain nothing is but yet it is not every man can understand them without a Teacher but since those who do study Mathematicks can understand them and any man of ordinary capacity who will attend to the Instructions of a skilful Master may understand them we may call them plain though they are not obvious at the first sight For this purpose Christ appointed an order of men in his Church whose business it should be to study the Scriptures themselves and to teach others not to impose on their Faith by their meer Authority which our Saviour has expresly warned us against to call no man Master upon Earth and which St. Paul expresly disclaims being Lords of their Faith but to open their Understandings and by easie steps to lead them into the true Sense of Scriptures Thus he taught his Disciples himself as appears from all his Sermons thus the Apostles taught the Christians of their days and this is the only teaching I know of for to teach men to believe without understanding is to teach them to believe they know not what nor why But the Doctrine of the Trinity is not plain in Scripture An Assertion which strikes at the very Fundamentals of Religion and justifies all the ancient Heresies which can never be confuted but out of the Scriptures For is the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures or not If it be not there how comes it to be an Article of our Faith and if it be not plain in the Scriptures how can any man tell it is there when it is not plain that it is there The Primitive Fathers who opposed those ancient Hereticks wrote great Volumes to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scriptures and therefore I presume did think it might be proved from Scripture This being a Doctrine which can be known only by Revelation if it is not plain in Scripture it is plain no where and so not the Object of our Faith unless they can shew us another Revelation besides and above the Scriptures The only Argument the Paper urges to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity not to be plain in Scripture is That some denied the Divinity of the Son some believed the Holy Ghost not to be a separate Person but only an Attribute of God That is whatever some men deny is not plain and therefore Christianity it self is not plain because Jews and Turks and Heathens deny it Is the Form of Baptism plainly contained in Scripture to Baptize in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and yet many of the ancient Hereticks who corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity would not use this Form which is as good an Argument that this Form is not plain as that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not And indeed if one be plain the other must be unless we will say That we are baptized in the Name that is into the Faith and Worship of Creatures The Paper And I think the assembling those Councils we receive as General shews that their Opposers were considerable Answer How considerable For Numbers or Interest or Zeal or Authority they were inferior upon all these accounts to the general Enemies of the Christian Faith and why should not the number of Infidels be as good an Argument against Christianity as the number of Hereticks against any one Article of the Christian Faith But this is a fatal Instance to the Popish as well as the Protestant Resolution of Faith and somewhat worse for the Scriptures never complied with Hereticks but the pretended visible Judge did when the Pope of Rome subscribed the Arian Confession But what course did these Nicene Fathers take to confute the Heresie of Arius did they not alledge the Authority of the Scriptures for it Consult their Writings and see what their Reasons are and when such a venerable Council thought the Scriptures clear and plain in this Point is the dissent of Hereticks a greater Argument that they are not plain than the determination of such a Council that they are That this was the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church from the time of the Apostles was a good confirmation that they expounded Scripture right but had it been possible that there should have been a Traditional Article of Faith which the Scripture said nothing of meer unscriptural Tradition could be no sufficient foundation of Faith and that for this Reason because we could not be sure what the Original of such a Tradition was For the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles give us the most certain Account what their Faith was and how ancient soever any other Doctrine may be we have no reason to think it came from the Apostles if there be nothing of it in the Scriptures The Paper And that those good Fathers did not think after their witnessing out of Scripture and Tradition the Belief handed down to them from Father to Son that the Christians had so much as a liberty of examining after them Since they positively Anathematized all those that did not receive their Decrees for which if they had no Authority the primitive Fathers were the greatest Tyrants in the World to refuse the blessed Means of Salvation to those that for ought appeared were as sincere as themselves and the generality of Dissenters made Scripture their Rule as well as we do This I do not alledge that I know of any truly General Council we reject but this appears to me that in the best of times there was thought a Power left in the Church without Appeal to every mans Reason and the Guides of the Church did not think a man safe though he to the best of his understanding did expound Scripture if he did not follow the sense of the Church Answer This Paragraph is designed to prove that there is a Power in General Councils to determine Controversies of Faith without appeal to every mans Reason and that the Fathers assembled in those first Councils did believe they had such a Power that when once they had determined what the true Faith was no man might examin after them Now whatever the Fathers of the Council believed of themselves it is plain other men did not believe it The Hereticks whom they condemned did not acquiesce in the Authority of the Council which yet they would certainly have done had it been the general Belief of Christians in that Age that the Decrees of General Councils were final and conclusive to be believed by all men and to be examined by none For the most obstinate Hereticks could never have out-faced such a prejudice as this After the Council of Nice the Fathers did appeal to mens private Reason if writing Books in justification of the Doctrine of the Trinity be such an Appeal as is evident from the Writings of Athanasius Hilary S. Augustine and others Nay it is strange there should be so many other
Councils convened about the Arian Controversie after the decision of the Nicene Fathers if that had put an end to all farther Disputes and Appeals which is a good Argument that the Christians did not then think that the Authority of a Council was so sacred that no man must question it when succeeding Councils examined and many times reversed the Decrees of former Councils nay that Councils which were not general should make bold with the Decrees of General Councils which is but a degree removed from every man's private Reason But the Council anathematized all those that did not receive their Decrees and does this prove that they denied all Christians a liberty of examining after them Might they not declare such Doctrines to be damnable Heresies and reject such men out of their Communion without believing their Decrees to be so infallible and sacred that no man must examin them Do not the Protestant Churches do this without pretending to such an absolute Authority over mens Faith A fallible man who is certainly assured that any Doctrine is a damnable Heresie may declare it to be so and if he have any such Authority in the Church he may cast such men out of Communion and this is all that an Anathema signifies and all this may be done and yet men dispute on and judge for themselves and therefore to denounce an Anathema does not prove that he that does it has such an infallible and uncontroulable Authority as must silence all Disputes and captivate mens Reasons and Understandings to his Dictates As for that Passage That the Guides of the Church did not then think a man safe though he to the best of his understanding did expound Scripture if he did not follow the Sense of the Church it has something of truth but a great deal of sophistry in it It is so far true that a man who embraces damnable Errors is not safe how firmly soever he be perswaded of the truth of them and that it is very hazardous to contradict the Sense not of any Council which may be a pack't Conventicle of Hereticks nor of any particular Age of the Church which may be very ignorant or very corrupt but of the Universal Church in all Places and Ages but in this Sense it is nothing to the present purpose And if the meaning be as it seems to be that it is dangerous for a man to use his own Reason and Judgment in opposition to the Decrees of Councils it may sometimes be so and sometimes not as the Council is and whatever the event be every man must judge of that it may prove dangerous to a man to use his Reason if he do not use it right but yet there is no help for it but every man must use his Reason or act like a Fool. But possibly it will be asked What Authority then do we allow to Councils and I shall very freely speak my mind of it 1. In Cases that are doubtful the Judgment of so many wise and learned and pious men from all parts of the Christian Church is a very probable Argument of the truth of their Decrees and no modest man will openly oppose what they determine unless it appears that there was something of Faction and Interest at the bottom or that the Reasons whereby they were over-ruled were so weak or ludicrous as to render their Judgments contemptible For if the Opinion of one learned man be so considerable much more is the deliberate Judgment of so many great and good men Secondly The Authority of ancient Councils is very considerable as they were credible Witnesses of the Apostles Doctrine and Practice and the constant Faith of the Church in the preceding Ages which is a mighty satisfaction to find by these venerable Records that what we now believe was the Faith of the Church in the best and purest Ages before it was divided by Schisms and Factions or corrupted with ease or liberty or wanton disputes Thirdly General or National Councils have authority to determine what Doctrines shall be publickly professed and taught in their Churches and be made the Articles of Church Communion as it must necessarily be if there be any authority in the Church For it is fit that the Faith of the Church should be one and those who have the government of the Church must have the care of the Faith But then this Authority does not oblige any man to believe as the Church believes and to receive all such Decrees without Examination but only if we will live in Communion with such a Church we must own the Faith of that Church for she will allow none to communicate with her who do not Now if the Faith and Worship of such a Church be pure and orthodox the Church is in the right in requiring obedience and conformity to her Decrees and Constitutions and those who refuse it must answer it both to God and Men if her Faith be corrupt she abuses her Power in imposing it on Christians and no man is bound to believe what is false because the Church defines it to be true If you ask whose Judgment ought to take place the Judgment of the Church or of every private Christian I answer The Judgment of the Church of necessity must take place as to External Government to determine what shall be professed and practised in her Communion and no private Christian has any thing to do in these Matters but when the Question is What is right or wrong true or false in what we may obey and in what not here every private Christian who will not believe without understanding nor follow his Guides blindfold must judge for himself and it is as much as his Soul is worth to judge right For if he reject the Faith and the Communion of the Church without a just and necessary cause he is a Heretick and a Schismatick liable to the Censures of the Church in this World and to the vengeance of God in the next If he reject an erroneous and corrupt Communion he incurs the Censures of the Church which in most Christian Kingdoms are attended with some temporal Inconveniences and if he imbrace it he is in danger of a future Judgment For if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the Dith These are the proper limits of all Human Authority both in Church and State below this there is no Authority and above it it is not Human Authority for a blind Obedience can be due to none but God and he himself seldom exacts it If we will grant Governours and Subjects to be men who have the use of their own Reason and Judgment it is impossible to state the Case of Authority and Subjection otherwise than thus That the Faith and Judgment of Governours influences and directs their Government and gives Laws of Faith and Manners to Subjects and the private Judgments of Subjects direct them how far they are to believe and obey their Governors and God himself
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
sense of Scripture and though the Pope of Rome be made the Judge of the Sense of Councils yet if he will not determine it what are we the better If one Pope approves Cardinal Bellarmin's Exposition of the Council and another M. de Meaux though directly opposite to each other as we see at this day how shall we ever come to an infallible Certainty what the Council has determined Has not a Protestant who studies the Scripture and uses the best Reason and Judgment he has to understand it as much Certainty and Infallibility as this comes to And yet how few are there that have Time or Learning to Read the Councils which is a little more difficult than to Read the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue and all these Men must trust entirely to the honesty of their Priest who if he be honest may be very ignorant and yet the last resolution of the Peoples Infallibility is into the honesty and skill of their Priests for how infallible soever the Pope or Council be they know no more of the matter than what their Priests tell them which is such an Infallibility as the meanest Protestant has no reason to envy This I think is sufficient to shew how vain all this Talk of Infallibility is in the Church of Rome though Protestants own themselves to be fallible Creatures yet they are too wise to change their Moral Certainty for the Popish Infallibility Had the Church of Rome as good Evidence for their Faith as the Church of England it might admit of a Dispute whether they should reject both or cast Lots which to chuse but thanks be to God there is no comparison between them and while we feel our selves certain let who will boast they are infallible AN ANSWER To some other ARGUMENTS Contained in the PAPERS HAving thus largely considered the main support of the Roman Cause at this day viz. the Pretence of an infallible Judge of Controversies the remaining Arguments will be more briefly answered which I shall set down in order as I find them The Paper I don't know supposing the Roman Errors not damnable how the Reformers can justifie themselves and if they were so I can't make it agree with the Promises of the Gates of Hell never prevailing c. except there were some other Church in which Purity of Faith was preserved which if there were I wonder for Unities sake so much commanded in Scripture we did not joyn with that pure Church Answer In answer to this short Paragraph there are several things to be considered 1. Whether the Errors of the Church of Rome be damnable 2. If they be not damnable what Authority had the Church of England to reform them 3. If they be damnable how does Christ keep his Promise to his Church That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it 4. Concerning the Purity of Faith in other Churches and our Union with them 1. As for the first Whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors If by damnable Errors be meant such Errors as put men into a state of damnation this I dare not say For this would out do the Church of Rome herself in uncharitableness to assert that all the Churches in the Roman Communion and every Member of them as such are in a state of damnation But if by damnable Errors be meant such Errors as are very dangerous to mens Souls and will greatly hazard their Salvation or such Errors as involve a Sin in them as being a direct Breach of some Divine Law and so are damnable as every sin is damnable in this Sense we do say that the Church of Rome is guilty of damnable Errors For to name no other at present we do affirm and prove too That the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images are express Violations of the first and second Commandments and therefore are great Sins against God Now if you inquire what the difference is between being guilty of damnable sins and being in a state of damnation the Answer is plain and easy For a state of damnation is such a state wherein if a man commit damning sins he has no right and title to Pardon Forgiveness and Salvation though he repent of all his known and unknown sins This is the condition of all those who are not received into the Christian Church by Faith and Baptism for the Christian Church only is a state of Salvation For there is no other Name given under Heaven whereby men can be saved but only the Name of Christ. So that those who are out of the Church and Gospel Covenant are not only guilty of damning sins but are in a state of damnation for they have no Covenant-right to Pardon and Salvation But those who believe in Christ and are in Covenant with him by Baptism though they may be guilty of damning sins yet they are not in a state of damnation because they have a right to Pardon upon their Repentance and this is the Condition of the Church of Rome they profess the true Faith of Christ and are in Covenant with him by Baptism and therefore though they may be guilty of damning Errors yet they are in a state of Salvation that is they are not excluded from the Covenant of Grace and therefore the Members of that Communion who live vertuous lives and heartily repent of all their known and unknown sins may find Mercy with God Thus St. Paul tells us of those who hold the Foundation that is Faith in Christ Jesus that if they build hay and stubble upon this Foundation that is false and erroneous Doctrines and Worship such a man shall suffer loss in that his work shall be burnt yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14 15. where Fire cannot refer to the Fire of Purgatory because it is the Fire of the Day of Judgment which is called the Day that shall be revealed by Fire vers 13. and the works which shall be burnt is the hay and stubble which is built on the Foundation that is those erroneous Doctrines or corrupt Worship which men retain together with the Faith of Christ these Works shall be burnt that is condemned in that day which is revealed by Fire which consumes those Works as Fire does hay and stubble And as for the Persons themselves the Apostle tells us that they shall suffer loss that they shall be saved but so as by fire Where to suffer loss is opposed to receiving a Reward if a man's work abide he shall receive a reward if a man's work be burnt he shall suffer loss which plainly signifies that such erroenous Christians shall not receive such a reward as is prepared for sound and orthodox Believers And that Phrase to be saved but so as by fire at least signifies that at the Day of Judgment such men shall very difficultly escape burning with their works though they shall be finally saved by their Faith in Christ. But whatever
a mind to believe such Doctrines as these must go over to the Church of Rome to enlarge and improve their Faith for we shall never believe them But if they can be contented with the Faith which the Scriptures teach and which the Primitive Church professed we have as much Evidence and Certainty for that as the Church of Rome her self has and how they can better themselves by going over to the Church of Rome as to these Points I cannot tell since we believe as orthodoxly as they Secondly As for those Doctrines and Practices which we reject because we have no Evidence for them but only the Authority of the Church of Rome which is no Evidence to us because it is not evident it self we think our selves much safer in rejecting than we could be in owning them and that for this plain Reason that though we should be mistaken in rejecting such Doctrines as we are very certain we are not yet they are such Mistakes as do no injury to common Christianity no dishonour to our common Saviour and therefore cannot be dangerous to our Souls whereas if the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome be as we say they are Innovations and Corruptions of Christianity they are very dangerous and fatal Corruptions As to shew this in some few Instances What injury is it to Christianity not to believe the Infallibility of the Pope or Council while we believe Christ and his Apostles to be infallible which is Infallibility enough to direct the Christian Church For while we adhere to what they taught we can neither believe too little nor too much but if we believe the Infallibility of the Pope we are bound to stand to his Authority and to receive all his Dictates without examination and how dangerous is this if he should prove not to be infallible for then he may lead us into damnable Errors and we have no way to get out of them While we own the Supremacy of our Saviour who is the Head of his Church and of all Principalities and Powers and the Authority of Bishops and Pastors to govern the Church under Christ what does the Church suffer by denying the Supremacy of the Pope when Soveraign Princes and Bishops may govern their several Churches as well or better without him This indeed destroys the Papal Monarchy but Christ is King still and the Church is never the worse Church because it is not an universal Monarchy which Christ never intended it should be But if we give the Supremacy to the Pope and he has no right to it by Christ's Institution this is an invasion upon the Right of all the Christian Bishops in the world makes it impossible for them to govern or reform their own Churches whatever occasion there be without leave from the Pope which very thing has hindred the Reformation of the Church of Rome it self these last Ages when it has been so earnestly pressed both by Christian Princes and Bishops of that Communion witness the managemént of Affairs in the Council of Trent Nay this is an invasion on the Rights of Soveraign Princes to set a Superior over them in their own Dominions who can command their Subjects with a more Sacred Authority and how fatal this may prove to Princes and what a Snare and Temptation to Subjects some Examples of former Ages may satisfie us Suppose we should be mistaken about the lawfulness of Praying to Saints the Church of Rome her self does not pretend that it is necessary to do it and therefore we want nothing necessary to Salvation by not doing it and certainly our Saviour cannot think it any injury to his Mediation that we so wholly rely upon his Intercession that we desire no other Advocates and that we are so jealous of his Glory that we will not admit the most glorious Saints to the least Partnership with him and this will make him our Advocate in deed when he sees we will have no other But if he be our only Mediator and Advocate by God's appointment and his own purchase let those who unnecessarily apply themselves to so many other Mediators consider how our only Mediator will like it Suppose it were lawful to worship God or Christ by Images which we think expresly forbid by the second Commandment yet will they say That it is an affront or injury to God and our Saviour to worship him without Images If that lovely Idea we have of God in our minds if the remembrance of what Christ has done and suffered for us make us truly and sincerely and passionately devout what need have we of an Image which is pretended only to be a help to Devotion and therefore of no use to those who can be devout without it But he who considers what God's Jealousie means must needs think it dangerous to worship the Images of God and Christ and the Saints for fear they should be forbid by the second Commandment which all the wit of man can never prove that they are not Though Latin Prayers were lawful in English Congregations who do not understand them yet is it unlawful to pray in English Is it any dishonour to God any injury to Religion that men pray with their Understandings If true worship begins in the Mind and our Understandings must govern our Affections I should fear that to pray without understanding what I prayed would not be accepted by that God who is the Father of Spirits and must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth If we believe That Christs once offering himself upon the Cross was a Sufficient Sacrifice Propitiation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world what injury do we to the Sacrifice of Christ though we do not believe that he is offered again every day in ten Thousand Masses If we believe that in the Supper of our Lord we eat the Sacramental Body and drink the Sacramental Blood of Christ which by his own Institution do as really and effectually convey to us all the benefits of his Death and Passion as if we could eat his Natural Flesh and drink his Blood what injury does the Church suffer by denying Transubstantiation And if when we approach his holy Table we worship Christ in Heaven sitting on the right Hand of God Is not this as true an Honour to our Saviour as to worship him under the Species of Bread But if Transubstantiation be false what a hazard does that man run who worships a piece of Bread which the most Learned Romanists themselves grant to be Idolatry If we believe That Christ alone has a Judicial Power to forgive Sins and that the Church has a Ministerial Authority to take in or shut out of the Church which is the only state of Pardon and Salvation and therefore is a Ministerial remitting or retaining of Sins and sufficient to all the ends of Ecclesiastical Authority is not this as much Pardon and Forgiveness as any Christian has need of though we deny that the Priest has a Judicial
or Pretorian Authority to forgive sins which is not compatible to any Creature For what can any man desire more han to be put into a state of Pardon and Forgiveness in this World and to be finally acquitted and absolved in the next But if the Priest have no such Judicial Authority to forgive Sins what a fatal Mistake is it for men to rely on such an ineffectual Absolution What a miserable surprize will it be for those who thought themselves pardoned by the Priest to be condemned by Christ Though we deny such a place as Purgatory is not the fear of Hell as good an Argument to bring men to Repentance Or does it lessen the Mercies of God or the hope of Sinners to say That God remits all future Punishments when he remits the Sin But if the hopes of expiating their Sins in Purgatory and of being prayed out of it should embolden any man in sin what a disappointment would it be to find their Purgatory to be Hell This is sufficient to shew That we can suffer nothing by denying such Doctrines as these unless the causless Anathema's of the Church of Rome can damn us but the hazard is so vastly great on the other side the Mistake will prove so fatal if they be in a mistake that nothing less than an infallible Certainty can justifie the Prudence of such a Choice and therefore it is not fit for such fallible Creatures as we own our selves to be to venture on them We are safe as we are and we think it best to keep our selves so though we had no other Reason for it but that it is good to be safe Thirdly Safe I say we are in rejecting these Doctrines unless they can prove that by rejecting them we want something necessary to Salvation There are two things especially wherein the Romanists think they have the advantage of us and for the sake of which some Protestants are perswaded to forsake the Communion of the Church of England for that of Rome That they eat the natural Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament and receive a Judicial Pardon of all their Sins by the Absolution of the Priest which we confess we do not Now suppose it were necessary to Salvation to eat the Natural Flesh of Christ and that Christ would not forgive any man who was not before forgiven by the Priest yet if these be the Institutions of Christ we have them as well as they and no man need go out of the Church of England for them If the words of Consecration This is my Body do by the Institution of Christ transubstantiate the Bread into the Natural Flesh of Christ these words must have the same effect when pronounced by a Priest of the Church of England as of the Church of Rome And therefore if this were the Intention of our Saviour to give us his Natural Flesh to eat we do eat it as much as they for we eat the consecrated Elements which are whatever Christ intended to make them by the words of Consecration For our not believing Transubstantiation cannot hinder the virtue of Consecration if Christ have so appointed it for the Institutions of our Saviour do not change their Nature with mens Opinions about them Thus Penitents in the Church of England may confess their Sins to a Priest if they please and receive Absolution and if by the Institution of our Saviour this is a Judicial Absolution then they have it and need not go to the Church of Rome for it There are but two Objections that I know of that can be made against this either that we have no true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England and therefore we have no Consecration of the Elements or that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to Consecration and nothing more is done than what the Priest intends to do and therefore no Priest can Transubstantiate but he who intends to Transubstantiate 1. As for the first of these If there be no true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England there are none in the Church of Rome for our Bishops and Priests derive their Succession from those Bishops who received Orders in the Communion of the Church of Rome and therefore have as good Orders as they could give and as they themselves had and if we have as true Bishops and Priests as the Church of Rome we must have as perfect Sacraments as they also 2. As for the Intention of the Priest That in the Church of Rome signifies no more than to intend to do what the Church does and why is not intending to do what Christ does as good and perfect an Intention as this And thus we all intend to do what Christ did which is all the Intention that can be necessary to Consecration unless the private Opinion of the Priest can alter the nature of the Institution But the Truth is If the Church of Rome depends upon the Intention of the Priest for Consecration no Papist can ever be sure that the Bread is consecrated and then to be sure it is not transubstantiated and therefore I think they may compound this business and allow us Transubstantiation if we will allow it them We want it not indeed and care not for it but those who lay so much stress upon it need not forsake the Communion of the Church of England for that Reason at least have no Reason to say That we want any thing necessary to Salvation Let us but observe the Institution of our Saviour and we need not fear but we shall receive all the Spiritual Blessings which Christ intended to convey to us in that Sacrament which those can never be sure of who do not observe the Institution but receive only a part of the Lord's Supper instead of the whole Were these things well considered I perswade my self no man would see any cause to forsake the Communion of the Church of England where he has all things necessary to Salvation without oppressing his Faith with Doctrines hard to be believed or endangering his Soul by doubtful and suspicious Practices at best THE INDEX THE Authority of a visible Judge of no use in converting Jews or Pagans 2 Faith not resolved into the Authority of a visible Judge in the time of Christ and his Apostles 3 Though some passages in Scripture are difficult others are plain 4 In what Sense the Scripture is plain 5 Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity be plainly revealed in Scripture 6 Whether General Councils have a power to determine Matters of Faith without Appeal to every mans reason 8 9 What Authority we allow to Councils 10 11 The use of Antiquity in expounding Scripture 12 The Church of Englands way of resolving of Faith 14 15 Hereticks pretences to Scripture no Argument of the uncertainty of this way 15 16 The Church of Romes pretences to Antiquity 16 17 What course People must take who are not able to judge of the Controversies in Religion 19. c. The ignorance of Common People only a pretence not a Reason for a Judge of Controversies 26 27 A visible Succession from the Apostles no mark of an infallible Church 29 Arguments against an infallible Judge 32 33 Proofs that Christ never intended to set up such a Judge 39 Certainty in Religion may be had without an infallible Judge 42 What Evidence required in Faith 43 Concerning the Unity of the Church 46 An Inquiry what Certainty a Papist can have 5â— Whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors 60 Whether the Church of England had Authority to reform Errors which are not damnable 62 What is meant by the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church 63 Whether we cannot know what Books of Scripture are Canonical without a visible Judge 64 In what sense the Church is one 65 The Apostolick Churches the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion 67 What Catholick Communion is 69 70 In what sense the Church is called Holy 72 The Church of England not Guilty of Schism 73 That there is greater safety in Communion with the Church of England than of the Church of Rome 75 to the end THE END
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
Proof but themselves which shews that the very highest Certainty of all is nothing else but an intuitive Knowledge or the Minds seeing and discerning that natural Evidence which is in things and those who will not allow a clear and distinct knowledge to be the Foundation of Certainty must reject all Self-evident Principles which we can have no other Proof of but themselves at least no better for we cannot reason in infinitum and therefore must come to some first Principles which are known only by their own light and evidence Next to this are those Notions and Idea's which are so easie and natural to our minds that most men believe them by a kind of natural sense and instinct without reasoning about them and those who have no mind to believe them yet cannot rid their minds of them such as the Being and Providence of God and the Essential differences between Good and Evil. These are the next degree to Self-evident Principles for they are natural Notions which indeed may be proved by Reason and must be so when we meet with men who will deny them but yet a well-disposed Mind has a natural byass and inclination to believe them sees them to be true and evident without reasoning about them This is very plain the less of Reasoning there is required in any case the more there is of Certainty First and Self-evident Principles admit of no Reasoning Natural Notions require none and as for all other matters the nearer they lie to first Principles or natural Notions the more certain and evident they are nay we have no other certainty of the deductions and conclusions of Reason but their manifest connexion to some Principles and Notions which may be known without Reasoning which shews as I said before That all natural Certainty is at last resolved into an intuitive Knowledge and the Certainty of Reason is nothing else but the connecting those things which we do not know by Nature with those which we do Sixthly Where natural Knowledge and natural Certainty ends there Revelation begins but still Certainty is not Infallibility but Evidence and natural Evidence too For there can be no communication between God and Creatures as to revealing his Will but by the mediation of our natural Faculties whether the Object be naturally or supernaturally revealed we have only our natural Faculties to know and understand with and therefore we can have no more than natural Evidence of supernatural Revelations though this Evidence is owing to supernatural Causes As for Instance An inspired Prophet though he be infallible as far as he is inspired yet it is not his Infallibility that makes him certain that he is inspired but that certain Evidence he has that this Revelation comes from God which must either be by some external and visible Signs or by some such vigorous impression upon the Mind as carries its own Evidence with it which what it is no man can know but he who has it As for those who are not inspired themselves but must learn from inspired Men their Faith must depend upon that evidence they have for the Revelation the natural Notion of Gods Veracity is the reason why they believe what they know is revealed they must use their own Faculties to understand what is revealed and they must judge of the truth and certainty of a Revelation from such Marks and Characters as are evident either to Sense or Reason So that Infallibility sounds very big but signifies very little in this Dispute for all Certainty whether in natural or revealed Knowledge must be resolved into Evidence not into Infallibility Though an inspired Prophet is an infallible Oracle in those things which he speaks by Inspiration yet it is not his Infallibility but that Evidence he has that he is divinely Inspired which makes him certain much less can any man be infallibly certain who is not infallible himself how many infallible Teachers soever there are in the World For we may as well say That a man may be wise with another mans Wisdom as infallible by another mans Infallibility Every man must know and understand for himself and Infallibility is only such a perfect degree of Knowledge as is not liable to any mistakes and if no man has any Knowledge but what be has in himself then he has no degree of Knowledge but what he has in himself and therefore can never have an infallible Knowledge unless he himself be infallible Suppose then we should grant That the Pope or Church of Rome were infallible what advantage has a Papist for Certainty above a Protestant Does the Infallibility of the Pope make them all infallible And if every Papist be not not infallible then they can have no more Certainty than fallible Creatures are capable of and so much I hope may be allowed to fallible Protestants The Authority of a Revelation in matters divinely Revealed answers to natural Evidence in things knowable by the light of Nature as we cannot doubt of things which are plain and evident to our Understandings so we cannot doubt of what we know is Revealed by God but then as we must use our Reason to judge of the natural Evidence of things so we must use our Reason to judge of the truth and evidence and sense of a Revelation and it is the same Mind and the same Understanding which must judge both of natural and revealed Knowledge and if our Understandings be not infallible I know not how an infallible Judge or an infallible Revelation which are external things should bestow an internal Infallibility on us And therefore after all their brags of Infallibility Papists themselves must be contented if they can be certain for if Infallibility did signifie somewhat more than Certainty yet Certainty is the most that a fallible Creature can have for it is impossible for any Creature to have Infallibility who is not infallible himself And this I hope will make them a little more favourable hereafter to Protestant Certainty for whatever can be objected against Certainty in general as distinguished from Infallibility will as effectually destroy the Popish as the Protestant Certainty for Papists are no more infallible Creatures than Protestants are A DISCOURSE CONCERNING A Judge of Controversies BEING AN ANSWER TO SOME Papers c. The Paper I Am not satisfied with the Foundation of the Protestant Religion For if God has certainly left no Visible Judge of Controversies as we assert and yet grant that there are things necessary to Salvation to be believed as well as things to be practised and that the Scriptures are to a demonstration not plain even in what we dare not disown to be Fundamentals as the Trinity c. Answer These Objections against the Protestant resolution of Faith strike not only at the foundations of the Protestant Religion but of Christianity it self For if the Dispute were about the truth of Christian Religion by such Arguments as they can prove the Christian Religion to be true we will prove
as well as Bishops from the Apostles that they believed and practised neither more nor less through all the several Ages of the Church to this day than what St. Peter taught them though this would not make them the Judge of Controversies yet they would be good Witnesses of the Apostolical Faith and there would be great reason to enquire what their Faith and Worship is But their meer Succession to the Apostles does not prove that they have neither diminished nor added to the Faith of the Apostles for there is no natural necessity that those who succeed should always be of the mind of their Predecessors and we have plain Evidence that the Church of Rome has in several Ages made new and strange additions to the Christian Faith and their Succession of Bishops without a Succession of Faith and Worship is little worth And yet it is much stranger still that the Church of Romes pretence to the Authority of a Judge should be made a Reason to believe that she has this Authority What advantage has Confidence above Modesty over weak Minds The Church of England might pretend this with as much reason as the Church of Rome but she disowning Infallibility loses all claim to it and the Church of Rome pretending to Infallibility it seems gains a right to it by Possession and Usurpation But the Argument such as it is seems to be this That the Divines of the Church of England wish in this confusion of things that there were a Judge of Controversies and therefore by their own Confession a Judge is very useful and necessary and therefore there is such a Judge and no other Church pretending to that Authority but the Church of Rome therefore she alone is that Judge Which is such a Chain of Consequences as hang together by Magick for they have no natural connexion If we did think a Judge of Controversies useful does it hence follow that God has appointed such a Judge when there is no appearance of any such thing Or if God had appointed such a Judge does the Church of Romes pretending to be that Judge when she can shew no Commission for it prove that she is so But the truth is whatever Divines they be if there be any such who wish for such a Judge to unite the whole Christian Church in Faith and Worship take very wrong Measures of things And because the true understanding of this is the most effectual way to end this Controversie I shall discourse particularly of it 1. First then I observe That an infallible Judge of Controversies whom we are bound in all cases to believe is inconsistent with the constitution of human Nature Man is a Reasonable Creature and it is natural to a Reasonable Creature to understand and judge for himself and therefore to submit to any mans Judgment how infallible soever he be presumed to be without understanding and judging for our selves is an unnatural imposition upon Mankind this destroys human Nature and transforms a Man who is a knowing and intelligent Creature into a sensless though infallible Machin which moves by external direction not from an inward Principle of Knowledge and Life To know and to follow a Guide without any Knowledge or Judgment of our own are two very different things the first is the Understanding of a man the other a sort of Knowledge without Understanding For though I had an entire System of true Propositions which I must exercise no act of Reason and Judgment about but only receive them as the Dictates of an infallible Judge this is not human Knowledge this is no perfection of human Understanding no man is a jot the wiser or more knowing for all this no more than he would be who could repeat all the Propositions in Euclid and believe them to be all true upon the Authority of his Master but knows not how to demonstrate any one of them which is to understand nothing about them Now I can never believe that God will destroy human Nature by suspending all the acts of Reason and Judgment to make men infallible which is a certain way indeed to prevent Error to let men know and judge of nothing that they may not mistake but for my part I value knowledge so much that I had rather venture some Mistakes than forfeit my Understanding If my Faith must be resolved wholly into the Authority of an infallible Judge though I may think I understand some things yet I must not believe for that Reason for then I must believe nothing but what I do understand and see a Reason for which makes every man his own Judge but I must believe my Judge with or without Understanding without the exercise of my own Reason and Judgment which may make us good Catholicks but does also unman us But you 'l say Are we not bound to believe infallible Teachers whom we know to be infallible And has not God in several Ages given such Teachers to the World Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles And must we not resign up our Understandings to them and does this unman us Why then may we not resign up our Understandings to an infallible Judge now as we ought to have done had we lived in the days of Christ and his Apostles and any other infallible Teachers Now for Answer to this consider Secondly That no infallible Teacher can wholly supersede the exercise of our own Reason and Judgment For though the immediate Authority of God must and ought in all cases to over-rule us and is the best and most rational account of our Faith for nothing is more reasonable than to believe God who is Eternal Truth yet when any man pretends to teach by Gods Authority we must in the first place judge of his Authority and not believe every one who pretends to come from God which resolves the very Reason of our Faith into our own private Judgment and therefore by this Rule we must at least use our own Judgment in the choice of our Judge which in our present case will infer the use of our own Reason and Judgment as to all the material Disputes in Religion and make such a Judge needless when we have found him Of which more presently Nay Secondly VVe must judge of the Doctrine of such a Teacher by Sense and Reason which are the natural Principles of Knowledge for let a man pretend never so much to a Divine Authority if he preach any thing contrary to the Sense and Reason of Mankind we are not to believe him no not though he should work Miracles For we must believe nothing comes from God which is contrary to Sense and Reason which are the natural Notices God has given us of things and as God cannot contradict himself so we can never be surer that any man speaks from God than we are of what Sense and Reason teaches and if the Church of Rome would but suffer us to judge thus far we should have an infallible demonstration
as they did and not believe any pretence of Infallibility against my own Sense and Reason I cannot compare the Doctrine of the Law and the Gospel unless I understand them both and I can understand and judge only with my own Understanding and if I must have done thus though I had lived in our Saviours days surely I must do so now whatever infallible Teachers there may be in the World which I think is a demonstration that there neither is nor can be any such infallible Judge whom I am bound to believe purely upon his own Authority But it may be Objected That this proves too much and undermines even the Protestant Resolution of Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and the Writings of the New Testament as an infallible Rule of Christian Faith and Manners For it seems though we pretend to own their Infallibility yet we must examine their Doctrine by the Law and not believe them to be infallible till we have set in Judgment on their Doctrine and approved it as agreeable to a more infallible Rule and thus we believe their Infallibility because we like their Doctrine not believe their Doctrine because they are infallible Now there is so much Truth in this Objection that I cannot believe that Christ and his Apostles are Teachers come from God unless I be satisfied that they teach nothing contrary to any former Revelation which God has made of his Will for God cannot contradict himself and therefore whoever contradicts what God has before taught can be no true Prophet And therefore though Miracles alone were sufficient to give Authority to Moses who was the first Prophet by whom God made a publick Revelation of his Will yet Miracles alone were not sufficient to give Authority to any succeeding Prophets but their Doctrine also must be examined by its conformity to the Law for though Miracles gave them Authority to make new Revelations yet not to contradict the old So that to examine the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by the Law so far as to see that they do not contradict it is no more than to examine whether they be true Prophets or not as all men ought to do before they believe any pretenders to Prophecy but when it appears that they do not contradict the Law then that power of working Miracles wherewith they are endowed obliges us to believe then in every thing else upon their own Authority And thus we own Christ and his Apostles to be infallible Teachers and consequently receive the Writings of the New Testament as an infallible Rule of Christian Faith because they were men endowed with supernatural Powers and did not in their Preaching contradict any former Revelation of Gods Will. And this is all that we do or need affirm to destroy the Pretences of an infallible Judge for if I must still judge for my self whether the Doctrine of the Gospel do not contradict the Law then I must judge for my self both of the Sense of the Law and the Gospel or else I cannot judge whether they agree or disagree and therefore there can be no infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment in this Inquiry for that were to own their Infallibility before I know whether they are infallible or not Though I must believe whatever an infallible Judge teaches yet I must not believe him till I know him to be infallible and I should think no pretender to Infallibility should exempt himself from such a trial as all Prophets after Moses even Christ and his Apostles themselves submitted to that is to have their Doctrine tried by a standing Revelation Now suppose the Pope or Church of Rome to set up for this infallible Judicature before I can own their Infallibility I must at least examine whether what they teach do not contradict the Law and the Prophets for thus I may and must examine the Gospel it self and if in any one thing they plainly and directly contradict the Law I have nothing more to do with their Infallibility for no man can be infallible who mistakes in any one thing The Church of Rome then teaches That we may give Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and Images Having the Law of Moses in my hand I turn to it and according to the best of my Understanding I find this Worship expresly forbid in the first and second Commandments No say they this is your mistake we are the infallible Judges and you must not trust your own understanding but take the sense of the Church in it By your favour Gentleman say I you are a little too hasty with your Infallibility when I am satisfied you are infallible I will trust you but I am now inquiring whether you are infallible or not and therefore as yet we are upon even ground and I must trust my own Judgment till I find one more infallible Now I say you contradict the first and second Commandments and therefore are not infallible and you would prove that you do not contradict these Commandments from your pretended Infallibility which is the thing yet in question Christ and his Apostles permitted men to judge for themselves whether they contradicted the Law and the Prophets and therefore suffered them to judge of the Sense of the Law too and so must you do also unless you pretend an exemption from all Trial and Examination which Christ and his Apostles never pretended to This shews that even to this day no pretence of Infallibility can exempt men from having their Doctrine tried by the Law and the Prophets for the Gospel it self may still be thus tried and therefore there can be no such infallible Judge as has any Authority to oblige us to believe any Sense they put upon the Law contrary to our own Sense and Reason for then such a Judge as this could not be tried by the Law For if he alone has Authority to interpret the Law no body can try him but himself And this plain Instance I have given of their contradicting the first and second Commandments utterly overthrows their Infallibility till they can prove not by their pretended Infallibility but by plain Reason and Argument that they do not contradict them And we desire no more than to set aside their Plea of Infallibility and we will reason the Case with them when they please And besides this by a parity of Reason this Argument reaches much farther For if the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles must be tried by the Law and the Prophets because no man can have any Authority against a standing Revelation then by the same Reason whoever should now set up for an infallible Guide his Doctrines must be examined by the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles which is now an infallible Rule to us And if the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles might be examined by the Law and the Prophets for the very same Reason the Doctrine of all succeeding Bishops must be tried by
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
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
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
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
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