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
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
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
had set up a distinct and separate Communion but that they unchurched the Catholick Church and therefore re-baptized those who had been baptized in the Catholick Communion as if they had been Infidels before So that if there be any true Church in the world besides the Church of Rome the Church of Rome must necessarily be Schismatical because she unchurches all other Churches but her self and therefore can have no degree of Communion with them as with Christian Churches whereas we own the Church of Rome her self to be a true though a very corrupt Church and therefore maintain some degree of Communion with her Fifthly For it is evident that if any particular Church do teach any erroneous Doctrines we must not maintain Communion with her in her Errors for no man is bound to believe that which is false But then we must distinguish between Errors for a Church may be guilty of some speculative Errors which may do no great hurt to common Christianity and then we may very safely communicate with that Church if they do not impose on us the belief of those Errors which few Churches do but upon their own immediate Members excepting the Church of Rome As for instance The Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation is as false and groundless though not altogether as absurd as the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation but yet I would make no scruple of communicating with a Lutheran Church where I may do it without professing my belief of Consubstantiation and upon these Principles the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches may communicate together keeping their private Opinions to themselves without imposing them upon each other But if any Church which professes some speculative Errors will not admit us to Communion without professing the same Errors we must own them for true Churches still and profess our readiness to communicate with them in all acts of worship if we may be allowed to do it without owning their Errors and this makes us in Communion with that Church and that we do not actually communicate is none of our fault but the fault of those who deny it If the Errors be such as are not meerly speculative but corrupt their worship then indeed we must not only disclaim their Errors but we must not joyn in those acts of worship which are corrupted by them as the Popish Mass is by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation If their worship be partly pure and partly corrupt then notwithstanding their Corruptions we must be ready to joyn with them in all those acts of worship which are not corrupted If their worship be generally corrupt as it is in the Church of Rome by their Latin Service and Mass and Ave-Maries and frequent Addresses to Saints and Angels in those very Litanies wherein they pray to God and Christ we must wholly abstain but admonish and pray for them as Brethren and exercise all other acts of Christian Communion if they will admit of any By this we see that there are several degrees of Communion between distinct particular Churches and therefore it does not presently follow that because Churches divide Communion in acts of Worship they do not belong to the same Body The true Catholick Faith whatever Errors and Corruptions they are guilty of makes them so far Catholick Churches and while we own them Members of the same Body to which we our selves belong though we do not communicate in their Errors and Corruptions we are still in Communion with them and upon these Principles notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christians there is but one Church still to which all Churches belong who profess the true Faith of Christ unless any exclude themselves from this Catholick Unity by wholly excluding others Secondly The next Inquiry in the Paper is How the Church can be called Holy if for so many hundred years as our Church teaches in the Homily against Idolatry the whole Church of Rome has been guilty of Idolatry This being the whole of the Argument I shall not transcribe the words Now suppose the Church of Rome were the whole Church and had for some Centuries been guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Virgin Mary yet they belong to the Holy Church just as they belong to the Church by retaining the true Faith of Christ they are a true Church though the many Errors they have added make them a very corrupt Church And thus by professing the holy Faith and owning the great Principles and Doctrines of Holiness they are a Holy Church though their Holiness may be far from being perfect intire and uncorrupt as well as their Faith When Holiness is attributed to the visible Church it cannot signifie Internal Holiness and Sanctification for good and bad men are intermixt in the Church and if the Church must be holy in this sense all the Members of it must be impeccable as well as infallible But Holiness signifies either their State or their Profession That they are in Covenant with God and so his holy and peculiar People as the Jews were under the Mosaical Covenant who are therefore upon this account often called A holy Nation even when they were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Golden Calf and had few visible Marks of Holiness in their Lives and for the same Reason the Christian Church which now succeeds into the Priviledges of the Jewish Synagogue are called Saints the Elect and Chosen People of God to signifie that now God owns none for his People but those who are admitted into the Christian Covenant And in this sense no Church can cease to be a holy Church without ceasing to be a Church But then the Christian Church is holy by Profession too and that in a more eminent manner than the Jewish Church because she professes a more perfect Holiness and whatever Church teaches the holy Commands of our Saviour and requires and professes Obedience to them is so far a holy Church by Profession though she may teach other things which she may think holy but indeed are not so If Holiness signifie an External and Visible Relation to God and the Profession of a holy Religion then that Society which professes the true Faith of Christ and Holiness of Life so as to continue a Covenant Relation to Christ is in this sense a holy Church whatever Corruptions she is guilty of either in Faith or Practice which do not Un-church her Thirdly As for what remains in the Paper it has been answered already upon other Occasions Schism we confess is a damning Sin and thank God that we are not guilty of it We cast off the Roman Yoke which Christ never laid upon us and to deliver our selves from the unjust Usurpations of Foreign Churches is no Schism no more than it is Rebellion to oppose the Invasions of a Foreign Prince We Reformed our own Communion and that is no Schism for we had full Authority to do it and our Reformation is such that they may communicate with us though we
the Protestant Religion which is nothing else but the Christian Religion purged from the Corruptions and Innovations of Popery Now it would be very pleasant to hear a Popish Priest in a dispute with Turks or Pagans about Christianity urge the Authority of a visible Judge of Controversies and if there be no way to instruct an Infidel who cannot be presumed to own the Authority of any Judge what Christian Religion is and to convince him of the truth of it but by Reason and Scripture either this is a good way or there is no certain foundation for Christianity and let any Man shew me a Reason why Christians may not understand their Religion the same way that Heathens must be taught it This was the way which Christ and his Apostles took with Jews and Heathens and they had no other way to take with them The Jews had a written Law which no Authority could contradict and therefore our Saviour did not only work Miracles but appealed to the Scriptures both for the Authority of his Person his Miracles and his Doctrine and left every man to his own liberty to judge for himself what he must believe which shews that Miracles themselves are no Authority against a written Law for then the Jews could have had no pretence for their Infidelity and there had been no reason for Christ and his Apostles to have disputed with them out of the Scriptures The Heathens had no standing Revelation and therefore the bare Authority of Miracles was sufficient to confirm that testimony the Apostles gave of the Resurrection of Christ and the Doctrine which he preached and those who would not believe meerly for the Miracles sake were convinced by Reason and Argument for thus St. Paul disputed with the Philosophers at Athens as well as with the Jews and thus the Primitive Doctors dealt with the Infidels in their days as we learn from those many excellent Apologies they wrote in defence of Christianity But then those who did believe at first upon the Authority of Miracles were particularly instructed in the Faith of Christ out of the Law and the Prophets which though they were originally given to the Jews yet are the venerable Records of the Christian Faith to which the Apostles had recourse in expounding the Christian Doctrines Thus Christianity was taught at first and if this be not a solid Foundation the Christian Faith has none neither Christ nor his Apostles though they were Infallible made their own Infallibility the only reason of mens Faith but referred them to the Law and the Prophets which they expounded to the conviction of all honest and teachable Minds and if they would not believe upon these terms they must continue Infidels And that this way of resolving Faith into the Authority of a visible Judge was not known in the Christian Church even in the Apostles days and yet methinks St. Peter's Authority if he had any such Authority should have been better known in those days than at such a distance of time is evident from those early Heresies which sprang up in the Church For let any reasonable man tell me how it is possible there ever should have been any Heresie in the Church if all Christians had received the Authority of an infallible Judge together with their Christianity Men might have renounced Christianity and the visible Judge together but had they then acknowledged a visible Judge it had been a contradiction to pretend to the name of Christians and to oppose the Doctrine of the Infallible Chair Had there been a visible Judge of Controversies in the Apostles days known to all Christians it had been impossible there should ever have been any Heresies in the Church as those men must grant who think it necessary there should be such a visible Judge to make all men of a mind and to prevent the rise and growth of Heresies which must suppose that the Authority of a visible Judge would do this or else this Argument cannot prove the necessity of a visible Judge If then the Appointment of a visible Judge would certainly prevent all Heresies and yet from the beginnings of Christianity there have been Heresies in the Church this is a demonstration there was no visible Judge in those days Well but if there be no visible Judge of Controversies how shall we arrive at any certainty in our Religion for the Scriptures are to a demonstration not plain even in what we dare not disown to be Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the Trinity Now 1. Suppose there are some difficult passages in Scripture which are not obvious to every common understanding Can we not therefore understand what is plain because somethings are difficult Can any thing be plainer than the first and second Commandments not to give divine Worship to any Being but the Supreme God and not to worship God by Images and Pictures Can any thing be plainer than the Institution of the Lords Supper in both kinds than St. Pauls discourse against Prayers in an unknown Tongue Can any thing be plainer than what is evident to our very Senses that Bread and Wine is not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Men who will believe contrary to the plain words of Scripture contrary to the evidence of Sense and Reason which certainly ought to be consulted in expounding Scripture who would prove that to be in Scripture which is not in it or that not to be in Scripture which is there have some reason to complain of the obscurity of Scripture for the Scriptures were never written to prove what they would have proved but yet they may be very plain to men who only enquire what the Scripture teaches without forcing such Senses upon it as it does not teach Those who will prove that from Scripture which is not in it to be sure must prove it very obscurely and then to excuse the obscurity of their Expositions charge the Scriptures with obscurity Though all things are not equally plain in Scripture yet all men may understand what is plain and it is a strange perversness to say nothing is plain in Scripture because some things are not plain or that we cannot be certain of the sense of plain Texts because there are some obscure Texts Secondly I do affirm that every thing that is necessary to be believed is plain in Scripture for else how should we know that we must believe it or that it is necessary to salvation But then by plain I do not mean that it is plain to every man and at the first sight but it is plain to men who apply themselves to the study of the Scripture and have skill and ability to do it and may be made plain to every man who has the common understanding of a man without any biass and interest who will attend to the Instructions of the Learned And this is reason enough to call it plain if learned men by study and industry can understand it and if the unlearned may
Judges between them and by his Providence prevents or over-rules all those Disorders which may happen either in Church or State in this World and rewards or punishes both Governours and Subjects according to their deserts in the next And this supresedes all farther Disputes about some hard Cases or the sincerity or insincerity of Governours or Subjects for every man must of necessity judge for himself and God will govern and judge us all which there could be no pretence for if we had not the free exercise of our Reason in the government of our selves The Paper But I know'tis urged The Church of England is guided by Antiquity for the Interpretation of Scripture but every one knows that there is great difficulty in that too even for Scholars at least I am told so for no Church admits of all that is ancient for several Heresies are so and since we say Number makes nothing for Truth and that all men may err and that there is no certain mark by visible Succession to find out which are true Believers in this Confusion the Church of England must be very fortunate not to retain too much as the Arians and Macedonians c. say we do or too little as the Romanists say Answer The Church of England indeed has regard to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in expounding Scripture not that she fetches all her Expositions from ancient Writers but that she takes care not to expound Scripture in contradiction to the ancient Faith of the Church contained in the ancient Creeds and it requires no great skill in Antiquity to know what this Faith is which we repeat every day in the Apostles Creed and this is a good Argument that we expound Scripture right when the Sense we give of it is what the words and reason of the Text import and agrees with the Faith of the first and purest Ages of the Church Had we no ancient Records we could find out the true Sense of Scripture in all necessary Points of Faith but the Traditionary Doctrine of the Church where the Tradition is plain and clear and therefore easie to be known is a great confirmation of those Interpretations we give of Scripture in conformity to the ancient Belief and confutes all the Evasions and Criticisms of Hereticks For when the words of Scripture may with some Art be expounded to different Senses either to justifie some new or ancient Heresies or the Catholick Faith we need not doubt but that is the true Sense which agrees with the uniform Belief of the Primitive Church who were the best Judges what the Faith of the Apostles was by whom the Scriptures were written and though there were indeed very ancient Heresies yet nothing is plainer in Ecclesiastical History than the distinction between those ancient Heresies and the Catholick Faith and therefore Scholars cannot easily mistake them and as for those who are unlearned that short and ancient Summary of the Catholick Faith contained in the Apostles Creed and expounded by the Nicene Fathers in their Creed which is in every bodies hands and part of our daily or weekly Service is Security enough against all Fundamental Mistakes The Christians of the Church of England have a very plain and easie Resolution of their Faith As for the positive Articles of Faith we have the ancient Creeds which have been received in all Ages of the Christian Church from the times of the Apostles and which the most perverse Hereticks cannot deny to have been the Catholick Faith and yet we do not believe these meerly upon the Authority of Tradition but because we find all these Doctrines plainly taught in Scripture and for this the meanest Christian need not depend wholly upon the Authority of his Guides but has liberty to examine their Expositions and the Reasons of them which are so plain and convincing in the great and Fundamental Articles of our Faith that an honest man who meets with a skilful Guide may satisfie himself about it and see with his own Eyes Now what greater assurance can we have in this case than the harmony and consent of Scripture and Tradition which confirm and justifie each other The Apostles no doubt preached and writ the same things and it is a good Argument That is an uncorrupt Tradition which agrees with the Doctrine of the Scripture and that that is a true exposition of Scripture which agrees with the ancient Formularies of Faith delivered down to us by an unquestionable Tradition from the first Ages of the Church As for negative Articles about which is our only controversie with the Church of Rome since nothing can be an Article of Faith but what Christ or his Apostles have taught we think it sufficient to reject all such Doctrines as are not plainly and expresly taught in Scripture and this the meanest Christian with the help of a Guide may understand For as in Reason it must be when men will prove that to be in the Scripture which is not the Scripture Proofs which are urged by the most learned Doctors of the Roman Communion for their peculiar Doctrines which we reject are so apparently unconcluding that it requires very little skill to confute them And though this were reason enough of it self to reject any Doctrine which arrogates the authority and necessity of an Article of Faith that the Scripture does not teach it yet in most cases we can shew and that to the conviction of the meanest understanding which is honest and unprejudiced that such Doctrines are either in express words or by plain and necessary consequence rejected and condemned in Scripture which is somewhat more than not to be taught there because it is certain no Church can have Authority to teach what the Scripture condemns And then as for Authority we appeal to the best Authority of the Christian Church the three first Ages after the Apostles who are the most credible Witnesses which is all the Authority they can have of the Apostolick Doctrine and Practice and can plainly prove from those venerable Records that the Doctrines and Practices in dispute between us and the Church of Rome were either never taught or actually condemned by those Primitive Fathers And though in other cases it is a hard thing to prove a Negative it is not so here because the proof lies all on the positive side For those who will teach such Doctrines and Practices ought to prove them for without such a Proof they are to be rejected on course and therefore if we can confute their Proofs we need do no more and this is a very easie Task especially with reference to the first three Centuries for since they themselves are now ashamed of the counterfeit Dionysius their Decretal Epistles and such like spurious Writings the wisest of them pretend to very few Testimonies from the first Writers and those which they do alledge are such lame ones as need very little confutation These are the Protestant Grounds of Faith as it is
the learned may contradict And therefore whoever will have a Judge of Controversies must not lay the necessity of having such a Judge meerly upon the ignorance of the Multitude for this does not prove that learned men must have such a Judge nay it proves that learned men need no such Judge if Ignorance only make him necessary and if there be not a Judge for learned men there can be no Judge of Controversies for there are more Disputes among the learned than the ignorant The ignorance of the People is only made a pretence to deceive ignorant People but is no good Reason for a visible Judge for there can be no visible Judge unless he judge for the learned as well as the unlearned and if learned men must not judge for themselves it is then a ridiculous thing to talk of any other Evidence than the Authority of the Judge for what does Evidence signifie if no man must use it Nay upon these Principles it is a ridiculous thing to distinguish between learned and unlearned men in Matters of Religion To what purpose is it to read and study the Scriptures Fathers and Councils when they must not exercise their own Reason or Judgment about them What priviledge have the learned above the unlearned when they must know and believe no more than their Judge will let them The Paper And we are discouraged from the quiet way of Submission to the Clergies Authority by your telling us That no Assembly of Men have power on Earth to bind the Conscience Answer How comes Submission to the Clergies Authority in here For is every Priest the Judge into whose Authority we must resolve our Faith This indeed is the last Resolution of Faith in the Church of Rome for the Priest is the immediate Guide of every mans Faith and Conscience and after all the talk of a visible Judge the People know nothing more what he teaches than what their Priest tells them who it may be himself knows little of the matter And I cannot see what greater security this gives the People of the Roman Communion than what our People have who have generally as wise and learned and honest Guides as they to say nothing more But who ever said That no Assembly of men have power on Earth to bind the Conscience We do acknowledge that the Church has power to make Laws to bind the Conscience for whatever Laws she makes for the edification and good government of Christian People which contradict no Law of God and are agreeable to the general Rules of the Gospel do bind the Conscience Nay in Matters of Faith the Authority of the Church is so sacred that all Christians are bound in Conscience quietly to submit to her Decisions where there is not plain Evidence against them But we say indeed That no Man nor Assembly of Men have such Authority as to oblige us to believe all their Dictates and Decrees without examination much less contrary to the evidence of Sense Reason and Scripture and the Judgment and Practice of the first Ages of the Church and therefore we do not require that men should believe meerly upon the Authority of their Teachers without understanding why they do so But this I hope is no discouragement to any men to submit to the Instructions of their Guides and to learn from them what they are to believe and why and this will make them wiser men and more understanding Christians than to rely wholly on their Authority The Paper For Authority that of the Church of Rome is infinitely greater who it is to be feared at least has an appearance of Succession and Visibility and who pretends that God has left in that Church such means so happy and so easie to attain to the certainty of the Truth that our very Divines wish in this confusion of things God had so ordered it for certainty and union Answer This is a strange Paragraph that only a fear of an appearance of Succession and Visibility and her own pretence that God has made her the visible Judge of Controversies should render the Authority of the Church of Rome infinitely greater than of any other Church which are very little things to give so great an Authority But we will readily grant that the Church of Rome has been a visible Church in a constant Succession of Bishops and Pastors from the Apostles days till now What then how does this give her a greater Authority than other Churches which have as visible a Succession as she The Greek Church has been a visible Church and preserved her Succession from the Apostles till now the Church of England is as visible and has as good a Succession as the Church of Rome how then does Succession and Visibility give the Church of Rome a greater Authority than the Greek Church or the Church of England It is a mighty weak Foundation for the Authority of a Judge of Controversies which is the matter in question that such a Church has a visible Succession from the Apostles A Judge of Controversies who shall oblige all men to believe his determinations must be infallible unless we will say that God has obliged us without examination to believe a Judge who may err which cannot be unless we can suppose that God may oblige us to believe a lye for thus it may happen if we are always obliged to believe a Judge who may sometimes err as all fallible Creatures may Which shews what a poor shift it is which some late Writers have used and which this Paper which speaks not one word of Infallibility seems to imitate to set aside the Dispute about the Infallibility of the Church which they can make nothing of and to insist only on the Authority of the Church to determine Controversies as a visible Judge for that only obliges men either to renounce the Communion of such a Church or to submit to her Determinations not at all adventures to believe as the Church believes as I shewed before and therefore this does not concern the Dispute about the Resolution of Faith Now if the Judge of Controversies must be infallible how does a visible Succession from the Apostles prove any Church to be infallible This is no natural effect as the Romanists themselves grant for then the Successors in all the Apostolical Chairs must be infallible since all the Apostles were as infallible as St. Peter whereas they will allow this only to the Chair of St. Peter as a peculiar Prerogative granted to him by Christ so that it is not Succession or Visibility which proves the Church of Rome to be the infallible Judge of Controversies which is the thing this Paper insists on but they must return to the good old Arguments of Tu es Petrus pasce Oves which I perceive the Author of this Paper was ashamed of and therefore I shall not take a needless trouble to confute them If indeed they could prove a visible Succession of Doctrine and Worship
others give of a true Church there is one Mark without which it is impossible we should be certain which is the true Church and that is that she professes the true Faith and Worship of Christ. For this is essential to the Church and there can be no Church without it all other Marks may deceive us for whatever other Marks there be if there be not the true Faith and Worship of Christ there cannot be the true Church and therefore when the state of the Church as it is at this day is broken and divided into different and opposite Communions whoever will find out the true Church must examine her Doctrine and Worship Bellarmine himself makes the Holiness of Doctrine one essential Mark of the true Church and yet Truth is antecedent to Holiness and equally essential Now this is such a Mark of an infallible Church as makes her Infallibility useless when we have found her For we must understand the true Religion before we can know the true Church and can be no more certain which is the true Church than we are which is the true Religion and therefore cannot resolve our Faith into the Authority of the Church because we can know the true Church only by the true Faith and therefore must have some other means of finding out the true Faith antecedent to the Churches Authority for that which is a mark to know something else by must be first known it self So that whereas the Churches Authority is thought so compendious a way to make men infallibly certain of their Religion and to deliver them from those uncertain Disputes that are in the World we cannot be certain which the true Church is on whose Authority we must rely till we have examined that diversity of Opinions which divide the Christian Church and have satisfied our selves on which side the Truth lies and when we have done this it is too late to appeal to a Judge unless we will undo all we had done before and then we shall be to seek again which is the true Church And what advantages then has the Papist above the Protestant in the point of Certainty When they cannot know which is that Church which they may safely trust without examining the truth of her Religion and judging for themselves just as we do We are concerned indeed to know which is the true Catholick Church not that we must receive our Faith upon her Authority for in order of Nature we must know the true Faith before we can know the true Church but because we are bound to live in Communion with the true Catholick Church of Christ. Fifthly And yet if they could find the Church without all this trouble and Protestant uncertainty wherever they place their Infallibility whether in the Pope or Council according to their own Principles they cannot have so much as a Moral certainty of it As for the Pope though for Arguments sake we should grant a true Pope to be infallible yet it is impossible that any man can be certain that there is a true Pope For the Church of Rome teaches That the intention of the Priest is necessary to the Sacrament that though he perform all the external part of it yet if he do not intend to apply the Sacrament to such Persons it is not applied Now according to these Principles who can tell whether this present Pope were ever Baptized or Ordained Priest or Bishop for if the Priests or Bishops that did this did not intend to do it he is so far from being a true Pope that he is no Christian. Nay if the Priests and Bishops which Baptized and Ordained him did intend to apply the Sacraments to him yet if those who Baptized and Ordained them did not intend to do it then they were no Christians nor Bishops themselves and therefore could not confer Orders on him and so upwards still which reduces the matter to the greatest uncertainty in the World for how is it possible to know any mans private Intention when neither Words nor Actions shall be allowed a sufficient declaration of it And besides this if a Pope be Simoniacally promoted or Ordained by a Simoniacal Pope here is an invalidity in his Orders and then what becomes of his Infallibility Nay what shall we say of that long Papal Schism when there were three Popes together John 23. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. who were all Deposed by the Council of Constance and Martin 5. chose Was there never a true Pope among all the Three If there were What Authority then had the Council to Depose them all and chuse a Fourth And who knows to this day from whence the succeeding Popes have derived their Succession which may very much call the Popedom and Infallibility into question And then as for Councils which consist of Bishops there is the same incertainty about them whether they be true Bishops or not as there is about the Pope and besides this there are so many Disputes what makes a General Council when it is regularly called and when they act Conciliaritèr in such a manner as a Council ought to act to procure the infallible Directions of the Spirit and to give Authority to their Decrees that if Women and Busie People cannot understand the Scriptures and the Reasons of their Faith I am sure they are much less able to understand what Councils they may safely rely on But suppose we did know who this infallible Judge is whether Pope or Council and this Judge should give us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture and an infallible Decision of all Controversies in Religion which the Church of Rome never could be perswaded to do yet and I believe never will witness those many fierce Disputes which are among men of their own Communion and I think no man is ever the more infallible for a Judge who will not exercise his Infallibility yet if this Judge should infallibly determine all the Controversies in Religion we must either hear it from his own Mouth or receive it in Writing or take it upon the report of others As for the first of these there is not one in the World at this day that was present at the Debates of any General Council or heard them pronounce their Decrees and Definitions and I believe as few ever heard the Pope determine any Question ex Cathedrâ which what it means either they do not well understand or have no mind to tell us As for Writing when we see the Decrees of a Council written we can have only a Moral assurance that these are the Decrees of the Council and when we have them it may be they are much more obscure and subject to as many different Interpretations as the Scriptures are that we can have no better assurance what the sense of the Council than what the sense of the Scripture is as Experience tells us it is in the Council of Trent which the Roman Doctors differ as much about as Protestants do about the
pretences of such a Judge If we cannot know what is Canonical Scripture without a Judge how shall we know whether there be a Judge For there is no way to know this but by the Scriptures if there be no such Judge appointed in Scripture we have no reason to own him and if we cannot tell what Scripture is without a Judge how shall we find the Judge by the Scriptures And though the Objection be made only against some particular Books of Scripture yet in truth it equally lies against the whole Canon For if we can know any one particular Book of Scripture without a Judge why not the rest No! some of them have been doubted of Right by some Churches who did not know them till they were satisfied by those Churches which kept those Sacred Records that they were true and genuine But the Question is Whether a Book which has been doubted of when that Doubt is removed have not as certain Authority as the rest If it could not then and cannot to this day be proved to be genuine why is it received What Obligation are we under to own it If any Books which we call Canonical were still doubtful it is more natural and reasonable to reject them than to set up a Judge without any Authority to give Authority to them For whether any Book of Scripture be Canonical is matter of Fact and the Doctors of the Church of Rome themselves do not extend Infallibility to matters of Fact and then by their own confession there can be no infallible Judge of the Canon of Scripture but we must content our selves with such Moral Certainty as may be had And if Catholick Tradition be so uncertain that we cannot learn the Canon of Scripture from it what becomes of the Authority of all their unwritten Traditions which they so much boast of Thus some men if they can but make a shew of saying any thing never attend to Consequences nor consider whether their Objections do not make as much against themselves and common Christianity as against Protestants Thirdly The last Argument is That the Author of the Paper can't make those Articles of the Nicene Creed One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church the Communion of Saints agree with the Protestant Religion Here is a little blunder in calling this the Nicene Creed though easily pardonable for it is a jumble of the Apostles and Nicene Creed together The Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints is in the Apostles Creed One Catholick Apostolick Church the Nicene Creed And why does not this agree with the Protestant Religion For we profess to believe both these Creeds as sincerely as the Church of Rome No! How can they be One who disagree by adding in Faith or diminishing from it who do not communicate together in Prayer or Sacraments when they are not agreed in the Essential things how are they One Right Churches which differ in Essentials are not One but I hope there are few Churches do that I am sure they can never prove that we deny any Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith If this proves any thing it proves That all the separate Communions of Christendom are not One Church and what then How is the Church of England more concerned in this than the Church of Rome Can't we believe One Church in the Creed as well as the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christendom Do the meer Divisions of Christendom prove the Church of Rome to be that One Church or that the Church of England is no Member of this One Church in the Creed The Church is but One from the first planting of it by the Apostles to the End of the World and the Church of Rome as well as We must own that it is but One Church notwithstanding the several Divisions that have been in it in the first Ages of the Church as well as now and therefore the Unity and Communion of the Church must not be estimated by any one Age of the Church but the Apostolick Age must be the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion as it is of the Catholick Faith Suppose all the Churches of the World at this day were in Communion with the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England Why then you 'l say it would be plain the Church of England were separated from the whole Church of Christ and from Catholick Communion Right from the Church of this Age but the whole Church of this Age is but a very little part of the Catholick Church where it is sound and Orthodox for I hope they will allow the Apostolick Churches and the Churches of the three first Ages to be the best and purest parts of the One Catholick Church and that we must still maintain Communion with them if then the Church of England were separated from all the Churches of this Age yet if she be in Communion with the Apostolick and Primitive Churches she is in Catholick Commun on still if the Apostles themselves were in Catholick Communion To know then whether the Church of England be a true Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion we are not so much concerned to enquire what Churches she communicates with now as whether she be in the Apostolick Communion which is the Fountain and Original of Catholick Communion Now if the Constitution of the Church of England be such as to Doctrine Worship and Government that the Apostles themselves would have owned our Communion had we been in their days how do we come to be Schismaticks now and out of Catholick Communion For if Catholick Communion be the Communion of the whole Catholick Church from the Times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world which is but one Church and the Apostolick Churches are the true Measure and Standard of true Catholick Communion then those Churches which to this day are in Communion with the Apostles are in true Catholick Communion And this Test we will stand by though I would not advise the Church of Rome to do so Let us consider whether the Apostles would have rejected our Communion for those Reasons for which the Church of Rome now rejects us Would St. Paul have rejected our Communion because we will not worship God in an Unknown Tongue which he himself forbids 1 Cor. 14. because we will not worship Saints and Angels and Images which the Romanists confess was neither commanded nor practised in those days and which we say was forbid then and understood to be so by all Christians For not owning the Supremacy of Peter when St. Paul himself withstood him as much as we do the Pope of Rome and upon a much less occasion Gal. 2. 11. c. And the African Churches long after in the days of St. Cyprian and by his Authority forbad all Appeals to the Bishop or Church of Rome In a word would the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind private and solitary Masses
cannot communicate with them for there is nothing sinful in our Communion and whatever they pretend they can never prove that there is any thing wanting in it necessary to Salvation and when we deny Communion to no Church that will communicate with us and require no sinful terms of Communion which can justifie a Separation from us let them tell me wherein our Schism consists The Paper I can't think those glorious Promises sufficiently fulfilled of the Holy Spirits leading them into all Truth and abiding with them and that for ever Answer Pray why not That Promise of Leading them into all Truth was made to the Apostles and was fulfilled in them and extended to no others in that degree of Infallibility as is evident from the manner how the Spirit was to lead them into all Truth viz. by bringing to their remembrance all things which Christ had said to them which can belong only to those Persons who heard the Sermons and Discourses of Christ himself For though a man may be taught what he never knew before yet he cannot be said to remember what he never heard before But when it is added that this Spirit of Truth shall abide with them for ever that for ever must be appropriated to the Apostles as it relates to an infallible Direction and their for ever signifies no longer than they lived for if it must be extended to all the Successors of the Apostles then there must be as many infallible Judges as there are Successors to all the Apostles in the several Churches founded by them which will not serve the Designs of the Church of Rome As for what follows about the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church I have already given an account of that for the Gates of Hell never prevail while there is a Church which professes the Faith which St. Peter then professed That Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which the Church of Rome her self has done in her greatest Corruptions excepting Pope Liberius his Subscription to the Arian Confession And whereas the Paper concludes with a desire to know how the Church of England is Catholick and Apostolick the Answer is very plain Because her Doctrine Worship and Discipline is Catholick and Apostolick THE CONCLUSION An Address to wavering Protestants shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Religion WHat I have now discoursed in Answer to these Papers seems to me so very clear and plain that I should not much question its good effect even upon honest Papists would they impartially read and consider it much more upon wavering Protestants if it be only some Scruples not Interest which sways them But the better to fix such People and that in the Modern fashionable way without disputing all the Points in controversie I shall desire them to consider How much more Certainty and Safety they have in Communion with the Church of England than they can have by going over to the Church of Rome And I think this is home to the purpose it being the same Argument wherewith the Roman Priests endeavour to pervert our People and which is the principal design of these Papers 1. First then I observe That all the positive Articles of the Protestant Faith are owned and believed in the Church of Rome we do not believe all that they believe but yet they believe all that we do for our Faith is contained in the ancient Creeds the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds which the Church of Rome owns as well as we And though we do not build our Certainty on the Authority of the Church of Rome but on the express Revelations of Scripture which contain all the Articles of our Faith and is as much Certainty as we desire yet methinks even a modest Romanist should blush to charge our Faith with Uncertainty when our Faith as far as it reaches is the same with theirs Surely they must grant that in these matters which we all consent in our Faith is true and orthodox they must grant that the last Resolution of our Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles is sound and orthodox also for thus they resolve their own Faith They must grant that the Universal Consent of the Church in all Ages not excluding the Church of Rome it self as a part of the Catholick Church is the best External Testimony of the Christian Faith Now when we believe the same things which the Church of Rome does upon the Authority of Christ and his Apostles whose Doctrine is contained in the Writings of the New Testament and expounded by the General Faith of the Christian Church in all Ages what appearance of Uncertainty can be charged on such a Faith We reject indeed the infallible Authority of the present Church of Rome but what then Will not a true orthodox Faith save us unless we believe in Christ upon the Authority of a particular Church which had no being when Christianity was first planted in the world But I think I need not insist on this for I cannot believe that any Member of the Church of England goes over to the Church of Rome because he cannot believe his Creed in the Church of England But then I would desire them to consider what that Uncertainty is which they complain of in the Church of England for if the positive Faith of the Church of England is certain as it must be if the Faith of the Church of Rome as to these Matters be certain why do they leave us for want of Certainty which is now the Popular Argument to seduce men from our Communion If they think we do not believe enough let them say so and make that the cause of their departure from us but if as far as our Faith goes we have certain and evident Reasons of our Faith how does our Faith come to be uncertain As for those particular Doctrines which are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome we grant we have no certainty of them nay more than that we say no man can be certain of them how confident soever he is for they are founded neither on Reason nor Scripture nor any good Authority for we do not take the Authority of the present Church of Rome to be good Authority and if this be all they mean by our uncertainty that we have no certainty for the worship of Saints and Images and Relicks for Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Host for Prayers in an unknown Tongue for Masses for the Living and the Dead for a Judicial Absolution and those new Sacraments they have introduced into the Church we readily grant it but think this a very strange Reason for Protestants to desert our Communion because we have no certainty of things which we believe to be false We do not only confess that we can find no certainty for these things but we assert that we have positive and certain Evidence against them and those who have
any other way to prove the lawfulness or usefulness of them especially if besides the want of such a positive Institution we have plain Evidence against them and such as every man may understand When the Scripture tells us That Christ has by one Offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified Hebr. 9. 25 26. 10. 14 this is a direct proof against the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein he is offered ten thousand times every day When Christ is the Priest as well as the Sacrifice and can be offered by none but himself how comes he to be offered by a Mass Priest unless he as well as the Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into Christ It is certain there can be no such thing as the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass unless the Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ and we are as certain as our Senses can make us that there is no Transubstantiation As for the half-Communion it is confessed that Christ did institute his last Supper in both kinds and commanded them all to drink of the Cup And this may satisfie any man who does not believe that the Church of Rome has authority to repeal the Institutions of Christ and to forbid what he commanded And when St. Paul assures us That there is but one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus one would think this Evidence enough against the Mediation of Saints and Angels when they cannot shew one word for it For as for their distinction between Mediators of Redemption and pure Intercession they cannot shew it in Scripture where our Redeemer is our only Advocate And when Christ himself enforces and ratifies that Command of the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve this is a plain Argument against the Invocation of Saints since they have nothing for it And when there is no Authority in Scripture for praying in an unknown Tongue one would think that the absurdity of the Practice and the Authority of St. Paul who expresly condemns it were Evidence enough against it So that though men may be at the needless expence of a great deal of Learning in these Controversies yet in truth there is no Learning required to understand them the meanest man may judge for himself for the Controversie turns upon so plain a Point and there is so plain Evidence in the Case that an honest man may have abundant evidence and satisfaction though he do not understand one word of all the Learning which is lost in such Disputes The Paper In short I think there is but Evidence or Authority to move us to believe Answer This is certainly true if it be rightly understood that is if by Evidence is meant the Evidence of Sense and Reason and by Authority the Authority of Scripture which is the Authority of God who spake by Moses and the Prophets in the Old Testament and by Christ and his Apostles in the New and the Authority of the Primitive Church as credible Witnesses of the Apostolick Doctrine and Practice in this sense we grant that our Faith must be founded both upon Evidence and Authority and this is the true Protestant Resolution of Faith and then the only fault of this Proposition is That Evidence and Authority are opposed to each other whereas they must always go together in a true Rational Faith But if by Evidence be meant all the Arguments whereby we can prove the truth of any thing whether from Sense or Reason or Scripture or the Testimony of Antiquity and by Authority be meant the Authority of a visible Judge of Controversies as it is understood in this Paper then at best this is a very precarious Proposition without the least shadow of truth that either Evidence or Authority must move us to believe that is that our Faith must be resolved either into Evidence or the Authority of a visible Judge For how is this proved That when there wants Evidence for our Faith we must believe upon the Authority of a visible Judge It seems to me a more natural Consequence That where there wants Evidence we must not believe at all If it had been first proved that God had appointed a visible Judge to direct those who cannot judge for themselves there had been some pretence for saying that we must believe either upon Evidence or upon the Authority of a Judge but without proving this first I would desire any man to prove to me that I am bound to believe what I have no Evidence for or which is all one no such Evidence as I can understand and if I be not bound to believe without Evidence how can the want of Evidence prove that there must be a visible Judge into whose Authority I must resolve my Faith The Paper Evidence to the generality of People is impossible But I have already proved that this is not impossible but the meanest man with the help of a learned and faithful Guide may understand the Scriptures in all things necessary for a Christian to know But suppose at present that the generality of People cannot do this yet can learned men do it And one would think if there be any Evidence at least learned men may understand it for that which is not evident neither to the learned nor to the unlearned I fear is no Evidence at all unless there be such a kind of Evidence as is evident to no body and yet the Church of Rome has brought things to a fine pass if she must be forced to deny that we have any Evidence for our Religion Now if there be any Evidence for our Religion and learned men may understand it then at least learned men may judge for themselves and not depend upon the Authority of any other Judge and thus there is no need nay there can be no use of a visible Judge for the learned part of the world for to say that learned men have Evidence to ground their Faith on and yet must not believe according to Evidence but Authority is to say that men have eyes but must not use them to see their own way but must follow a Guide blindfold And yet if learned men be allowed to see and judge for themselves a Judge of Controversies will signifie very little for it is learned men who start Difficulties and manage Disputes and are the Authors and Patrons of Heresies and if these learned men who may and must judge for themselves differ from each other and from the Judge of Controversies what remedy is there Nay if learned men must judge for themselves according to the Evidence they have of things and not be over-ruled by Authority without Evidence there can be no visible Judge of Controversies for an Authority which may be contradicted as it may be if learned men must judge for themselves can be no Authority either with the learned or unlearned for the unlearned will have no great Reverence for that Authority which
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