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
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
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